I'm really irritated at Blue Dog Mike Ross, who happens to represent my district. Except he really seems to be representing insurance companies.

Insurance companies have been very generous funding his essentially unopposed campaigns for re-election, and now he's returning the favor.

See, here's the problem. According to this the Blue Dogs motivation doesn't exactly appear to be fiscal responsibility or any other such nonsense. The insurance lobbies have been very generous with these guys. This is what happens when interest groups dominate the political scene. Strengthen parties, and Ross and his ilk.

Oh, sure, the Republicans claim they'll target Mike Ross. Give me a break. There simply is no Republican in the district who has a chance. No County Judge, no State Rep.

Meanwhile, I'm not quite as irritated with my Senator Blanche Lincoln. Not that she's going to be all that effective or anything.

Solid job by Bill Clinton.

jeff2sf wrote:Solid job by Bill Clinton.

Yeah, and the Op Ed piece by Bolton is just another reminder what a smug asshole he is. The prior administration's tough guy policy certainly worked really well for us in N Korea, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, and a whole lot of other places. The dangers of conducting your foreign policy entirely for internal partisan base political consumption. We certainly gave OBL a talking to.

jerseyhoya wrote:If the NRSC can recruit well, we might be able to pick up seats next year, which seemed impossible a few months ago. I really dislike Dorgan too. Raving protectionist, economically illiterate moron. He's bff with Lou Dobbs.

jersey, I'm no Republican, but I would better every dollar I've ever made, or will ever make, that the Republicans will pick up Senate and House seats next term. With Barack Obama as president, the Democrats are now "in charge." Full economic recovery is probably not going to happen until mid-2010 at the earliest, and thus the Dems will now be blamed for the lack of progress in restoring economic strength. 2008 was definitely the high water mark for the Democrats; they'll control the house and senate for a few election cycles now, but it's going to begin to ebb. They won't see increases over what they have until one of three things happen: (1) America's economy goes absolutely post-WWII-style gangbusters (unlikely) by 2012 and Obama is reelected in such a massive landslide (think Reagan 1984) that he can bring a whole bunch of weak candidates with him to the promised land; (2) Obama serves his term or terms of office and is replaced with a Republican, who winds up being as unpopular as Bush and thus drives the Dems numbers back up; or (3) the Dems collapse altogether (ebb), and then flow their way back to a similar 2008 style moment. That will mean a flow moment for the Republicans in between, of course.

We have a lot more vulnerable seats up though. GOP incumbents retired in Missouri, Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida, four swing states. Also we have retirements in Kansas and Kentucky, the latter might turn into a race. The only two Dem retirements are Delaware and Illinois, both strong Dem states. If Castle gets in, he can make it a race in Delaware, and Kirk will have Illinois competitive, but I think we're still dogs in both.

As far as vulnerable incumbents go, we have Vitter in LA, who has the whole prostitution thing having over him, and Burr in NC, who is just dying to get beaten, but the Dems can't find a candidate. Same thing happened with Dole last cycle, and she ended up losing to some random state senator.

Chris Dodd is very vulnerable, and we should beat him, but we're going to have a bloodbath of a primary, and there might be enough time for Dodd to sufficiently heal his wounds to let the lean of CT carry him just over the line. Reid is really unpopular in NV, but the NV state GOP is a disaster right now between Ensign and Gibbons. Who knows if we'll get someone competent to run. Our next best pickup shot after that is probably Pennsylvania, which says a lot about our prospects of picking up Dem held seats this cycle. I guess Colorado might end up being a race, with the new guy Bennet being a first time candidate and all. Arkansas should be a race, but as has been discussed here plenty of times, that state party is embarrassing.

There's a long way to go, and god knows if things don't get better, a lot of seats that seem safe now will creep into play, but we're in a really bad spot to try and start picking up seats. 2004 was a very good year for us on the Senate side. 2012 and 2014 is when hunting season starts.

On possible pick ups for the Rs--while Blanche is vulnerable, it doesn't seem like she has any credible opposition at this point. Huckabee maybe, but I'd be pretty surprised if he ran for Senate--I bet he thinks he was runner-up to be the Republican Party nominee for the Presidency.

The House is a different matter. Given some of the seats Democrats have won over the last two election cycles, the Republicans should pick up some. If they don't, it's a total freaking disaster for them.

On the Senate, it's just not a good cycle for the Republicans to be picking up seats.

Former Rep. William Jefferson was convicted Wednesday on 11 of 16 criminal counts filed against him — including charges that he accepted bribes and engaged in money laundering while serving in Congress.

Federal prosecutors said Jefferson could be sentenced to more than 20 years in prison. Prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III to jail the 62-year-old Louisiana Democrat, but Ellis allowed him to remain free on bail pending an appeal.

Good

Great stuff. Those Pauls are political savants.

The best part is the comments.

Ron Paul, the gift that keeps on giving.

jeff2sf wrote:Solid job by Bill Clinton.

NYP: "Bubba Gets The Chicks".

Sotomayor confirmed, 68-31

Nine Republicans voted yes, as did all Dems but Kennedy, who wasn't there.

edit: interesting stuff in the Times story

Many Republicans took pains to emphasize that their vote against Judge Sotomayor did not mean they were anti-Latino. They praised her credentials and her biography, saying they were troubled only by what they said was her judicial philosophy.

Before announcing his opposition to her nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona, last year’s Republican presidential nominee who has been sympathetic to calls by Latinos and others for reforming the nation’s immigration laws, first described her as an “immensely qualified candidate” with an “inspiring and compelling” life story. And he dwelled on his support for Miguel Estrada, an appeals-court nominee of President George W. Bush whom Democrats blocked from a vote even though “millions of Latinos would have taken great pride in his confirmation,” Mr. McCain said.

Many other Republicans echoed Mr. McCain’s approach in explaining their votes. On Thursday, for example, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, spoke at length about the “unfair and disgraceful” treatment of Mr. Estrada, while criticizing Judge Sotomayor’s record.

“I wish President Obama had chosen a Hispanic nominee whom all senators could support,” Mr. Hatch said.

Sanctimonious douche. Even if they hold up the failed Estrada nomination as evidence that they aren't "anti-Hispanic," that guy evidently was far from universally supportable himself.

Stepping back from this specific case, I have trouble imagining any Supreme Court nominee who could crack 70 votes. Sotomayor is about as moderate as they could hope for, there's a clear political advantage to supporting her, and still more than three quarters of the Republicans gave thumbs-down. If/when Obama comes back with Cass Sunstein or Elena Kagan or whoever, it'll be uglier still.

As a Republican I agree. Sotomayor is about as centrist as you could hope for from the current administration. Opposition to Sotomayor looks pretty silly politically, she clearly had the votes and a "no" vote on a confirmation hearing is likely to be taken as a personal afront than as a principled stand. This is one where you vote with the majority and save a little political capital for later on something where your opposition might actually make a difference.

SQUIRE

Well, it gets back I guess to the question of whether one considers the standard to be whether the nominee is qualified or not, whether the Senator finds her/his views acceptable or not, or some weird hybrid of the two. Plus whatever political considerations (home state demographics, keeping the favor of interest groups, etc) one cares to toss into the mix--that the NRA chose to demonize Sotomayor probably made the difference on a few Republican votes at the margin (e.g. McCain, who's getting primaried next year).

My 70 votes comment was more a prediction than a moral judgment; I haven't totally worked out how I feel about all this. I think it was Schumer who, a few years ago, made the argument that Democrats (then out of the White House and in the minority) shouldn't apologize for voting "no" purely on ideological grounds. People groused about that, and with cause, but at the same time, the Republicans have pushed to stack the courts with ideologues since the Reagan/Meese days. That's where Roberts and Alito made their bones, among others. So if the nominees are more explicitly ideological, it makes some sense that the standard by which the Senate judges them moves in that direction too. (Dem activists, meanwhile, complain that Clinton didn't respond in kind, and that Obama hasn't thus far.)

If I'd been a (Democratic) Senator in 2005, I think both Roberts and Alito would have been very tough votes for me... I like to think I would have voted Yes, but I can't say for sure. Though Miers, who struck me as obviously unqualified, would have been an easy No, regardless of her rumored moderation which so upset Republican activists.

Good point - I'm of the view that the "advise and consent" power is to essentially prevent Obama from appointing his cousin, his landscaper or his biggest campaign contributor (i.e. qualification and non-graft is the standard). I also think Senatorial privilege is an abomination. Of course, when I raise this point I usually add that I think that Bork should have been confirmed based on this standard. That usually leads to alot of "well...he was different" return responses.

dajafi wrote:Well, it gets back I guess to the question of whether one considers the standard to be whether the nominee is qualified or not, whether the Senator finds her/his views acceptable or not, or some weird hybrid of the two. Plus whatever political considerations (home state demographics, keeping the favor of interest groups, etc) one cares to toss into the mix--that the NRA chose to demonize Sotomayor probably made the difference on a few Republican votes at the margin (e.g. McCain, who's getting primaried next year).

My 70 votes comment was more a prediction than a moral judgment; I haven't totally worked out how I feel about all this. I think it was Schumer who, a few years ago, made the argument that Democrats (then out of the White House and in the minority) shouldn't apologize for voting "no" purely on ideological grounds. People groused about that, and with cause, but at the same time, the Republicans have pushed to stack the courts with ideologues since the Reagan/Meese days. That's where Roberts and Alito made their bones, among others. So if the nominees are more explicitly ideological, it makes some sense that the standard by which the Senate judges them moves in that direction too. (Dem activists, meanwhile, complain that Clinton didn't respond in kind, and that Obama hasn't thus far.)

If I'd been a (Democratic) Senator in 2005, I think both Roberts and Alito would have been very tough votes for me... I like to think I would have voted Yes, but I can't say for sure. Though Miers, who struck me as obviously unqualified, would have been an easy No, regardless of her rumored moderation which so upset Republican activists.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you couldn't vote for Roberts (Alito too should have been fairly easy, but Roberts fo sho), but this is where my moderation blinds me to partisan concerns.

Also, was it McCain who said, post-election "Elections have consequences"? I thought it was an AWESOME quote, so what was it in reference too, and how the heck couldn't it apply here?

Squire wrote:Good point - I'm of the view that the "advise and consent" power is to essentially prevent Obama from appointing his cousin, his landscaper or his biggest campaign contributor (i.e. qualification and non-graft is the standard). I also think Senatorial privilege is an abomination. Of course, when I raise this point I usually add that I think that Bork should have been confirmed based on this standard. That usually leads to alot of "well...he was different" return responses.

No question that Bork started us down this path of hyper-politicized judicial nominees. Though I don't know enough about pre-Reagan appointments and confirmation battles to say with confidence whether anyone had been quite that, let's say combative, when appearing before the Judiciary Committee. I'm certainly not sorry that he lost, and probably there's an argument to be made that anyone whose views are that extreme (in whatever direction) should have a limited realm in which to apply them--which gets back to the issue of whether it's ever such a great idea to nominate partisan/ideological warrior types--but it wasn't a great precedent to set.

Maybe the change is more a matter of degree than type, though. Rehnquist had some stuff in his past at the time Nixon nominated him (brief against Brown v. Board as a SCOTUS clerk, activities in AZ that some thought amounted to voter suppression) that triggered some opposition--he was confirmed 68-26. Later, the vote to confirm him as Chief was 65-33. Gotta figure most of the Nays were Democrats who found his views unacceptable, as his qualifications obviously were fine. (What gives a little pause, though, is that Scalia who replaced him as an Associate Justice was confirmed by a 98-0 vote. Wikipedia suggests that this was because Rehnquist's promotion drew all the fire, but that seems a little dubious to me; Scalia had been on the federal bench for a few years, and as we know he's not a shrinking violet...)

I'm almost positive that John Roberts was a robot built by the Heritage Foundation to one day be Chief Justice. There was really little way to oppose him on legal/Constitutional principles, even if he is a peculiar wet blanket.

But, like dajafi said, if the "rules of the road" include the appointment of ideological Justices, then I think it's entirely appropriate, as a Senator, to oppose them solely on ideological grounds, if that's your inclination.

Seems like the Republican vote breakdown was all base/home-state politics:

Of the GOP senators standing for re-election next year, all 12 voted against Sotomayor. Sens. Bob Bennett (UT) and John McCain (R-AZ) are facing primary challenges from conservative rivals. Although they have no declared challengers, Sens. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and David Vitter (R-LA) may wish to preemptively discourage any potential primary opponents.
...
According to the '08 exit polls, Hispanics made up 9% of the nat'l electorate. In states represented by GOPers whose '08 electorate was more than 9% Hispanic -- AZ (16%), FL (14%), NV (15%) and TX (20%) -- only one out of six sens. (the retiring Martínez) voted for Sotomayor. Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Senate Min. Whip Jon Kyl, NRSC Chair John Cornyn, Hutchison and McCain all voted against.

Nate Silver wrote that a big Latino population had no sway on Republican senators:

By contrast, the five Republican senators in states where roughly 20 percent or more of population is Hispanic -- these are John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona, and John Ensign of Nevada -- have all said they will vote against Sotomayor.

Which makes sense, for the same reason that were an African-American nominated, I doubt that Wicker or Vitter would vote to confirm in hopes of winning home-state votes. Their primary voters are more likely to have the Lou Dobbs perspective. Gotta be why McCain voted No.

Bakestar wrote:I'm almost positive that John Roberts was a robot built by the Heritage Foundation to one day be Chief Justice. There was really little way to oppose him on legal/Constitutional principles, even if he is a peculiar wet blanket.

But, like dajafi said, if the "rules of the road" include the appointment of ideological Justices, then I think it's entirely appropriate, as a Senator, to oppose them solely on ideological grounds, if that's your inclination.

Yes, hard to argue for a vote against Roberts. I still think the original no vote on Bork was very well deserved. He was an extremely political lawyer in Nixon Administration who was high executioner in the Saturday night massacre, after several less political lawyers refused and fell on their swords instead, out of principle.