Defusing the "Nuclear Option"

Everyone has differing opinions on the deal that was worked out between Republican and Democratic moderates to forestall the so-called "nuclear option" on judicial nominees. Even though there was no nuclear option, there will almost certainly be fallout.

This is how I see it.

The extreme right, those fervently conservative primary voters without whom a candidate cannot receive the Republican nomination for president, did not want a deal on this issue. They never want any kind of a compromise on any issue - they want to win 100% of the time, without exception. They wanted the filibuster shut down and every one of Bush's judicial nominations rammed through to an up or down vote, no matter what the Democrats might think about it. They won't get it, and some people are going to get the blame.

The deal makes Bill Frist look impotent. He was supposed to get this thing done and the Democrats crushed into total submission, not allow a back-room deal to be worked out without his participation. This does not give Frist's presidential ambitions a boost – to put it mildly.

This deal makes John McCain look like someone who would stab right-wing ideologues (exactly the kind of people he was trying to suck up to last year by campaigning for the reelection of a man he has every reason to despise) in the back. This is not good for someone who also has presidential ambitions – and who, unlike Bill Frist, doesn't have the luxury of waiting for another election cycle. For McCain it's 2008 or never – and this deal just might help make it never.

Knowing George Bush, and his penchant for having his way every single time no matter what the cost, I think it's a pretty good possibility that Priscilla Owen might end up being nominated for the Supreme Court if an opening turns up in the next few years. Maybe not to replace Rehnquist, but if Sandra Day O'Connor retires, I'd bet money that Bush nominates Owen to take her place.

Do I like the deal? Part of me says no. The part of me that plays the lottery thinks that the Democrats should have allowed the Republicans to get rid of the filibuster, and then reap the benefits of the unintended consquences when the Democrats win back the House and Senate in 2006. I can understand why they wouldn't want to risk it (that might help explain why they’re in the Senate and I'm not), but Republicans have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot when they tinker with tradition.

Take the amendment to the Constitution they got passed in the 50s, limiting a president to two terms so they wouldn't have to put up with another Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And what happened? Who were the next two presidents who could have been elected to a third term? You guessed it: Eisenhower and Reagan, both Republicans.

So I'm not crazy about the deal, and the idea of Priscilla Owen sitting on any kind of bench except maybe one in a public park fills me with disgust. But this does protect the rights of the minority to filibuster, and there are Supreme Court nominations coming. So this might be a blessing in disguise for progressives down the road. Because when George W. Bush gets to nominate someone for the Supreme Court, progressives are going to need all the help they can get.

Tom Moran

The Trophy Wife Who Didn't Bark

Did you notice anything interesting about the "Desperate Housewives" season finale on Sunday? Okay, it was subtle, in a very "the-dog-that-didn't-bark" sort of way, but if you think about it, the show made a subtle but extremely telling point about our society.

In case you don't watch the show, Gabrielle Solis (played by Eva Longoria) is a former model and the trophy wife of a wealthy businessman who is going to prison for illegal activities related to his work. He wants children, she doesn't. In fact, she's adamant: no babies, and that's final. No discussion. So what does the husband do? He tampers with her birth control pills behind her back, with predictable results. Gabrielle is pregnant – and very upset about it.

So what does this have to do with society, and why am I discussing it on a blog dedicated to left-wing rants? Easy. Gabrielle has been made pregnant by deception, against her will and her stated desires, and yet when she finally realizes what has happened to her it never once occurs to her that she has the option of terminating her pregnancy by having an abortion. She just blindly accepts the fact that if she does gets pregnant, by whatever means, she has no choice but to go ahead and have the baby, regardless of how she might feel about it.

And that, my friends, is how we know that the religious right has won the argument on abortion.

Think about it. When was the last time a series regular on a network TV show had an abortion? Or even contemplated one? Back in the 70s Maude on the CBS sitcom of the same name had an abortion. Erica Kane on ABC's "All My Children" terminated an unwanted pregnancy in 1971, even before Roe v. Wade. But for a character on a TV show today to have an abortion is just out of the question. Verboten. You can't even talk about it.

Contrast this with the way TV handles the topic of homosexuality. I'm not sure I could even count the number of TV shows that deal in a sympathetic way with homosexuality. "Will and Grace" is just the most obvious example, but there are plenty of others – including "Desperate Housewives." The fact is that you can portray an openly gay character on TV sympathetically with no problem. The left has won that battle.

But they have lost the battle on abortion, and the conspiracy of silence on network television on the subject is just the most obvious and telling portent of the fact that, eventually, the right is going to get their way. Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned and abortion may well be outlawed in the United States.

Gabrielle's silence on the subject of abortion speaks volumes, if you think about it. Do you want to think about what that silence says?

Tom Moran

Put Charles in Charge!

The armed forces of the United States are stretched dangerously thin. Recruitment is way down, as there seems to be a silly misconception among America's young people that getting their balls blown off in a foreign country might not be the best way to help improve their prospects for a future career. Members of the National Guard are being used as a de facto press-gang in a manner that suggests the kind of indentured servitude that you might think had been outlawed by the 14th Amendment. If some crisis were to erupt somewhere else in the world needing the attention of the United States military, we would be in serious trouble. We just don't have the cannon fodder -- I mean, the forces -- to get the job done.

So what's a right-wing administration to do? They know they can't institute a draft (at least an official one) without all hell breaking loose, and they also know that they can't rely on an all-volunteer military anymore, since the troop strength isn't nearly commensurate to their dictatorial ambitions. So how in the world are they going to plump up the military to a size large enough so that they can conquer the entire planet and everyone on it?

And then it hit me. The perfect solution to the problem. It not only solves the troop strength dilemma, but it solves several other difficulties at the same time. And it saves the taxpayers money. You like it already, don't you?

Like most elegant solutions it's obvious once you hear it. Just empty out all the prisons in America and send the convicts to Iraq to fight the insurgents. Let's start with Charles Manson. Now here's a guy with proven leadership ability. Why waste him in a prison doing nothing but getting "three hots and a cot" at taxpayer expense when he can be over in Iraq blowing the hell out of insurgents and the occasional innocent civilian? Put Charles in charge of a division of death-row inmates and watch him kick some Iraqi ass. The insurgency would be over by next Tuesday.

Now it's obvious that Charlie is getting on in years, and he might need some motivation to go over to Iraq – besides the obvious one that he would get to kill people again. So here's what I suggest. We tell all the convicts that if they go over to Iraq and kill as many insurgents as possible, when they come back to this country we'll give them all an unconditional pardon and $1,000,000 in cash. Sounds good, doesn't it? That's more or less the offer they're giving high school kids to enlist, so why not do it for convicts? Of course, a lot of them will get killed while they're over there, so for them it won't be an issue.

But what about the ones who do manage to make it back to the States in one piece? Well, the answer's obvious, isn't it? Double-cross the little bastards and throw their scummy asses back in the hoosegow the minute they step off the plane! That'll teach them to trust George W. Bush!

Except for Manson, of course. Bush should probably appoint Manson his next Secretary of Defense. Of course, there might be a slight problem with the fact that Charlie is an elderly psychopathic lunatic, but then again, that hasn't exactly stopped Donald Rumsfeld, has it?

Tom Moran

Could Donald Trump Be -- GASP! -- Right?

Did you see Donald Trump on TV announcing his plan to rebuild the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center exactly as they were before 9/11 – only a little higher? I know it's difficult to think of anything other than that ridiculous hairstyle when you're looking at him, but did you see the model of the proposed new Twin Towers that he showed?

Now I'm going to say something I never thought I would ever say in my life. I can't believe I'm actually typing the words.

Donald Trump is right.

Let's face it. The proposed so-called "Freedom Tower" was just ghastly, and the only message it would have sent is that contemporary American architecture appears to be the work of blind heroin addicts. Thank God the brave men of the NYPD (whom no one would have previously considered architectural aesthetes) were savvy enough to throw a monkey wrench into its construction.

Rebuilding the Twin Towers sends a very powerful message to our adversaries – exactly the same message that Winston Churchill gave when the House of Commons was bombed and demolished by the Germans during World War II. He didn't hold some kind of half-assed "Architectural Idol" competition to see who could come up with the ugliest design for a building to replace what had been destroyed. He ordered that the Commons be rebuilt exactly as it looked before, right down to the smallest detail.

And that's what we should do. Work on the design so that the new building is stronger than the old one, and able to withstand anything the terrorists might be able to throw at it, but put the two buildings back the way they were. Tell the terrorists that what they can knock down, we can build right back up – better than before.

As I've said, I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but when he's right, he's right. Now if he'd only stop shooting "The Apprentice" long enough to have the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" guys do something about that hair...

Tom Moran