The Tuesday edition of the Morning Jolt features unprintable words about San Diego mayor Bob Filner, new fundraising numbers in Virginia’s Senate race, a thought on stereotyping after the George Zimmerman trial, and then this thought on the “nuclear option” before the Senate . . . 

Save the Earth; Recycle the Opposition’s Old Arguments on the Filibuster

Ah, filibuster debates. So predictable.

Every Republican who wants to keep the filibuster and the current rules in place, just cite the arguments of this guy:

What [the American people] don’t expect is for one party — be it Republican or Democrat — to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.

The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that the majority chooses to end the filibuster. If they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

We need to rise above the “ends justify the means” mentality because we’re here to answer to the people — all of the people — not just the ones that are wearing our particular party label.

If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party, and the millions of Americans who asked us to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn’t serve anyone’s best interests, and it certainly isn’t what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that – we owe them much more.

Those words are from then-Senator Barack Obama, speaking April 13, 2005.

Then again, maybe they can point to the arguments of this other guy:

The filibuster is not a scheme and it certainly isn’t new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate. It was well-known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it’s an integral part of our country’s 214-year history. The first filibuster in the United States Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. It’s been employed on legislative matters, it’s been employed on procedural matters relating to the president’s nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and it’s been used on judges for all those years. One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters. Senators have used the filibuster to stand up to popular presidents, to block legislation, and, yes, even, as I’ve stated, to stall executive nominees. The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution and in our own rules.

That, of course . . . is Senator Harry Reid of Nevada back in 2005.

Come on. We all know that any Senate Majority Leader with more than 50 votes but less than 60 votes is going to want to get rid of the filibuster, and any minority leader is going to want to keep it. Neither party has held 60 or more U.S. Senate seats since 1979. Democrats came close in the 111th Congress (the delay in Al Franken’s swearing-in, and the deaths of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, all complicated the Democrats’ effort to control 60 seats) ; the Republicans had 55 in the 109th Congress. For the foreseeable future, most Senate majorities will have between 50 and 60 votes.

If you’re Harry Reid, the current intolerable situation means you need to hold your 53 votes together, keep Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine on board, and then get five Republican senators to go along. That may not be easy, but it’s hardly “Mission: Impossible.” Put simply, pick five out of the following: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeffrey Chiesa of New Jersey, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. As we all know, John McCain of Arizona, Marco Rubio of Florida, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Orrin Hatch of Utah have been known to buck the party line, depending on the issue.

The 60-vote threshold makes sense depending upon the piece of legislation or the importance of the nominee; it’s usually a bad idea to have a sweeping change rammed through, over sizeable objections, by a bare majority. Call us when the minority demands 60 votes for renaming a post office.

Don’t listen to me, listen to Thomas Jefferson: “Great innovations should not be forced on a slender majority.”

Or for a more modern assessment, try Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

Back in 1993, when Hillary Clinton first tried to reform the nation’s health-insurance system, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about the difficulty of getting such a gargantuan bill passed: “The Senate has its own peculiar ecology,” he told me. “Something like this passes with 75 votes or not at all.” Moynihan was then chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senate’s natural choke point for big social-engineering schemes. He was worried that the Clintons, especially the First Lady, were being stubborn, trying to jam their bill through with a bare majority rather than build a bipartisan consensus.

Of course, if you subscribe to President Calvin Coolidge’s belief that “it is more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones,” the filibuster is a beautiful, noble tool.

A point about last night’s allegedly stirring moment, when Obama listed “background checks that make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun” (already illegal), banning guns for resale to criminals (already illegal), banning “massive ammunition magazines” (define “massive”) . . .

. . .  and then in the emotional climax, he declared, “Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress . . . Gabby Giffords deserves a vote! The families of Newtown deserve a vote! The families of Aurora deserve a vote!”

Notice Obama says the proposals “deserve a vote” — not that they must be passed.

If you genuinely believe that, say, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s renewed assault-weapons ban will save innocent lives — that, literally, lives hang in the balance — doesn’t that make Democrats who oppose it, like Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, heartless monsters who would rather see American children die than cross their allies?

And wouldn’t that apply to the other red-state Senate Democrats who are iffy on the legislation? Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Independent Angus King of Maine?

How can Obama deem it morally imperative that the legislation be voted upon, but not morally imperative that it pass?

And by the way, who would be holding up the vote in that chamber? Not the Republicans. Nope. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, sets the floor schedule.

Of course, Obama is trying to thread the needle of demonizing the NRA, most anti-gun-control Republicans, and most gun owners, without actually demonizing any of the Democrats who he knows (or strongly suspects) will vote against those proposals.

At the end of a fairly predictable those-crazy-tea-partiers-are-costing-Republicans-Senate-seats op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News contributor Juan Williams makes a bold prediction:

The fight for the future of Republicans in the Senate rests on whether ideologues or establishment politicians win control of the party. Right now, the ideologues are winning. At this rate, President Obama will have a 60-member super majority in the Senate for his last two years in the White House.

The Democrats will begin the 113th Congress with 53 Democratic senators and two Democrat-aligned independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. So they would have to win five additional seats in 2014 to make Williams’s prediction come true.

Two years from now, 20 Democratic senators will face their electorates (or retire and see open-seat races) and 13 Republican senators will do the same.

Among the Democrat incumbents who may retire: Senators Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Dick Durbin of Illinois. Several Democrats who narrowly won in 2008 will face their electorates again, this time in the significantly lower-turnout environment of a midterm election: Al Franken in Minnesota, Mark Begich in Alaska, and Jeff Merkley in Oregon.

On the flip side, any Republicans who were elected or reelected to the Senate during the Obama win of 2008 will be tough to dislodge. Of the 13 Republicans who won Senate bids that year, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had the smallest share of the vote, with 53 percent of the vote in Kentucky. The second-smallest was John Cornyn with 55 percent in Texas.

Obviously, the Senate elections of 2014 are a long ways away. But file Juan Williams’s piece away for future reference.

It’s obviously early in the 2012 cycle, but the good news for Republican chances to retake the Senate is that they already have big-name, experienced candidates gearing up in just about every state that is expected to feature a competitive race. Democrats are gradually increasing their numbers, but some members of their party are already worrying about slow recruitment: Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., wants members of his party to stop waiting for recovering Rep. Gabby Giffords and begin a Senate bid sometime in the next month.

The biggest name isn’t always the best name; just ask Floridians about their Senate primary last year. But an early entry by a popular House member or lawmaker who has already won statewide helps put Republicans’ minds at ease; they can rest assured that barring some surprise twist – like, say, Christine O’Donnell beating Mike Castle in Delaware! – they’ll at least have strong enough candidates in place to make the Democrats earn any Senate wins this year. If you put as many good candidates in as many states as possible, you’re in position to maximize your wins if your party has the wind at its back on Election Day.

First, in the four seats of the retiring Senate Democrats…

Daniel Akaka of Hawaii: Right now, former Rep. Ed Case and State Sen. Donna Mercado Kim are in on the Democrats’ side. The GOP outlook depends heavily on the interest of former two-term Gov. Linda Lingle.

Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico: Democrats have their big name, Rep. Martin Heinrich, with a few other state officials making noises. The GOP has former Rep. Heather Wilson, as well as a few others.

Kent Conrad of North Dakota: Republicans have Public Service Commissioner Brian Kalk, who is currently the only candidate who has filed papers.

Jim Webb of Virginia: Republicans have former Governor and Sen. George Allen as well as Jamie Radtke and a few other local figures; Democrats have former Gov. and DNC Chair Tim Kaine.

Elsewhere, 16 Democrat incumbents are currently seeking reelection in 2012. Republicans do not yet have prominent challengers to Dianne Feinstein of California, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. (There’s some speculation that Kohl might retire.) Republicans are still looking for a top-tier candidate to run for the open seat in Connecticut, where Joe Lieberman is retiring. Of course, in a presidential year, most of those states will be difficult territory even for a strong GOP candidate, with the possible exceptions of West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The states with Democrat incumbents and at least one promising GOP challenger:

Bill Nelson of Florida: Republicans have several candidates, depending on how broadly you define, ‘big-name’: Florida State Senate President Mike Haridopolos, former state Rep. Adam Hasner and former Sen. George LeMieux.

Debbie Stabenow of Michigan: Former Michigan GOP chair Saul Anuzis and Secretary of State Terri Lee Land are considering bids.

Claire McCaskill of Missouri: The GOP options include former state senator and state treasurer Sarah Steelman, as well as former congressional candidate Ed Martin.

Jon Tester of Montana: Rep. Denny Rehberg, who has won multiple times statewide (since his congressional district is the state).

Ben Nelson of Nebraska: Two big names for Republicans: State Attorney General Jon Bruning, state Treasurer Don Stenberg.

Sherrod Brown of Ohio: At least two promising options for Republicans: State Treasurer Josh Mandel and former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania: Obviously not an easy state for Republicans, but if Dicks Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack is serious about his interest, the he would have the financial resources to give Casey a real race.

There are several states where the GOP chances of victory are pretty small, but they’ve still got interest from a promising candidate or two:

Ben Cardin of Maryland: Obviously a tough state even in non-presidential years, but one of the GOP candidates is Queen Anne’s County Commissioner Eric Wargotz. You may scoff at his 36 percent in last year’s Senate race against Barbara Mikulski, but that’s the highest share of the vote any Republican has gotten against her since 1986.

Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota: None so far, although local Republicans are hoping to see a Michele Bachmann bid.

Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island: He’s not a ‘big name,’ but keep an eye on entrepreneur Barry Hinkley, founder of the software firm Bullhorn.

Bernie Sanders of Vermont: Obviously, this is a very tough seat for the GOP to win, but they have a promising candidate in state Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon.

Three Republicans are retiring and creating open seat races:

Jon Kyl of Arizona: Republicans have Rep. Jeff Flake, who so far enjoys the field to himself. No Democrat has filed papers; obviously, many Democrats are yearning for a bid by Gabrielle Giffords. Rep. Ed Pastor is reportedly thinking it over.

John Ensign of Nevada: Both parties are likely to nominate an incumbent U.S. House member: Republicans have Rep. Dean Heller; Democrats have Rep. Shelly Berkley.

Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas: Republicans have a small army of candidates: Former state solicitor general Ted Cruz, former Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, current Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones, and former secretary of state Roger Williams.

As revealed this weekend, Texas Democrats are likely to nominate retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

Finally, at this point, seven Senate Republicans are seeking re-election; none of them have attracted what most would consider a “top tier” challenger.

Dick Lugar of Indiana: He’s likely to face a tougher challenge in the GOP primary from Richard Mourdock. For the Democrats, there has been talk that Rep. Joe Donnelly may run for Senate, particularly with his House district’s new lines looking less favorable to him. But Donnelly is reportedly also mulling a gubernatorial bid. So far, no Democrats have filed for this race.

Olympia Snowe of Maine: Like Lugar, she has primary opponents already (Scott D’Ambrose and Andrew Ian Dodge) but no Democrat opponent yet.

Scott Brown of Massachusetts: Right now, the biggest-name challenger for the Democrats is Robert Massie, who ran for Lieutenant Governor in 1994. Several members of the state’s House delegation have been mentioned as potential candidates, but none have filed papers yet.

Roger Wicker of Mississippi: No Democrats have filed for the seat yet. 

Bob Corker of Tennessee: No Democrats have filed for the seat yet.       

Orrin Hatch of Utah: The only Democrat who has filed for the seat is Chris Stout, a Salt Lake City accountant.

John Barrasso of Wyoming: No Democrats have filed for the seat yet.  

Senate Democrats have drawn the line at $10 billion in cuts to the budget in this fiscal year, already half-expired.

The national deficit for the month of February was $222.5 billion, or $7.9 billion per day.

Thus, the Democrats’ cuts are sufficient to get the government running even for roughly 30 hours. Those harsh, draconian cuts proposed by the GOP — $61 billion — would have the government running even for about a week.

I guess it’s now okay for folks on the left to publicly lament that Obama is voting “present” — or perhaps, “not present” — on a lot of big issues lately.

Ruth Marcus: “For a man who won office talking about change we can believe in, Barack Obama can be a strangely passive president. There are a startling number of occasions in which the president has been missing in action – unwilling, reluctant or late to weigh in on the issue of the moment. He is, too often, more reactive than inspirational, more cautious than forceful.”

And in today’s Politico: “Democratic senators are frustrated with the low-profile President Barack Obama has kept during the rancorous spending debate dominating Capitol Hill, urging him Tuesday to take an assertive role or risk strengthening the Republicans’ hand in the next round of negotiations. “Well, I think they should be involved more, and I think they will be,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, when asked about the White House. At a closed-door session on the budget, nine Democratic senators spent parts of the 30-minute meeting whacking the White House for not being more engaged, according to people who were present.”

If you’re a Senate Democrat, where would you go to hold a meeting with your colleagues on how to reduce the deficit?

The Boar’s Head luxury resort outside Charlottesville, Virginia, of course.

Not much will get done this week in the Senate, as Democrats head out of town to the posh 573-acre Boar’s Head Inn estate just outside Charlottesville for an issues conference. They’ll be gone most of Tuesday and will remain there until mid-day or slightly later on Thursday.

And yes, excess spending is on the agenda:

As the caucus gathers for its annual retreat in Charlottesville, Va., beginning Tuesday, Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, is determined to use the huddle to try to convince members to back a cost-cutting plan close to that of President Obama’s debt commission, which many in the party think was extreme and unwarranted.

I suppose the Democrats may have gotten a group discount, but a cursory examination of the rates finds rooms at $350 per night.

But look at what the senators will get at that price!

Experience the relaxing comfort of first-class accommodations at The Boar’s Head. Our 170 guest rooms and suites create an inviting retreat in tune with the natural rhythms of our Southern heritage. Beautiful antique furnishings and unique décor highlight our rooms while keeping modern conveniences such as cable television and mini-refrigerators out of sight.

Each moment at The Boar’s Head is its own vacation… Doze off with a novel as you sink into an overstuffed chair… Savor morning coffee on your private balcony as a goose and her goslings navigate the pond below… Snuggle up by the fireplace with your loved one and a bottle of wine from a local vineyard.

Luxury touches enjoyed by all of our guests include plush terrycloth bathrobes, premium bath amenities and bedding so sumptuous that we are often asked to order new linens for guests to take home.

Set amid the rolling Charlottesville landscape, The Boar’s Head offers choice lodging and genuine hospitality not found elsewhere.

I, for one, don’t want Democrats like Ben Nelson discussing the deficit in anything less than a plush terrycloth bathrobe.

A Senate Republican source is intrigued by this line deep in a Politico story: “Privately, Republicans  are even more critical of the majority leader, blaming him for the stalemate over financial services reform and other high-profile issues. They argue that Reid is being driven by internal Democratic polling data showing the majority party has to recapture the “reform” mantle rather than compromise — or risk huge losses in November.”

How huge?

When I saw the title, “Guess Who’s the Real Party of Wall Street”, I cringed, suspecting that the National Republican Senatorial Committee had jumped on the bandwagon of broad-spectrum Wall Street-bashing,

But this video does a pretty good job of spotlighting the deep ties between Democrats and various Wall Street firms, including on staff and personnel, and the Democrats’ over-the-top denunciations of Wall Street greed. The Democrats have cast these firms as the villain in our economic troubles, but had no problem taking hundreds of thousands in donations from them.

Goldman Sachs’ lawyer in the SEC case is former White House counsel Greg Craig. Obama’s been in office 16 months, and already we’re seeing his former White House staffers go to work for firms under investigation!

Recall Obama’s pledge, “No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.”

Craig isn’t lobbying, per se; he’s just providing a special service for a wealthy client, in which his prior experience in government and close working relationships with administration officials will probably be useful. You know, like Tom Daschle.

Expiration Date achieved!