When I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the options available to Democrats in the wake of Scott Brown’s election, I noted the "nuclear option" as the most dangerous of the choices on the table.  Declaring the filibuster unconstitutional would have far-reaching effects on the business of the Senate, and could make it difficult for a minority party to inject anything but claims of completely partisan legislation into the debate.

In an era in which "populist" is every candidate’s favorite adjective, the nuclear option would virtually guarantee a perpetual see-saw of Senate control.  The majority party could pass any legislation they chose with only 51 votes, and the minority party could do nothing but cry "we couldn’t do anything to stop it".

But that argument is surprisingly effective and resonates well with a polarized electorate.  And every two years, the minority party would campaign heavily on the "don’t let those bastards run the country, look at what they’ve done" message.  And just enough seats would change hands to reverse the polarity of the Senate.  Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

That said, in the wake of one Alabama’s senator’s personal vendetta for hometown funding, it’s time to drop the bomb.

A recent history of the nuclear option: During President Clinton’s administration, the then-minority Republicans refused to allow votes on many judicial appointees by holding filibusters, and when the 1994 midterm elections swept the GOP into power in both houses of the legislature, the appointments were effectively killed.

The shoe switched feet when President Bush took office, and Democrats threatened to block any appointments they didn’t like (as it turns out, most Bush appointees were confirmed anyway).  That’s when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to invoke the nuclear option so that the President’s nominees could get a full vote on the floor.

A so-called "Gang of 14" moderate senators from both parties stepped in with a compromise preventing the use of the nuclear option, but the concept of ditching the filibuster has stuck around.

And now’s the time to revisit it.  Senator Shelby of Alabama put a hold on every outstanding nomination that President Obama has made, and he did it out of spite that his pet projects in Alabama haven’t gone through.  (Shortly after this column was written, Shelby dropped most of the holds.)

I generally hesitate to decry politicians’ attempts to get "pork" for their districts; after all, that is their job.  But holding more than 70 federal nominees hostage is just begging for a proportional response.

As is also the case with actual nuclear weaponry, eliminating the filibuster carries with it a lot of fallout.  As was also the case in 1945, however, the nuclear option could end a bloody and bitter war.

In the short term, doing away with the filibuster means the President’s nominees will all come to a vote, the healthcare bill can’t be killed by a minority of senators, and the lower threshold for passing legislation allows a small number of Democrats to defect and vote against some bills that would lose them their seat.

In the long term, though, the effects are split.  Partisanship will increase, if that were even possible, and resentment between the parties could grow.  But it also means that more bills will make it to the President’s desk.  That’s one of the biggest problems with massive campaign promises; the President doesn’t have the ability to introduce legislation on his own, so he has to rely on friends in his party to do it for him.

And past that, if the President’s party doesn’t think the vote will be favorable on the Senate floor, they don’t even let it get that far.  So if only 51 votes (instead of 60) are needed to get a bill to the President’s desk, much more of his agenda can actually come up for debate.

It’s an incredibly tough call — is that fast-track to the President’s desk worth the continued polarization of the political parties?  As a Democrat, it might be — the more extreme the GOP gets (see also: Tea Party movement), the better the left-wing looks in comparison.

If nothing else, though, it merits discussion.  Perhaps if the threat of a filibuster is enough to panic the Democrats, the threat of the nuclear option will muzzle the Republicans?

Tab dump!

So I’ve got three articles sitting in my Firefox window, and I need to get rid of them if I’m going to scratch this itch at the back of my brain. Over the weekend last week three separate articles on three very different news sources identify just how crazy the Republican Party is.

To wit:
1) From Wonkette: Glenn Beck and guest call on Osama to nuke America to save it.
2) From Slate.com: Richard Nixon is the gift that keeps on giving.
3) From The Washington Post: Dick Cheney influenced the Executive’s response to his leaking Plame’s identity.

Bat. Shit. Cray. Zee.

I’ve got a job thing today, and will be able to write more on these nutballs later this evening.

Last night, CNN (and other networks) showed protesters on TV during Sen. John McCain’s speech.

Personally, I don’t see a problem with it. Not the protesters, nor the fact they were shown.

I think it was good they showed it, would they have done the same thing during Obama’s speech, maybe not, but they should have, had it happened.

If they hadn’t showed it, it would be a mark of censorship, not respect for McCain. That’s something that shouldn’t be apparent in mainstream media, even though it sometimes is, but when it can be avoided, it should.

McCain and the rest of republicans understand that people oppose their opinions, and democrats have always been more outspoken than republicans, especially the young ones. I don’t blame the network for showing both protesters, rather, I applaud them for it.

It showed CNN wasn’t lying when they said they’d show all speeches from both conventions, unfiltered and unedited.

As for the idea that there’s a time and place for protesting, someone said the same thing in a comment on my post about the five Americans arrested in Beijing during this summer’s Olympics. I don’t beleive that either. Protesting is about speaking out for yourself, for what you beleive in, but it’s also partly about trying to get your message out to an audience with decision-making power (in this case, we the voters).

What better place to get your message out, that you don’t support McCain or his stance on the war in Iraq, than on international television with millions of viewers tuned in simultaneously?

Some protests can be inappropriate or in bad taste (see: any protest by Topeka, Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church), but when it comes to an issue that is so widely debated across the country, and across the world, many platforms are OK.

They should have been escorted out, as they were, so as not to disturb McCain. But CNN and other networks giving them the publicity they wanted is OK.

Media censorship is very bad, but trying to censor citizens is worse.

I couldn’t live blog, as there were some technical issues, but I’ve written my thoughts on Sen. John McCain’s speech tonight, below.‚  Let me know what you thought in the comments section.

Have to say though, again, a lot of things said about the Obama campaign that are simply untrue.

Same was true when the dems were speaking about McCain.‚  Look for a reaction, like the one from Biden to Palin today, later this week.

Biden, today, called Palin out on the ‘smears’ from her speech last night, and said she has “no substance.”‚  He also basically said, that in the debates, he will not stoop to her level and simply attack the opposing party and opponent.‚  He will answer the questions respectfully, responsibly, and outline clear plans for the future.

Talk about being the bigger man.

So here are my thoughts on what was said by McCain.

But before that, just for those who don’t know, delegates from all states agreed, beforehand, to chant “USA!” throughout the speech to drown out protesters.‚  As John Guilfoil posted earlier on the blog, cameras caught what viewers didn’t hear.

First, I don’t think it’s ever been more apparent the differences between the two parties.‚  I didn’t, along with many Americans, really think they were AS different as they were being portrayed, but by the end of McCain’s first paragraph, each end of the political spectrum seemed to grow in length, farther and farther from each other.

This speech was good, republicans will love it, like they will Palin’s speech.‚  Personally, I think it could have been better.‚  The best thing he said, which I think maybe Obama could have emphasized more (but who am I to tell Obama anything about speaking), was that he would reach across party lines, and have the government think as Americans, not republicans or democrats.

He showed a genuine love for his country, like Obama did, he showed he cares for his country and it’s people.‚  He used personal stories of people he met, and personal stories of his experiences in Vietnam.‚  These were especially emotional words for both McCain and the audience.

This speech was so detailed, as a recreation, mental for all viewers, of his time in Vietnam.‚  He went deep into his time there, as a prisoner.‚  He basically said, he was a fighter there, and he will be a fighter here.

In that way, the speech was great.‚  But at times, it faded.

McCain, as we all know, isn’t the greatest rhetorician, he isn’t a good orator, but his ideals (personal) are to both republicans and democrats, solid.

He has served the country with great bravery and breadth, however, he showed tonight, by not offering enough solutions for the dwindling economy, bad health care and equal pay for equal work, that just because he has served, doesn’t automatically mean citizens SHOULD vote for him.‚  He has to EARN votes, and that’s something his party knows, but isn’t doing as well as they’d hoped.

His speech, the part about the actual policies of his campaign, was pretty much non-existent.‚  He said he wants people to believe in him, since the republicans have lost credibility in the U.S. under dubya.‚  He said, in essence, if Americans can’t believe in his thirst and eye for change, that they will lose.

He’s right.‚  But trying to make this into a publicity contest won’t work.‚  Just in case he forgot, he’s up against Barack Obama, the newest and most popular major politician of the modern age.

If he wants to make it about who can change more, he’ll lose.‚  If he makes it about who has a better back story and experience, he’ll win.

McCain started out strong, letting all know of his history, but took barely any time explaining his future. Try to remember a few policy promises he made.‚  It’s hard, I know.

We’ll see how democrats respond to some of the things said about Obama, many contradictory to what Obama himself has said he has planned for the nation.

At the end of the speech, McCain, Palin, her husband and Mrs. McCain stood on the podium together.‚  Here, there was a huge difference from what we saw at the DNC.‚  At the DNC, and I am being free of, I think, bias here, I’m sure some republicans noticed it as well, that the Obamas and Bidens looked like one big family, genuinely happy, hopeful and ready to change not only America, but the World.

Tonight, As the McCains and Palins stood together, without their children, they looked like politicians, like republicans—like people.‚  They looked ordinary, which is good, but not at that time.

Being a regular American, being able to connect is important. But after giving a speech to the nation, you have to look perfect.‚  You want people to idealize you, because these people, you want them to put their faith in this country and the lives of their families and friends, in your hands.