Watching C-Span, and Arlen Specter looks and sounds terrible. I know he has Hodgkin’s, but is he on the mend- meaning, has he looked worse and I just didn’t notice, or is he slowly declining?
And another thing. Am I the only one who finds Democratic arguments about preserving the traditions of the Senate to be as unpersuasive as the Republicans new found desire to rush to the protection of the Constitution?
Rick
Someone who *should* have been fillibustered, if the Dem arguments are to be taken seriously:
http://www.nationalreview.com/benchmemos/063778.asp
A portrait of an extremist.
Cordially…
ppgaz
Okay, I’ll take the bait: What argument WOULD you find persuasive?
BlondeContrarian
Arlen Specter kind of looks like Ben Kingsley in “Ghandi” these days.
Randolph Fritz
The Democrats really aren’t making their case very well, are they? But the thing that no-one wants to say–really, that no major figure in either major party can say–is that, at this time, without the filibuster, the USA would be a single-party state. Oh, there are some complexities; minority parties might retain some power at the state and local level for a while. But with a single party in control of the Federal judiciary, legislative, and executive, there would be nothing to stop the Federal government from over-riding the states and localities as the ruling party chose. And, John, that means all the things you find most despicable in the current Republican Party would be the law of the land for decades.
John Cole
I find this argument persuasive:
“The filibuster is a necessary minority tool to protect from majority abuses.”
Not- “we have to keep the filibuster because Senate tradition is sacrosanct.”
SeesthroughIt
I agree, John. I think the filibuster needs to be preserved if only to protect America from radical urges of the majority party. The majority party hates the filibuster and the minority party loves it, which is why we’ve seen the Republicans and Democrats switch positions on it as the Republicans have moved from minority to majority.
I think the “Senate tradition” tack is a poorly-formed way for the Democrats to fire back at the Republicans about tradition as Republicans try to rename the nuclear option the “Constitutional option” and (falsely) claim that filibustering judicial nominees is some extremist departure from tradition.
M. Scott Eiland
From what I’ve heard from family and friends who have had chemo, it’s a lot like a plane crash: even if you walk away from it, you’re not going to be loving life for a while.
ppgaz
Point taken, John. I agree.
Mr Furious
Gee, the Democrats are having a hard time framing the issue and making a convincing case even though most people would agree they are correct and would support them? What a fucking surprise.
Yesterday, I engaged in some schadenfreude at your predicament regarding your Party, John. Now, it’s your turn…
Idiots. The lot of them.
Randolph Fritz
Senator Robert Byrd, in his much-maligned speech, made a stirring defense of the filibuster as a tool for defending minority rights. But the SCLM, of course, mainly reported the historical reference to the Nazis.
Personally, I think the filibuster is a damn poor tool for protecting minority interests–I have not forgotten the minority interest it was most invoked to defend. But it is the tool we have and I will not willingly give it up without first having something better in hand. It surprises me that most Senators are willing to give it up. Sen. Frist I understand; he has presidential ambitions and is pandering to the Religious Right. But the rest of the Senate Republicans? What are they thinking?
“For the temporary gain of a handful of ‘out of the mainstream’ judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each Senator
Randolph Fritz
Mr. Furious, actually, the Dems have made several excellent efforts at Framing the issue; Senator Byrd’s speech among them. But they don’t do any good if they don’t get air time! And they don’t.
(See media consolidation, passim)
Kimmitt
If I were in the Senate, I’d happily vote to change the rules to allow cloture with a simple majority . . . as long as those rules changes took place in, say, 2009.
MC
I agree that Sen. Specter doesn’t look too good, but I think it’s great that he’s on TV.
I thought it was pretty classy when Justice Rehnquist showed up to deliver the Oath of Office too.
It seems like there’s such a high premium on youth and beauty, it’s kind of nice to see old, weak men putting business above their appearance.
Makes you think twice about calling off from work for being sick…