Nuclear Option? Still viable?

It’s only been a few brief weeks, but times have changed.

When the Senate Republican’s seriously talked about the Nuclear option if the Democrats filibustered a Supreme Court Nominee, it was before a lot of stuff.

It was before Bill Frist was investigated for insider trading with his trust fund.

It was before Tom Delay was indicted for money laundering.

It was before crony Brown displayed total incompetence at FEMA.

It was before Bush nominated Harriet Miers and offended his own party.

It was before the leak investigation led to the White House, before Libby was indicted, and before a shadow was caste towards Karl Rove.

It was before the 2,000th American death in Iraq.

The President’s popularity is in the toilet.

So, does the current Washington DC environment support a party line vote to end the filibuster? Would the Republican’s dare to display that much raw power given what has gone on?


  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)

    I managed to forget to hit the link to my name when I wrote this.

    I wrote it - Steve Bucknum

  • Ron Beasley (unverified)

    With midterms approaching, Bush's "political capitol" having gone well into the red and Bill Frist being neutered the nuclear option is no longer an option. I just hope we can convince the spineless Senate Democrats that's true.

  • (Show?)

    Remember how low Bush is right now. So that when the Democratic Party nominates Hillary for POTUS and she loses, we see what an opportunity was wasted, and how desperately the party needs a complete overhaul.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)

    Happily, trolls such as Bog won't be choosing the next president.

    The party that's in need of an overhaul is the one with all the high officials under indictment.

  • dmrusso (unverified)

    I doubt that Hillary will be nominated to run for President, though I definately think that she should run to drum up the base.

    There is little that will revise the tailspin of the Bush Administration or the Republicans in time for the '06 elections. Screwing over the poor, corrupting the government and bankrupting our country will continue to cost them.

    A threat of the "nuclear option" again would only weaken the Republicans even more. Most Americans want to maintain Roe. Upsetting the balance in an already disatisfied electorate will be tantamount to political suicide. I would love to see it attempted, however because it would make a bad situation FAR worse for the Republicans. The only thing that will save them now is political moderation... and I fear that there are few moderates left in the GOP.

  • (Show?)

    Happily, trolls such as Bog won't be choosing the next president. Okay, that's really funny.

    To the thread. The Dems won a little power back thanks to the Miers debacle, but at the end of the day, it's the President's call and the Republicans to vote on. Dems have veto power--sort of. Even should Bush nominate a Priscilla or Janice, the Dems likely get their one block. They might be able to count on moderates to back them in the "this is an extreme nomination" argument once, but not twice.

    On the other hand, Bush is so weakened he doesn't have the stomach for a second rejection. My guess is he's looking for Roberts II--someone who won't absolutely thrill the ultraright, but a candidate neither they nor the Dems have much to oppose.

    (Which isn't to say the Dems shouldn't have opposed Roberts...)

  • David English (unverified)

    I wouldn't be suprise to see Republican's threaten to use the "nuclear option" again. Even given all the stuff happening and how weak the president is at the moment, it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

  • (Show?)

    The nominee is in.

    The Senate Dems will fight this one.

    The Repubs will use the nuclear option.

    Gridlock will ensue.

    <h2>Going into the '06 election, a key talking point will be who caused the "shutdown" of the federal gummint.</h2>
open discussion

connect with blueoregon