The big news from the AP is that Reid has privately offered Sen. Bill Frist a compromise.

Though it’s an offer Frist is highly unlikely to accept.

Reid is proposing to let just two of the seven contested judicial nominees clear the Senate, if the GOP drops the nuclear option.

And not just any two. He is specifying which two (it does not include the two the GOP is most eager to confirm, Priscilla “Enron” Owen and Janice “FDR Was A Socialist” Brown.)

Furthermore, on CNN’s Inside Politics, Reid knocked down the proposal floated by Sen. Joe Biden on Sunday, to let five of the seven through (“his numbers are … not quite right.”)

If Frist gave up on the nuclear option for a mere two judges, in all likelihood, the Fringe Fundamentalists in the GOP base would be livid.

Frist would be better off calling for a vote on the nuclear option and losing it than taking this deal (at least then he could lay the blame on other GOPers.)

Now, LiberalOasis would far prefer Reid not offer any undeserved and unwarranted compromises.

But this offer is not necessarily evidence that Reid will bend over backwards, and sacrifice principle, to cut a deal.

It may just be so he can legitimately say he tried to find common ground but was rebuffed.

Reid other actions yesterday speak to a strategy of principled confrontation, not wimpy compromise.

Earlier in the day, Reid’s team announced their post-nuclear plans, which are creative and thoughtful enough to indicate they fully expect the button to be pushed.

The strategy was further explained in a conference call Reid held with several bloggers.

Reid also distributed a tough audio statement justifying the blocking of these particular judges:

They want to clear the path for President Bush to appoint Justices who will not protect the right to privacy or the separation of church and state. Abusing power is not what the American people sent us to Washington to do.

Reid appears to be steeling the base for confrontation, not preparing them for compromise, even as he signals a nominal willingness to compromise.

Is it politically necessary to do go through the compromise motions?

No, as last evening’s ABC/W. Post poll shows:

Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees?

Support – 26%
Oppose – 66%

Do you think the Senate Democrats are right or wrong to block these nominations?

Right – 48%
Wrong – 36%

Clearly, Dems are in the driver’s seat and have no political need to concede anything.

But Reid may feel an internal need to go through the motions, to appease squeamish senators like Biden that are publicly calling for a compromise.

While Reid’s actions are less alarming than those of Biden and Dodd on Sunday, the situation is still fuzzy and fluid, and there still is a need for the grassroots to tell Dems “No Deals.”

And to tell increasingly nervous GOPers “No Nukes.”

April 25, 2005 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted April 24 7 PM ET)

Despite acknowledgements from within the GOP that they’re getting beat on the “nuclear option” battle, two key Dems foolishly offered the GOP an escape hatch during yesterday’s talkshows.

Sen. Joe Biden was the most specific, on ABC’s This Week (video at Crooks and Liars):

I think we should compromise and say to them that we’re willing to, of the seven judges [filibustered last year and now re-nominated], we’ll let a number of them go through, the two most extreme [will] not go through, and [we’ll] put off this vote [on the nuclear option].

Afterwards, Sen. Chris Dodd, on CBS’ Face The Nation, didn’t embrace Biden’s proposal specifically, but supported it conceptually:

...I know my colleague Senator Biden made a suggestion on another program this morning. There are various other ideas kicking around out there.

Certainly I’d urge people to examine ways to avoid this, because I really think [we would do] damage … to the institution of the United States Senate … Let’s look for a compromise.

And as LiberalOasis noted on Friday, Sens. Joe Lieberman and Ken Salazar proposed the same Filibuster-For-Freaky Judges Swap last week.

We don’t know if Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid backs the Swap, though some anonymous GOPers have been gossiping that he’s been shopping that around.

But clearly, the troubling notion of compromise is building up steam.

To be fair to these Senators, they likely are acting, at least in part, on a well-intentioned impulse: to keep the filibuster in the place for when a Supreme Court nomination comes.

But let’s not forget four things.

One, you cut this deal now, who is to say that the GOP won’t stab Dems in the back and go nuclear later? Because of their great track record of keeping their word?

Two, Supreme Court seats are for life. But so are seats on federal appeals courts.

And they will hear many more cases per year than the Supreme Court does, impacting the lives of many Americans.

Three, as LiberalOasis has noted the last several days, and the LA Times reported yesterday, the GOP base is torn over the nuclear option, while the party is losing public opinion.

Furthermore, the party has been losing public opinion on Tom DeLay, Social Security and Terri Schiavo.

They’re on the defensive on several fronts. It’s time to jack up the pressure and make them squirm more.

It’s not time to offer up a compromise that’s gives away much of the store.

Finally, to capitulate on judicial nominees that Dems have battled back for years is to once again forget the principles that have driven our actions.

Granted, few Americans have even realized that there has been a fight of appellate court nominees, let alone what principles are involved.

But now, as the profile of this fight is raised, it’s time to raise the profile of the principles too.

Is it a matter of deep conviction to save the judiciary from people who would spit on workers wronged on the job, trash progress towards racial equality, stop our government from cleaning our air and water, and permit right-wingers to violate our right to make private personal decisions?

If it is, then say so and act on it. Fight nominees at all levels that would turn the judiciary over to the Fat Cats and Fringe Fundamentalists.

Worst-case scenario, you lose the immediate fight in Congress. But you win respect among the public, better set the stage for fighting Supreme Court nominees, and build trust for future elections.

But, is the real deep conviction just about having the filibuster, so you can say you have it?

If you suddenly let radical right nominees go through, in order to “save” the filibuster, you have signaled that you are happy to junk principle in order to protect your own personal procedural powers.

We are standing with Democrats to save the filibuster so it can be used on behalf of the public interest.

If you’re not going to use it here, to block the craziest of the crazy, what’s the point in having it?

On Friday, LiberalOasis encouraged readers to contact their Dem Senators and say “No Deals.”

It’s even more urgent now.

(UPDATE 4/24/05 9:30 PM ET -- "Justice Sunday," the Family Research Council's telecast to rally support for the nuclear option, was heavy on calls to contact Senators Monday morning. Counter their efforts by doing the same. Tell GOPers, "protect the filibuster." Tell Dems, "no deals.")

April 22, 2005 PERMALINK
GOP Leaks Show Fracturing on Nuclear Option
(posted April 22 2 AM ET)

Speculation from the GOP regarding the nuclear option was all over the map yesterday.

Some of it indicates that the GOP is on the verge of caving.

The first bit of chum came in the morning. The Hill reported that internal GOP polls were so bad, that Sen. Rick Santorum had begun privately urging his colleagues to pull back on going nuclear.

Later in the day, Santorum denied the report.

But after the existence of the poll was leaked to The Hill by anonymous GOPers, more (or the same) GOPers leaked the specifics of the poll to the AP.

There’s no plausible reason for GOPers to do that other than sabotage.

Either from rebels dead set against the nuclear option, or from supporters who see the writing on the wall and want to prepare the base for defeat.

But also yesterday, another group of anonymous GOPers was whispering in the ear of Fox News’ Mort Kondracke.

Kondracke dutifully shared the gossip with his audience:

That Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid was trying to cut a deal with the GOP, where he’d end the filibuster on some of the controversial judges in exchange for scrapping the nuclear option.

Also, that Santorum had rejected any such deal (Kondracke didn’t share with the Fox audience the report that he may be behind a cave-in).

And that these GOPers claimed Reid’s attempts had a “certain frantic quality” which indicated that “the Democrats are showing weakness.”

Granted, there is some grains of plausibility to this gossip.

Sens. Joe Lieberman and Ken Salazar floated a similar compromise on Wed.

And Reid has talked vaguely of compromise, as has Majority Leader Bill Frist, though few have taken those words seriously.

But overall, Democratic actions have shown tenacity, not hesitancy, on protecting the filibuster and opposing right-wing judges.

For example, yesterday afternoon, Sens. Dick Durbin (Reid’s #2), Chuck Schumer (Dem point man on judges) and even Lieberman, participated in an anti-nuclear option rally.

And the top of the Minority Leader’s home page is a call to arms to defend the filibuster.

It’s more likely that this GOP gossip, fed to Fox, was not on the level.

And instead, was intended to plant seeds of doubt in Dems (particularly accommodationist Dems) in hopes that they would lose confidence in Reid and flinch.

But, things are a little murky out there, and you can never be too careful.

So if you have a GOP Senator, contact him or her and tell them to save the filibuster.

And if you have a Dem Senator, contact him or her and tell them: no deals, we got the GOP on the run.

(UPDATE 4/22/05 2:30 PM ET -- More evidence Reid is not flinching.

Here's an email statement from him, responding to today's pro-nuclear option comments from Dick Cheney:

"Last week, I met with the president and was encouraged when he told me he would not become involved in Republican efforts to break the Senate rules.

"Now, it appears he was not being honest, and that the White House is encouraging this raw abuse of power.

"It is disturbing that Republicans have so little respect for the separation of powers established by our founding fathers.

"Based on his comments last week, I had hoped that the president was prepared to join Democrats in taking up the work of the American people, but it is clear this is no longer the case.

"If the White House and Congress insists on proceeding down this road, Democrats will do all we can to ensure that Congress pursues an agenda the American people can be proud of.")