Idiots

David Brooks is a sad excuse for an op-ed columnist.

Today, he blames the moderates in the Senate for their "quavering" in trying to reach a compromise that would forestall (at least) pulling the trigger on Dr. Frist's "nuclear option" that would likely destroy the comity by which the Senate has conducted business for two centuries.

Brooks won't be missed after the NYT hides its op-ed pages from the internets behind a pay-to-view firewall.

Update: We find more idiots... they are everywhere!

In today's WaPo editorial -- Nuclear Brinkmanship, the editorial staff paints the Republican and Democratic sides as being equally at fault. What nonsense.

While I would certainly agree that no one is innocent, the Republicans have far exceeded the Democrats when it comes to the dirty tricks that have lead us to where we stand today. Here's a sampling of their blathering (emphasis mine):

The Democrats, after having proclaimed throughout the Clinton years the need for a fair process for nominees, showed no compunction about shifting gears and escalating the conflict -- using not only the procedural tricks that they once denounced but making the filibuster a routine tool in an already degraded process. What's more, they have shown no ability to distinguish between nominees genuinely worth opposing -- such as Justice Brown, whose philosophy really is outside the mainstream -- and conservatives, such as Justice Owen, whose records should not preclude service.

Let's examine this for a moment and put things in their proper context.

In the first highlighted section, the WaPo editorial staff suggests that the Democrats have used the same procedural tricks that the Republicans used during the Clinton years. Yes, this is true. They did use the same tricks. Yet, those "tricks" were well within the rules of the Senate and had been for centuries. That's how things work. You play by the rules. However, they go on to suggest that the Democrats simply decided one day to start using the filibuster as a routine tool. This is where they fail their readership and do great injustice to their readers. They don't bother to say why that is. The reason? Because the Republicans rather than play by the rules, simply chose to ignore them. Thus, the Republicans drove the Democratic leadership to the brink. In 2003, the Republicans had Sen. Hatch toss aside the rule that required at least one member of the minority party on the Senate Judiciary committee to vote to approve a judicial candidate out of committee. He just decided one day that that rule was silly. That's right, the same trick that the Republicans had been using to prevent 60 odd Clinton nominations from being reported out of committee, was deemed silly when it came to Bush II nominations. Thus, the Democrats had no choice but to resort to the filibuster, and now the Republicans are claiming that its use is unconstitutional... which brings us to the "nuclear option" in which the Republicans, rather than abiding by the rules of the Senate to change the rules, will simply ignore the rules once again, precluding the use of the filibuster for judicial nominees.

The second highlighted section is also disingenuous. To suggest that the Democrats are not distinguishing between nominees not worthy of a seat on the bench and those which are just conservative in their opinions is also bullshit. Certainly, Justice Brown is a wingnut of the highest order. However, Justice Owen is just plain bad. Her colleagues (Republicans I might add) on the Texas Supreme Court think she is atrocious. She doesn't get a WQ from the ABA, despite the suggestions by the rightwingnut blabbermouths like Limbaugh and Hannity that she has. Bzzt, she did receive that rating before she took a seat on the Texas Supreme Court. Now, the ABA gives her their lowest rating after reviewing her disasterous performance on the bench.

Why is there no mention made that these nominees have already had their 15 minutes of fame in the Senate and were not approved? That Bush simply decided to resubmit these failed nominees, many of whom have already had up-or-down votes on the floor of the Senate, only to fail. Who is kidding whom.

This is all about the Republicans, and this administration, pandering to the rightmost rightwingnuttia, the Evangelical Christian Right to neuter the Senate's advise and consent role in approving judical nominees so that Dubya can replace Rehnquist with an anti-abortion whacko to undo Roe v Wade amongst other previous SCOTUS decisions that the religious fruitcakes don't like.

This is all about accruing power to the Presidency that it never had, and that our founding fathers feared so greatly.

For the WaPo Editorial staff to suggest that the two parties are equally at fault is preposterous.