The Bush administration is willing -- it seems -- to gamble everything ...

There is a pattern here. Why would the administration, to give another example, take the risk of destroying Senate comity and its usefulness as a deliberative body over seven worthless, extremist judges? Especially when you need that comity to get your programs passed?

The damage these people do to our institutions in their drive to have their way is immaterial to them.

WTG Steve.

Best

Glynn

If the intecepts turn personal, as in finding that Bolton was checking on Senators on the SFRC, I would expect an explosion within the committee unless Lugar takes a strong stand against such spying. The senate will have an interest in setting a precedent that the NSA will not collaborate with political appointees in spying on the legislative branch by making an example of John Bolton and basing it not on his ideology or his treatment of staff, but on the principle of separation of powers - a principle that has had little support for the past couple years but one that is due for a resurgence.

"The Senate will switch in a heart-beat if that is the case, despite any pre-NSA Intercepts ring-kissing operation that Cheney has going on among the Republicans in the Senate chamber."

Boy, I hope you are right about that. Oftentimes since 2000 when I observe certain Republican senators (for whom I once had great respect) taking what looks to be a dive, at the last moment, to support some folly of the administration, I speculate whether or not counter-intelligence ops are run against THEM. Has someone kidnapped their dog? Compromising photos, perhaps? It sounds outlandish but it makes as much sense as anything else these days. People of integrity who cave suddenly make me wonder if they've been blackmailed in some subtle, or not so subtle way.

Look at how uncomfortable Senator Lugar looked at the last committee meeting. It was clear he had promised someone he would try to ram through a vote, even though his heart appeared not to be in it. A person who normally displays integrity but is now forced somehow to "play along" against better judgement reveals (subconsciously) through body language his or her discomfort, the discomfort of a guilty conscience, the look of a hostage, or the beaten-down expression of one who has lost out to a bully.

I hope every senator, whether in the SFRC or in the greater assembly, understands that in instances like this great personal courage may be necessary to serve the nation and the Constitution. Country before party, the greater good before self-interest, always.

Thank you, Steve, for this terrific post and for all your effort in this matter. It's clearer with each passing day that the Bolton nomination is no trivial matter. Much of the way we'll define our "American character" to ourselves and the world is being decided here.

And a side question: have you heard whether the President plans on saying anything about Bolton at the televised press conference scheduled for this evening?

Hardball is in fact back in DC.
Glad to see you in this fight and it is one worth winning for the American people.
Boltonism exemplifies the dark side of this administration that can't stand the light of day.
If our democracy comes to mean that the White House simply gets what the White House wants then we're doomed. Keep up the good work.

Steve O

Steve C. - I just caught your reply to a similar question about the press conference in the "German" thread below. So, never mind answering me. Unless you've heard something else about it in the meantime...

Steve -

"This is incredible. The Bush administration is willing -- it seems -- to gamble everything on behalf of Bolton..."

Incredible, yes. And poor, unpragmatic politics on the part of the Administration. It speaks volumes to the question I posed awhile ago - once you get beyond the boundaries of rational personal loyalty, the question that remains is: what does Bolton know, and of whom?

By the way, I'd like to note that I was pleasantly surprised by the Secret Service. Of all the enforcement arms of the Executive, it is the agency I would have thought least likely to respond in such a timely and polite fashion to an FOI request about Gannon. Do you suppose they might have been a tad miffed about the Bush staffer who has apparently been impersonating a Secret Service field agent at various Bush rallies?

Loud and clear, boys. Loud and clear...

JF

Especially when you need that comity to get your programs passed?

I think that's the point. By turning the Senate from a "deliberative" body into a wholly partisan one, the Bush administration can get whatever it wants for the next four years (the odds of the GOP losing six senate seats are pretty high in 2006.) If Frist can change the rules on filibusters for judicial nominees, he can use the same tactic on any piece of legislation he wants to ---- and GOP Senators who cave on judicial nominees will cave on subsequent votes as well.

The contempt of the White House goes well beyond just the Senate, and the integrity of our government. It extends to contempt for GOP moderates as well. The Bolton nomination would have been withdrawn by now if Rove and company gave a damn about whether GOP seats held by "moderates" like Chafee. Forcing a vote on Bolton....and forcing Chafee to make a choice between losing to a White House backed challenger in the GOP primary, or losing to a Democrat in the general election. They've already written off Lincoln Chafee, and are going to use him as an object lesson to moderate GOPers who dare to defy the White House.

Great post, great work Steve.

Talk about body language--Rice's appearance in Crawford, Texas tells it all--she looks perplexed, scared, and angry.

She urged quick passage of Bolton's nomination. Will May 12th never arrive?

What I don't understand is this.

If Bolton's nomination fails to get out of committee, that will mean that at least one GOP Senator voted no. But it is likely that if one votes no, more than one will--as Hagel voted to postpone after Voinovich had voted to do so. In other words, I just think it likely that if Bolton gets voted down in committee, you'll start with 3 GOP Senators predisposed against him (and Hagel of course has said he might vote no on the Senate floor even if he voted yes in committee). Add to that Lugar, who will likely be pressured out of his chairmanship if this fails to pass committee, would no longer have much to lose; it certainly seems like he's predisposed to vote against anyway.

SO you start with only a vote or two margin in the Senate to pass Bolton through. I think there is a chance Holy Joe would vote for Bolton; he likes that kind of "aggressive" type.

But I just think that the same Senators who are uncomfortable with the nuclear option will be uncomfortable with this blatant abuse of power. I think it reasonable to assume that a Senator or two from Maine, plus McCain, would see the drawbacks to Bolton.

So where do BushCo believe they're going to get the votes to pass Bolton on the Senate floor? Someone help me do the math ... but I just believe if Bolton fails in committee he fails on the Senate floor, too.

Question - if Rockefeller is PO'd about the intercepts, why doesn't he try to make the NSA *itself* give them over to his Intelligence Committee staff? Could he do that? If he did, would he get himself in hot water if he share the thrust of his findings, and not the actual documents, with members of the Foreign Relations Committee?

Chuck - Regarding Ms. Rice, I missed that! When did this appearance in Crawford take place, and do you know if there is a clip of that available?

Her face often betrays a wide range of emotional expressions, and frequently it seems that she is not in control of them. Another odd characteristic for someone charged with diplomacy, no?

The Bushistas and the PNAC Platoon (of which Bolton is a member) act more Stalinistic with each passing day.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that Bolton may have spied on Powell. The PNAC crowd had at least one other person -- a female whose name I forget -- assigned to do zampolit duty with Powell; at one point, right before he announced he was quitting last year, she actually was caught on TV trying to tell him, her nominal "boss", what he could and couldn't say -- and he was highly ticked off about it.

emptywheel -- You certainly have a point, and I've been thinking of that myself. Although I think Lugar's arm has *somehow* been twisted enough that his Stockholm syndrome will have him following through with a Bolton vote. Nonetheless, there are others. Arlen Specter, the other day, suggestion that Bolton would fail. Now there's a man who, given his medical condition, may feel he has nothing to lose by voting his conscience.

I think emptywheel's point underscores the need for us to contact our own senators, perhaps especially if they are Republicans!

Steve -

I'll give Bolton this - he's the best ride I've seen since Watergate.

I get the feeling that a recess appointment has become impossible. The fallout would be unimaginable - with impeachment on the list of possibilities.

Is there some institutional path in place which can verify all of the devices that are supposed to record, transcribe, and otherwise preserve for posterity the Administration's deliberations during its tenure are, indeed, functioning and turned on? I'd hate to think in twenty or thirty years our kids won't find out what was really going on...

JF

Regarding Senator Lugar -- I admire that he is in fact trying to remain true to principles he has defined -- and while I would do his job differently in the same position -- he's trying his best to be a strong mast in some really violent storms -- some passed by and others on the way.

I had a meeting day before yesterday with someone who was at breakfast with Lugar Tuesday morning -- and the scoop was that Lugar is miffed at both the administration and at Senator Biden and others. Lugar, for some reason, is obsessed with just getting Bolton out of Committee and to the Floor. He feels like Biden sand-bagged him a bit because Biden committed to be a good player and proceed expeditiously on Bolton as part of the agreement to get a delay on the hearing because of the Pope's funeral.

All that said, Lugar's blind spot is that he thinks that this is a "business as usual" nomination, something that Dems are holding up for political reasons. I happen to know that the Dems were not united at the beginning of this process and had no organized plan to stop Bolton's nomination. It's been an evidence and allegation driven process that has resulted in the need for more time, questions, and investigation.

Lugar, for reasons I don't understand, has been slow to realize that the administration has harmed his reputation and that of the Committee's by trying to push through someone who really should not be confirmed.

Lugar hates messiness, adheres to process, and is going to be the very last one to jump into the notion that Bolton's profile is something incompatible with the job he has been nominated to do.

Though Lugar's preferences are quite different and even antithetical to positions espoused by Bolton, Lugar believes that the responsibility for this decision belongs with the President and Secretary of State Rice. He thinks that if they are going into this decision with their eyes wide open, why should the Senate stop this appointment.

I understand that view -- but the job of the Senate is not only to compile a record -- but also to be a preserver of public trust and public interests when the otherwise monarchial-style chief executive promotes policies or people (in this case) that offend the sensibilities of the nation.

Lugar does not see this aspect yet -- and probably won't.

On the other hand, Lugar does get credit for letting the questions and evidence building process proceed. He has joined Biden in a call for the NSA transcripts.

He may yet come to realize that the sandbagging was from the White House all along -- and that the Dems, like Voinovich, Murkowski, and other Republicans uncomfortable with this nomination were the ones leading on behalf of the public's greater interests.

More later,

Steve Clemons

Steve - I think many of those Senator - like Lugar - are stuck in the Senate of old. They haven't woken up to the fact that this Administration does not care about traditions and rules of the Senate. Not only do they not care, they actively dislike them when they get in the way of their very narrow/partisan path.

I like Lugar but he is a GOP Senator of the past and this administration sees them as an obstruction and not a team player. They newer GOPers have little respect (and see little value) for the past and its rules/traditions.

Lugar and other GOP moderates haven't gotten to the point where they say enough is enough. Jeffords got there and said adios because he felt the GOP of of the 21st centry was not the GOP of the 20th. It was a party that really didn't want the moderates (beyone the numbers needed for a majority) - it was the party of Gingrich and Delay. If those moderate Senators whose names pop up every times the word moderate is used in terms of a GOP Senator defected to either the Democrats or declared Independent - would the GOP still have a majority.

"Just wanted to let you know that we intend to duke it out as long as the Cheney-Bolton team want to stay in the ring."

Thanks for your commitment to the task, Steve. If by some chance Bolton passes through the gauntlet and gets confirmed, your blog (and others) need to stay on the case, watching his every move and reporting to the world. IMHO, citizen media is the only thing left standing between our democracy and fascism.

NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT

"........ Mr Chalabi will act as oil minister.
Mr Chalabi will also take one of the deputy prime minister's posts. ..........."

I keep asking myself why the Administration is going to the mat for this guy. Is it Bush (or Rove's) belief that any retreat, however tactical, starts the dominoes falling? Is it because a defeat at this early stage in the second Bush administration seals the fate on the rest of it? Or is it, as some of the posts suggest, that there are a lot of maggots under a rock that is being upturned by this nomination, and they want at all costs to keep them from coming to light?

This fight is starting to look like the beginning of the the battle of Gettysburg. No one planned it; but the troops kept coming in from both sides until it was joined. This may be the defining political moment of this administration.

Bolton, Rice, yellowcake. The two collaborated in a rapid succession of non-plausible and mutually contradictory covers for 16 words in SOTU, with the intent and the effect of deceiving both the public and the Senate.

Unfortunate that focus got dragged over to Plame and pounding on hotel room doors in Kyrgistan and eavesdropping on whomever. The highest crimes were done mostly in broad daylight. If they can be blinkered, anything can be blinkered.

But if Bolton goes down in flames, he very likely has the capacity (if not the inclination) to bring Rice down with him.

In the end, cooler heads, and no vote, and no deeper digging?

Ouch!

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050428/NEWS24/50428004

This will not help Senator Voinovich maintain his independence...

JF

If Bolton's nomination fails to get out of committee, that will mean that at least one GOP Senator voted no. But it is likely that if one votes no, more than one will--as Hagel voted to postpone after Voinovich had voted to do so.

not necessarily. although a number of GOPers may not want to send the nomination out of the committee, one Senator may decided to "take the heat" publicly and let the others off the hook --- but making it clear that the other Senators will tolerate no retaliation from Frist or the White House. A big loss on Bolton would be a major embarrassment for the White House, and an agreement could be reached that avoided that embarrassment.

Another possible compromise would be for the dissenters to vote against letting the nomination out of committee with a positive recommendation, in exchange for other GOP Senators voting against letting the nomination out of committee with no recommendation.

I get the feeling that most Senators don't like the threat of retaliation that is implicit in the White House's actions --- Senators tend to have rather healthy egos, and recognize that demanding that all Senators be "rubber stamps" for the White House agenda probably does not go over well.

As for Lugar, lets not forget that he has Presidential ambitions --- and that the White House will have the power to influence the nomination in 2008. It seems to be that Frist isn't just trying to become the candidate of the religious right, but of the White House as well -- and is more than happy to put the squeeze on Lugar to advance his standing with Rove and Company.

(Remember, Frist won't be in the Senate in 2006, and thus doesn't have to worry about a challenge to his leadership in the next Congress that would damage his ambitions. )

Sharing the NSA intercept info.

Jon E asks "would {Rockefeller] get himself in hot water if he shared the thrust of his findings, and not the actual documents, with members of the Foreign Relations Committee?"

The answer is contingent. NSA intercept material is "Special Compartmentalized Intelligence- SCI) Each item is marked with a source codeword that indicates how it was acquired.

The right to de-classify or de-control rests with the original classifier - the NSA. In the case of most code-word classified SCI materials they are loathe to de-classify ----not because of the content but because of the associated source or method.

Were Rockefeller to sufficiently sanitize the material - retaining the essential content but losing all vestiges of compartmented signature info, he could probably get NSA to declassify.

Failure to follow the rules on SCI materials is a serious no-no - even for Senators. The procedures take some time, but were Jay R inclined to do so, he could probably find a pathway to releasing the critical content with, say ten days.

JohnStuart

Via War and Piece, Doug Jehl reports that Bolton routinely met with foreign officials without notifying the State Dept.

The officials described the practice by Bolton, who has been nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as unusual and a violation of department procedures.
...
The episodes were described by former State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events. They said they regarded the episodes as notable because they reflected Bolton's practice of acting unilaterally, even in sensitive diplomatic areas in which it was important that American policy be coordinated.

The hits just keep on coming.

If the NSA intercepts don't offer something especially damaging that will be enough.

The wavering senators on both the committee and the floor will use it as "cover" and vote for Bolton anyway. I think that the best hope of stoping Bolton lay in "guerilla" tactics -- make it too messy and costly for the otherside to win.

If it's pushed to the limit Bolton will be confirmed. I'm a bit depressed about it.

The SFRC is having to wait for the "NSA intercepts" because it takes time to assemble a loyal to the death cadre to forge innocuous intercepts that will be presented to the committee in lieu of the highly explosive real ones. Don't be naive. You are dealing with Evil.

A couple of observations,

Is it possible that on a range of issues now falling against the White House, we have reached the limits of Bush's style; authoritarian in a kind word and totalitarian in a real word? His junta lack real political savvy, interest or skills in every way. The only reason they are in this is to impose on America their belief system,and enrich the pockets of their cronies. Is it possible that you can only get so far on the "politics" of intimidation and control, of imposing your will on others and scorching the earth under anyone who dares think for themselves or go against you?

Secondly, I work in the field of family law and I see it happen with regularity where one half of a "high conflict" divorcing couple will go into court, and based on the supreme conviction of their rightness, behave in such a way that everyone and judge included, can see just how divorced from reality, distorted, or clearly going against the best interests of their children, they really are. This is happening on issue after issue for the hard right. Their conviction as to the rightness of their belief system lets them behave in ways which lets the public see who they really are, and rightly conclude they want nothing to do with them. We saw it with Schiavo and I think we are going to see it with the filibuster rule if it goes "nuclear".

If the NSA intercepts are not released, I would like to know what steps that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) can take to compel the White House to release them... It would also be useful to know how charges could be brought against Condi Rice for (1) issuing an illegal gag order on the State Dept. not to co-operate with the SFRC by telling her underlings to "keep their mouths shut" about Bolton (unless it is happy-talk), and (2) hiding relevant information regarding the NSA intercepts that would reveal why Bolton asked for them and how he used them.

I think Kenny Miller hit the nail on the head.
The truth is, Bush was going nowhere before 9/11, then on 9/11 the US got screwed, and Bush got the warm afterglow. The afterglow is all gone now, and Bush is still the same man he was before 9/11, standing shorter than ever.
It is possible that Bush's overhard pushing on less important matters can turn him into the fastest lame duck President ever, if he loses this fight.

Ms. K8:

Two points registered from Rice's appearance at Crawford. She appeared distressed, to the extent that I noticed. Her demeanor betrayed her words in that she seemed very concerned that this nomination move quickly. May 12th is a date certain. Is she demanding that time go more quickly?

In fact, much of what this administration says does not make sense. Since when is an anarchist a reformer? Bolton works to destroy existing structures and agreements. He is not a creator.

Re : Bolton anarchist. Didn't you just answer your question ; by extension the agenda of his (rash idea) handler ?

Bush,Cheney,and Rove will get their way about this nomination as they did by blatantly lying time and again about the reason for going to war in Iraq.For some reason we do not have anyone in Congress with enough knowledge to Impeach Bush.

US to sell bunker bombs to Israel

The US government is proposing a $30m deal selling up to 100 laser-guided bunker-busting bombs to Israel.

The GBU-28 is a 2,000-kg conventional weapon with a powerful warhead that can burrow through six metres (20 feet) of concrete or 30 metres of earth.

The sale has gone ahead so that Israel might use the weapon for a unilateral attack against Iran.

Yeah, baby! Now this is why Bolton is needed in the UN; to shout down all the anti-semitism that will spew forth once Israel completely destroys Iran's nuclear ambitions. Only a man like Bolton will be able to brave the coming storm in the UN, and he will do it with relish. Long Live Invective in the Service of the Righteous.

p lukasiak

Thanks for the insight on what might happen in committee. But say it does get out of committee to a floor vote. Any insight on who might vote how? If you were Reid doing a nose count, what would the numbers look like?

"Some meetings that Bolton held in Israel, including those with officials of Mossad, the Israeli foreign intelligence service, also prompted complaints in the State Department from the bureau of Near Eastern affairs, the officials said."

from: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/28/news/bolton.php

Every"old" member of the Senate, everyone who reads and cherishes the Constitution that each is sworn to uphold and defend, should be outraged at the White House's efforts to emasculate the Senate, obliterate its traditions, aqnd destroy the separation of powers by destroying the independence of the Congress itself. If a majority of Senators cannot discern that that is what is now going on, and rise up in successful protest to stop it, then there is no hope left for American democracy. They will have relegated themselves to the trash heap of history, and us American citizens to another form of government.
Charles

"Cover-ups never work"

How do you know that?

The question really is why the Administration would go to the mat to the degree of defying congressional requests for information, antagonizing needed allies and forcing a person who is obviously so unqualified down the Senate's throats. It is as if they want to make everyone complicit in their own dark projects.

It is beginning to resemble Watergate more and more. The coverup becomes necessary because there is so much to cover up that no thread can be seen to get loose lest it be pulled. Like Watergate, this appears to be orchestrated by someone with paranoid tendencies, high control needs and a lot of damaging secrets.

Bush hasn't given up on one nominee yet.

I've always considered Lugar to be a fairly straight shooter.

Steve,
Did you seem my comment about Holmes at Interanational Organizations (in State) resigning? Is there any Bolton connection? I heard that the UN Ambassador at the IO work more closely together than the UN Ambassador and anyone else.

Sounds to me like Bolton knows all of Georgie and Dickies dirty little secrets concerning 9/11 foreknowledge/coverup, Saudi/Israeli complicity in 9/11, the Iraqi Freedom fiasco and who knows what else that hasn't been outed yet. Giving Bolton this post must be a requirement on his part to keep quiet.

Unfortunately, very few Reps in the Senate have the balls to even question "W" about anything let alone vote against him...and it is funny that two of the Reps with the biggest set are women and both from Maine

I'm with emptywheel on the committee vote.

I don't see Chafee breaking with the GOP alone. If Voinovich or Hagel breaks, then Chafee has to break. And Hagel will break if Voinovich breaks.

And if Voinovich, Hagel and Chafee break, Murkowski and Alexander would rather not be at the vote.

If three or more Republicans vote against Bolton in committee, what's the point of bringing him to the full Senate? If seems unlikely the GOP can get 50 votes in this scenario. It would be sorta appropriate to force Cheney to cast the tie-breaker though.

Wouldn't it be an interesting twist if Bolton spied on U.S. citizens, including U.S. officials, and gave the info to the Israelis?

Would that make him a traitor?

Harry Reid should make it clear to Lugar that the Dems will filibuster if the executive branch refuses to provide the NSA intercept transcripts.

Jon E, good point. If NSA has the transcripts, why shouldn't senators lean on the NSA in addition to the State Department?

Opponents to Bolton have given us characterization of the man that will not be easily dismissed should he represent the US in the UN. No doubt that Bolton truly represents the attitude in the White House and thereby it will be difficult for Rice and Bush to continue to talk of "working together" while at the same undermining all treaties and agreements to work for the interests of the US. I'm certain that all of the diplomats know this, but by this Senate disclosure the stain on Bolton's record is there for all to see.

"Cover-ups never work"? Then who outed Plame? Where are W's National Guard files? What really happened in Florida? Ohio?

If there's anything Rove and Co. have shown, it's that coverups often do work. But maybe there's a limit to how many friends you can burn, lies you can tell and secrets you can hold. It does seem that the wheels may be finally, deliciously, falling off this cart.

One funny thing.

McClellan, for example, keeps saying things like "We urge the Senate to move forward quickly on his nomination so that he can get about doing the much-needed business of reform at the United Nations."

OK, let's grant the UN needs reform. What reform plan does Bolton have in mind? It certainly can't be a secret plan. If the plan has merit, and the point of nominating Bolton is to put it into effect, wouldn't the Senators have the obligation to find out about the plan? No "secret" plan will change the UN's structure. Unless perhaps the secret plan is, as Japan did with the League of Nations over Manchuria, to simply withdraw.

"why is BushCo going to the mat on this"? For that matter why is Powell, apparently, going to mat on this?(albeit with barely plausible deniability built in to his actions) And finally, why do the disorganized Dems, and often hapless, Dems, seem increasingly surefooted and ready to battle on this? Their passions running on high…. Why?

Well my take is this is the fight that should have been fought over Iraq. It’s got all the same players in the game. But this time the majority of the nation is not watching and waiting to see if we are going to war. This time the opponents of cooked intelligence, both inside the Admin, and outside, do not have to be worried about being called “soft on terrorism”, or condemned for“not backing our sons and daughters in harm’s way”.

And so this time we all go to mat. Remember, as I wrote once before, BushCo people, Rice, Rummy, the VP, all of them could sit naked on a block of ice if they thought hot. They believe they were deceived by wimps in the State Dept and in the intelligence community. And here they see the same groups, (and indeed, it is many of from that group) trying to bring their man down. And they are determined to stop them. This is the kind of debate that should have been conducted BEFORE we went to war.

Steve's post this morning -- and this thread in response to it -- are probably the best I've read so far on TWN about this topic.
Keep going, Steve and all. The conclusion is not at all foregone.

"why is BushCo going to the mat on this..."

Bush, like Nixon, believes foreign policy to be the exclusive preserve of presidental prerogative.

Sydney Blumenthal calls Bolton an "ideologue." Ha. What a hoot!
Besides, what's wrong with being an ideologue?

Thanks for the insight on what might happen in committee. But say it does get out of committee to a floor vote. Any insight on who might vote how? If you were Reid doing a nose count, what would the numbers look like?

it's not insight....I just don't think its safe to assume how the dynamic will play out when there are no good choices, only less bad ones, for Republican senators.

If it does get out of committee, I think that the Democrats will jump at the change to filibuster the nomination; Bolton is such a disaster on so many levels that his nomination provides an object lesson on why a judicial filibuster option must be kept open.

Imagine--a Cheney mole in the State Department.

Thanks, Steve, for your powerfully important coverage of this amazing turn of affairs.

Why would the Dems filibuster this?

If I'm right about the moderates reading this as a terrible abuse of Senate privilege, then we could hold the vote on the floor, and Bolton would slither away in ignominious defeat. Further, if it goes to the floor, it may be the straw that breaks the moderate block camel's back--it may prove once and for all that the moderates have no business supporting this guy, regardless of party affiliation.

As I said earlier in the week, I thikn Reid's jujitsu on the filibuster compromise was intended more to woo moderates' and conservative democrats' votes than it was intended to make a public statement. He proved he was willing to compromise, and at least Nelson is now going to stand firm with the Dems. The issues, it seems to me, are the same. Do you want unchecked power, or do you want to defend the constitution? And if the issue is the same, wouldn't the same narrow majority vote the same way?

"..... what's wrong with being an ideologue?"

An idealogue cares only about the furtherance of his ideology no matter what harm it does to their country and the world.

Did Bobby Kennedy say something like, it's not the passion of extremism that worries me it's the intolerance?