ConfirmThem

By DanCT Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Despite the blaring headline, there is little indication in the article that Democrats are feeling confident about the vote and certainly no claim to have enough votes. The strongest evidence to back up the spin is Senator Durbin's (D-IL) statement:

We feel that there are at least four Republican senators who feel as we do and we feel that there are several who are making up their minds at the last moment.

This is simply not in the same ballpark as the confident, unequivocal statements along the lines of "We have the votes" that Republican leadership has been expressing the past few weeks--very little sign of doubt. It could be playacting on either side.

Mitch McConnell (R-KY) raises another intriguing possibility, viz. that enough Democrats will revert to some semblance of civility to break the filibuster, thus avoiding the nuclear option:

“I haven’t given up on the possibility that we might have 60 votes, including some Democrats who’ve been whispering in our ears that they believe that this ought to be defused.� Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the chief GOP vote counter, said on Fox News Sunday.

He's right. It would only take 5 moderate Democrats to defuse this entire mess. Even if they couldn't find it in themselves to vote for a particular nominee, they should at least be able to see how the routine filibustering of nominees has severely poisoned the atmosphere of the Senate.

In a gesture of decency and respect for the Senate tradition against filibustering nominees, they could vote for cloture on each nomination; then, if they saw fit, they could turn around and vote against the nominee when he/she comes up for a vote. The filibuster issue is quite distinct from the issue of a nominee's qualifications. Are there 5 Democrats who can look past the partisan advantage they derive from the filibuster and see the damage that the routine filibustering of nominees has done to the Senate? And would they have the courage to stand up against their party in defense of the Senate and its traditions? Alas, probably not.

Sheesh. Why don't we ever see this angle on the story in the MSM?