Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section
Page 4 of 5   <       >

Flushing Out the Story

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"This compromise was a classic case of moderate deal-making in Washington--and we don't mean that as a compliment. Congressional moderates are forever celebrated for 'bucking their parties' and 'standing on principle,' regardless of what they actually accomplish (or what principle they stand on). In recent years, their pathetic 'victories' include trimming the first Bush tax cut from an insane $1.6 trillion to a merely outlandish $1.3 trillion; forcing an extremely modest reduction of Medicaid cuts in this year's budget; and, as Noam Scheiber pointed out last week, lamenting John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador without actually blocking it.

"All these episodes were treated as triumphal achievements, and so was this week's defusing of the nuclear option. A typical story in The Washington Post declared it 'an extraordinary moment' for the moderates, who 'have demonstrated that there is an alternative to the partisan polarization that has been so much in favor in both parties.' A Post editorial proclaimed the deal 'a great achievement,' saying the 14 Senate deal-makers 'managed to put principle above self-protection.'

"Really? We fail to see how that's true. Compromise itself, after all, is not a principle. And the chief principle at stake--that every extremist should not be elevated to the federal bench--has been trammeled. Nor has the life of the filibuster (itself not a principle either, just a procedural tool) been guaranteed. Signatories merely agreed to filibuster future nominations only in 'extraordinary circumstances.' Everything depends on the interpretation of this absurdly fuzzy clause--a matter upon which Republicans and Democrats will most certainly differ. Which means what the moderates have come up with is not a resolution so much as a postponement."

Would this be a pseudo-filibuster:

"Senate Democrats today delayed a vote on John R. Bolton's hotly contested nomination as U.N. ambassador, as an attempt to override their stalling fell short," says the Los Angeles Times.

"With Republicans needing 60 votes to end the debate, the vote was 56 to 42. . . .

"In an allegation against Bolton made Wednesday, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee said that Bolton might have mishandled U.S. intelligence material."

I knew that DeLay had his share of critics, but I never imagined he'd be at war with TV detectives, as the New York Post reports:

"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has fired off an angry letter to NBC, saying a character on Wednesday's 'Law & Order: Criminal Intent' 'slurred' him.

"In the episode, Detectives Goren and Eames were investigating a right-wing group's connection to the murder of an appellate judge.

"'Maybe we should put out an APB [all-points bulletin] for somebody in a Tom DeLay T-shirt,' said Eames.

"In his letter to NBC entertainment chief Jeff Zucker, DeLay wrote, 'This manipulation of my name and trivialization of the sensitive issue of judicial security represents a reckless disregard for the suffering initiated by recent tragedies and a great disservice to public discourse.'


<             4        >


© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive