|
The following was written to me by a friend of mine (a self-identified Democrat), and his thoughts on the possibility of the GOP actually going through with the "nuclear option" - -
As for the Nuclear option, it may be an attempt to weaken the Dem's defense, but I can also see them going through with it. These guys play politics for keeps and they play hardball the likes of which has rarely been seen in American politics. I wouldn't put anything past them at this point and they are already laying the justification groundwork for it and there hasn't been a huge backlash except among a very few Dems. All the Republicans need to do is throw up a couple extremely unqualified candidates, watch the dems spend their energy on them and then cry 'obstructionism' at the top of their lungs. They don't even need it, but Bush would like things to be a lot easier ("things would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, of course I'd be dictator") and they think they have a lock on the congress for the near future which means they'd love to just be able to roll over all opposition. Amazingly the Democrats are STILL underestimating them I think, and that is perilous for all of us. The Republicans under Bush have pushed pretty far to the right, and with the whole "wartime President" thing have been able to cover a lot of their power-grabs without America knowing or caring.
I think you're partially right about Specter. I think he will play along for the first couple years, and he does owe Bush BIG time for his win this past year. The main thing will be does he want to run again in 2010. If he does he has to go along with the Republicans because they will control his re-winning the seat. However, he may be content to step back and run for governor in '06 or '10, even given Rendell's popularity. I think you're overestimating the fuss a Specter removal would cause though (unless the Bushies SERIOUSLY piss off the rest of the GOP moderates). Coleman is not as moderate as he plays himself to be (I really REALLY dislike him) and McCain is eyeing 08 himself, which means he may have to move to the right in order to make it through the primaries in the next few years. I think the moderate GOPers realise they might be in some serious trouble if the Dems try to go after them (because face it they're our best hope of recaliming the Senate, even if it makes politics more contentious and compromise less likely....but hey it's what they've been doing to us for the last 30 years). It's just as likely though that you may see a revolt on the Right lead by the likes of Coburn.
Back to judges though, I think Rhenquist gets replaced by a wingnut, and that the choice is then between Scalia and Thomas for Chief...and the Dems should oppose that with EVERYTHING they have. Whether or not Stevens or O'Connor live another four years is as much a question as will they step down. I think you're somewhat right in that they won't try and use another Scalia or Thomas type to fill the spot but they will try a Center-Right person who may keep Roe but will keep tilting the balance to the Right on the court. If Roe is overturned the GOP loses a LOT of it's support (mainly among Catholics). They will keep making noise, but in the end abortion advocates may become like the African-Americans are for Dems, vocal and suportive, but ultimately powerless.
|