The Note: Intraparty Love and Warfare

"If the other 13 people thought I was doing what I was trying [to] because of my political ambitions, we never would have gotten agreement. I knew it would hurt me. I'm not dumb," said John McCain of the compromise deal to The Hill's Geoff Earle in an article with the headline, "McCain eclipses Frist . . . " LINK

The San Francisco Chronicle's Zachary Coile chatted up UVA's wiseman Larry Sabato and got a whole slew of excellent quotes. LINK

And in The Hill's companion piece running beneath the headline, " . . . but Frist hangs tough on 'nuclear,'" Alexander Bolton looks at Frist's warning that the nuclear/constitutional option is still very much on the table. LINK

The Washington Post's sage Dan Balz writes that Republicans were the ones facing the bitter pill of the agreement yesterday, and looks at the warring factions within the party likely to shape the 2008 presidential campaign, chiefly between Frist and Sens. George Allen and Chuck Hagel, who condemned the deal and kept faith with religious conservatives, and Sen. McCain, who will focus on drawing independents and moderate Republicans over the social conservatives, as he did in 2000. LINK

David Broder crowns Sen. John McCain the real leader of the Senate. "If -- as many expect -- McCain and Frist find themselves rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, the gap in their performance will be remembered," he writes. LINK

Note to Paul Begala: we checked with the Post, and that is indeed a real Broder column and not a parody.

Filibuster: non-zero-sum analysis:

The New York Times' Carl Hulse looks at some saber rattling by Republican Senators who are not Gang members. LINK

The Washington Post's Chuck Babington looks at the up-or-down vote on Judge Priscilla Owen scheduled for today, and examines the fallout -- both short-term and long-term -- of the agreement that avoided the showdown over changing the Senate's filibuster rules for judicial nominees. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has wasted no time claiming victory, but the Republican message machine has been subtler, with both grudging respect for the deal and some head-shaking over whether or not Democrats are now in a corner on protesting a judge's philosophy. Most interesting, though, are Republicans' comments that seem to indicate the doomsday clock has only been turned back about five minutes instead of having been stilled for the rest of the session, warning that the showdown could resume again at any time. LINK

The Los Angeles Times' Mary Curtius writes that a dinner in March between Sens. Ben Nelson and Trent Lott got the compromise ball rolling in a very nice look at how the various moving parts came together. LINK

The New York Times' Toner and Stevenson do three things: (a) reflect perfectly the New York Times and Gang of 500 sensibility in their lede ("For all the euphoria Monday night that the political center had held…" the duo write -- in an obvious attempt to get Rush Limbaugh to name their names later today.); (b) suggest that the deal has only whet the appetite of activists for the SCOTUS battle; and (c) reveal their divined short list of McConnell, Luttig, and Roberts. LINK

The New York Times ed board lets its ambivalence about the deal spill out all over the page, and it engages in some Manhattan fantasizing about the impact the deal will have on the President as he thinks about a SCOTUS pick. LINK

Howard Dean isn't so sure that the deal is best for his party. LINK

Join the Discussion
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like...