"The root of the problem over judicial nominations is that neither side sees political gain in compromise. Each energizes its electoral base by standing firm. That translates into money and activism for elections in 2006 and beyond. And the White House and Democratic leaders know their most ardent supporters would denounce any compromise as capitulation."
"Both sides need a longer view. Democrats genuinely consider the nominees they have blocked to be out of the mainstream. But the republic has survived the appointment of individual judges that either side considered extreme. At this point, it's more important to establish a process that would allow future presidents to reach reasonable agreements with Congress on how to fill vacancies."
Not necessary to read the entire Supreme Court Memo in today's New York Times: it's about Rehnquist and preps to appoint a successor, and all the familiar names are mentioned. LINK
The New York Times' editorial board endorses the Senate Democrats' version of election reform but has nice things to say about the Ensign and Holt legislation. LINK
Roll Call's Amy Keller previews the fight over the influence and operation of 527 groups in the future -- including the March 7 debate between Bob Bauer and Trevor Potter.
On Saturday, the New York Times' Rick Lyman paid a visit Mitch Daniel's home territory, listening to the gov's explanation for raising taxes on Hoosiers, his knowledge that the "Grovers" of the world think he's crazy, that he has few allies right now and a long four years ahead of him. LINK
On Monday, the Los Angeles Times' Robert Salladay looked at Gov. Schwarzenegger's rhetoric about big money in politics when he was campaigning, and how now that he's governor, his actions haven't followed suit. Salladay takes Note of the series of fundraisers Schwarzenegger has scheduled this year with the goal of raising at least $50 million. LINK