This will be the test of whether the GOP or Dems have the most stones on this issue.

I read at another site that the reason the GOP is backing away from this fight is that their internal polls show the public solidly behind the Dems. I can't believe that this is true - either the polls are skewed or the GOP has done a lousy job of explaining the issue.

I may be naive but if Frist holds a press conference and says the Senate will devote an entire day or 2 days to Justice Brown and will then hold a vote and then the Dems filibuster the vote it has got to make the Dems look bad.

If the Senate cannot get these two confirmed, the Republicans will not control the Senate after the 2006 elections. Their base is currently so frustrated with the spineless Frist and the suddenly-moderate Santorum, a lot of them are going to sit out the elections.

I remember when the same folks were going to sit out '04 over Steel Tarrifs...

Nobody but libertarians care about steel tariffs, and there are not many of them in the Republcan party anyway. The party base does care about judicial activism and judges, along with other social issues. Ask GWH Bush. Moreover, there won't be GW Bush leading the party in '06 and '08, it will have to be a new leader. And whatever you may suspect them to be, you cannot accuse Senate Republicans of being leaders.

Also, the issue in '06 and '08 is not going to be Iraq or the WOT or foreign policy. For the Republican base, the issue with Congress, especially Senate, is going to be: What have you done with a 10-seat majority?

Sam

"What have you done with a 10-seat majority?"

And the answer is to give the Democrats a 10-seat majority? Yeah sure Sam. Insightful.

I assume the senate GOP leadership picked Owens and Brown in order to put a face on the fact that the Democrats were not just blocking white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males to the federal judgeships. But now that they've made their picks for the first two battles, Frist and the others have to go out and actually publicize this fact and make the Democrats oppose the two as individuals, not just as generic dangerous right-wing conservatives.

That's what the Republicans in the senate have been very poor at doing so far, though to be fair, in something like the Bolton nominiation the Democrats have the advantage with the media of being able to make the images (of Bolton) fit their Republican stereotype. They'd be less likely to try the same demonization tactics with Owens or especially with Brown, because the visuals would show they're not blocking some generic GOP hite guy this time around.

A better example than GHWB is the 2000 election, where the 'base' proved a tad weaker than indicated. Perhaps it was the drunk driving charge, perhaps it was just a lack of interest, but it was a surprise nonetheless, after 8 years of Clintonism and all the polls in the week before the election.

No one cares about the media stereotypes of Bolton. That is what people expect nowadays.

I do suspect that if Ms. Rice had been forthrightly supportive with a few public statements, gooey George Voinovich would have gone along without comment.

If the Dems keep stalling, Bush should just recess appoint him in May (or tag Ron Paul for the job).

The issue is always just the economy and the peace dividend nearly guarantees a good one.

The President and congressional leaders have passed more major legislation in the first four months of this year than the GOP got in entire presidencies last century. Quibbling over a judge or two and a staffer is anal.

jim:

It was an incumbent with record economic growth and peace to run on.

Ah, but quibbling over 10 judges is very practical. Learning how to make the Senate work is very practical.

It works fine, except at the margins, just like most of life. Want the judges? Win five more seats in '06.

5 more wusses won't change anything. there is a systemic problem with the gop senate caucus.

cjm:

The problem is, there is no leadership. What you have is a lame-duck, inexperienced majority leader with all the charm and charisma of Harry Reid. He is not coming back in '07, and is playing it safe to position himself as a presidential candidate for '08.

I don't know what his prospects in the primaries might be, but he has no chance against someone like Hillary. Republicans will need someone with fire in his belly, not milquetoast like Frist or Hagel. Someone should put the deluded senator out of his misery, he is dragging the party down. (Maybe they should not attempt to change the filibuster rule, they are going to need it to try to stop Hillary's programs starting in '09.)

It's not about "a few judges"; it's about whether we are subjects or citizens. Any legislative progress will eventually be undermined, thwarted, co-opted and/or overturned unless we get a handle on this Rogue Judiciary.