ConfirmThem

We know they are all good at making speeches... try DOING SOMETHING about it.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002882343

Others seem as concerned with Leahy's remark last week about Glen Conrad at the Thursday SJC meeting as I do:

"The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled Thursday that the window for action this year on appellate court nominees is beginning to close.

Citing what Democrats see as Senate custom on election year confirmations, Chairman Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt., said, “We may be too far into the Thurmond rule to move forward” with President Bush’s May 8 nomination of Glen E. Conrad to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Leahy did agree to meet with Arlen Specter , R-Pa., the panel’s ranking member, to discuss potential movement on appellate nominees after the Memorial Day recess."

In addition:

"“There is a lot of anger in the Republican caucus,” Specter said Thursday at a news conference alongside fellow committee Republicans John Cornyn of Texas and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa. “I think the caucus is of a mind to get tough.”

But Specter stopped short of detailing what kind of action Republicans might take during the remaining months of the 110th Congress. During a Judiciary Committee markup earlier in the day, he struck a conciliatory tone toward Leahy, saying he hoped they could fashion a compromise on the issue.

Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona said Wednesday that McConnell “has some ideas” about how to retaliate. But Kyl declined to offer specifics, saying a strategy would be more fully developed after the recess. McConnell said the Republicans’ “frustration will manifest itself in the coming days.”

Grassley renewed Republican threats that the issue could come back to haunt any future Democratic president seeking confirmation of judicial nominees."

I hope to high heavens that the Republicans don't wait until a President Obama to show their anger with this situation!!!

I hope Jn. McCain takes the robust lead on this matter. Thanks, Bobo, for your trenchant analysis--whatever your age!

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_143/news/25456-1.html

"As their House counterparts publicly struggle with a path forward, Senate Republican leaders have modified their own election-year road map with plans to keep their heads down, soften their partisan attacks and promote ideas-based initiatives they hope will avert a wipeout in November."

Does this mean the Senate Republicans will abandon Keisler, R. Conrad and Matthews in the hope of looking less partisan?

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/early-polls-suggest-dems-can-take-many-...

"A flood of recent polls supports Democratic arguments that the party will win a larger majority in the Senate in the next election.

Democrats have now polled ahead or within the margin of error in 11 Republican-held seats, as polls conducted in recent weeks show openings in second-tier targets including Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas."

How can Senate Republicans hope to get conservative nominees confirmed under McCain or block liberal nominees under Obama if this happens!!!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26679&page=1

"Harry Reid has been outmaneuvered and outclassed by McConnell since this Congress convened in January 2007. What will McConnell and the Republicans do when the Senate returns next Monday?

Reid is filling the Senate schedule with bills aimed at benefiting the Democrats in the national election. When the Senate returns next week to the “push and shove” environment the Democrats created, the first order of business isn’t judicial nominations. Reid has scheduled the Lieberman-Warner global warming “cap and trade” bill for a cloture vote. Republicans are going to have a lot of fun with a bill that would raise the price of a gallon of gasoline by another 50 cents to a dollar."

I have been watching the Senate races for quite some time. They are almost as important as the Presidential election. These races look like nothing short of a disaster right now. People like Dole, Cornyn, McConnell and Wicker are below 50%. Obama may have 60 seats and may not even need the nuclear option. That means they can confirm whoever they want and keep the filibuster for themselves in the future. Almost none of these Dems who may win are even moderate. We could have the most liberal Senate in US history with Obama as PResident in less than a year and no one knows how to stop it.

Seems a bit early to despair. Things could still get much worse .... or much better. :-)

When did we start believing all these early polls? They're crap. Dole, Cornyn, etc. are fine.

Bobo,

We may lose several seats in the Senate, but do you really believe this country will vote for OBAMA

I have more faith in America than such unspeakable result as that.

If the GOP (NRSC and NRCC and the Congressional leadership) pulls another 2006 (as seems likely) and tries to be "Democrats Lite" then they'll get murdered again. On the other hand, if Obama's campaign tanks, then we'll see what McCain's coattails are like.

-- but do you really believe this country will vote for OBAMA --

I had the same sort of thought about Gore and Kerry, and each of them did much better than my low opinion indicated. So, while I see Obama getting slaughtered in the general (if he obtains the nomination), I remind myself that my opinion is not a good indicator of the public at large.

The 89th Congress, at the height of LBJ's Great Society, had 68 Democratic Senators. Talk of the "most liberal Senate in history" next year is a little premature, to put it mildly.

Recently a new article on Clinton's judicial nominees and how they were blocked by Senate Republicans has been posted on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Clinton%27s_judicial_appointments...

What appear to be pretty well-researched biographies of the blocked nominees have been also been added, most of which are positive in nature. There is nothing wrong with this, I just want the main article and the linked biographies to be balanced in their perspective. I feel that this might be the beginning attempt of a particular Democratic person or organization to set up some public relations for future Democrat nominees under Obama. I would suggest that Confirmthem.com readers review the articles in question and add balance if needed.

Here are some initial observations:

1) The list of blocked Clinton nominees in the main article does not separate the blocked nominees according to available seats. To look at the number of nominees presented gives the impression that a lot of COA seats were blocked. The article fails to show that Clinton nominated multiple people to the same seats. For example, James Beaty, James Wynn and Elizabeth Gibson were all nominated for the same North Carolina seat (the one Boyle and Robert Conrad have been also been blocked from taking). In addition, Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno were both nominated to the same Texas seat that eventually went to Priscilla Owen. The main article doesn't explain the exact reason why certain seats or nominees were so "controversial" they couldn't be filled.

2) The linked biographies do not explicitly give the Republican side on why the nominations were not acted upon. The one exception is with Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis. I get the feeling that the only reason why those two articles explain why Abraham blocked those two nominees is because the Helene White article was written by Republicans in response to her nomination by Bush. To delete the Republican explanation of her blocked Clinton nomination would appear partisan. All of these nominee biographies need to be reviewed and the Republican side on why the nominations were blocked explained with sources.

3) A new similar article entitled "President George W. Bush's judicial appointments controversy" needs to be created with a complete list of blocked and filibustered COA nominees and their linked biographies. This article should be linked with the Clinton article to the biographies of all blocked judicial nominees under Clinton and Bush II.

There will be fewer GOP senators next year than there are this year. However hard it has been to confirm quality judicial nominees this year, it will be even more difficult next year. Thus, whatever can be done to confirm quality nominees this year, should be done. This is especially true given that judicial nominations may be in the hands of a democratic President next year.

While I still think that one of the reasons for the new Wikipedia article on Republican-obstructed Dem judicial nominees is to whitewash some of their past in order to get the same people confirmed under Obama, I now think the main reason is for the article is something else. After reviewing the way the Clinton judicial article is phrased, the more I think some Democrats are trying to use Wikipedia to justify their own present obstruction of Bush's nominees. In wiki style, they are presenting how horrible Clinton's nominees were treated in order to show implicitly that the way the Dems are currently treating Bush's nominees is much less reprehensible: "Look you Republicans, stop your whining about Keisler, R. Conrad and Matthews!. What was done to Clinton'nominees was much worse!"

It is true that other SEnate's have had more Democrats, but they included many Southern Convervative Dems. There are no more of those in the Senate. Almost all of the Dems are liberal and vote the party line.

Why does not somebody write up a cooresponding article in Wikipedia, with even more content and substance regarding the Bush nominees, and all of those who were blocked for the first time due to the filibuster.

Do we remember in 1992? Bush senior had recently had a 91% approval rating. A true statesman. A man of integrity. A goofy and unqualified young man ran against him, and the American people bought his lies and elected him president of the US.

The American people are not the smartest. Many are completely unaware of the issues, and vote solely on emotions. We should NOT underestimate the possibility of Obama getting elected. He is a great speaker - and many will be won over by his charm and charisma. Many will be immediately struck with how old McCain is, but will not be immediately struck with how inexperienced Obama is. Many are so fed up with the war, they just want the troops home, thinking that if the army leaves the war will stop. (If we would get rid of all policemen then there would be no more criminals, right?) Many will be excited to vote for the first Black person running for president. Also, I am so frustrated many conservatives still are not fully behind McCain (Remember Focus on the Family's James Dobson's statement? - he is going is sit this election out) which is also really bad news.

I do believe in polls. Polls are amazingly accurate - accurate for 'if the election were held today'. The team leading in the third inning will not always win the game, but it is an indication of the most likely winner, and if something does not happen before the game ends, that team will win the game. According to recent poll summaries (www.electoral-vote.com) (www.electionprojection.com), Obama is winning against McCain.

An Obama presidency is a very real possibility starting in 2009. If we don't take that threat seriously, we will live to regret it.

I prefer to stick to Rasmussen, RealClearPolitics, and perhaps Zogby when it comes to polls. Most of the polling summaries among those polls trend toward McCain, not Obama. Not that I give much weight to polls, but I'd say McCain stands a good chance. Let's not dismiss him yet.

Actually those two web sites include all polls.

And I am not counting out McCain. I agree he has a good chance of being elected, but I also think Obama has a good chance. I just think we would be foolish if we don't take the threat of Obama seriously.

That's the problem with those sites - they include ALL polls, including the ones that suck and the ones that are horribly biased.

So "actually" they still may suck.