Equal time, New poll too. From the diaries, jerome

No, it's not Sherrod Brown changing his mind about running.  It's Paul Hackett changing his mind about what to do in Iraq.  Yet, everyone talks about a change of heart when it comes to running, but no one talks about a change of heart when it comes to a real substantive issue.  Why is that?  Hypocrisy, perhaps?  

Once again, Sirota nails it:

"Ohio Senate candidate Paul Hackett once told the Washington Post that "we need more straight-talking, straight-shooting politicians." And he has dispatched his staffers to attack Congressman Sherrod Brown (D) for supposedly not talking straight about whether Brown was going to run for the Senate (the two now face a primary). But what is more troubling - a candidate that changed their mind about running for office, or a candidate who hasn't talked straight about their own position on Iraq?

That's right - in the fulminating over Hackett as the supposedly populist champion of anti-war sentiment, it seems many have forgotten that Hackett continues to change his position on the Iraq War whenever it appears politically opportune. For instance, on 7/19/05, the Cincinatti Enquirer reported that Hackett says "the Bush administration...must develop an exit strategy" from Iraq. Two days later, however, Hackett told the Associated Press he did not support ending the war. "We're there now," he said. "We can't cut and run." Then four days later Hackett spoke to the American Prospect. Appealing to that magazine's more progressive readership, Hackett said, "I disagreed with the war." Now, as a candidate for another office running in a primary, Hackett is supporting full withdrawal.

. . . .

Again, let's be clear - Hackett has every right to change his position, just as Brown had every right to decide to run. But the two examples of waffling are clearly not equal in terms of gravity. While some parts of the blogosphere would like to try to make a candidate's reversal of tactical decisions a penultimate sign of "trustworthiness" vs "untrustworthiness," the real penultimate sign of backbone, spine, "trustworthiness" and "straight shooting" is on the issues. One candidate, Hackett, has clearly wavered on those in his short time in politics. Another candidate, Brown, has never wavered on those, even though he has been in politics for a long time taking tough vote after tough vote. And no matter how much spin and hype surrounds this race, them's the facts, whether we like it or not. Hackett folks attacking Brown for his reversal on a tactical decisions are throwing stones from a very, very fragile glass house."

"Fox News Channel has signed Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, CNN contributor and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, as a military and foreign affairs analyst," TV Week reports. Senior VP Bill Shine says "Gen. Clark's extensive military experience and sharp insight make him a powerful addition to Fox News Channel."

http://tinyurl.com/7rgjv

So the good general has decided to take Rupert Murdoch's money.  And in the process stab Howard Dean in the back and give credibility to the most incredible slogan of all time, "fair and balanced."  As we all know, Faux News is the mouthpiece of the Republican party.  By taking their money, and going on there, Clark allows Faux to say, "see, we're fair and balanced."  While Dean is refusing to go on there, Clark is not only going on, but is taking their money.  What a disgrace!  

Owen, Brown, now Pryor.  That "deal" is sure looking better and better.

"The Senate voted, 53-45, to confirm Judge Pryor for a lifetime appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta. He has been sitting on the tribunal since early 2004 under a temporary presidential appointment that would have expired late this year without the Senate confirmation.

Three Republicans voted against confirmation - Senator Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine, and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island. Two Democrats voted in favor - Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Ken Salazar of Colorado. Two senators did not vote - James Jeffords, Independent of Vermont, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/politics/09cnd-judge.html?hp

56-44.  All Republicans and Uncle Ben Nelson voted for the most extreme right-wing judge in modern memory.  She will serve on the D.C. Court of Appeals.  A stepping stone to the Supreme Court.  But don't worry, this is not an "extraordinary circumstance."  The Dems "victory" on the filibuster deal is a gift that just keeps on giving.

The deal on judges is...  

Mostly a victory for Dems    656 votes - 64 %  
Mostly a defeat for Dems    365 votes - 35 %  

http://www.mydd.com/poll/1116894012_SjpxZwfW

No comment necessary.  Except to say this why the Democratic party is in the state it's in.

Coming off their victory in the judicial nominee compromise, the Democrats are poised for another victory tomorrow.  Janice Rogers Brown, who wants to recreate the Lochner era, equates the New Deal with the Russian Revolution, and thinks Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are too soft on the "culture war," will be voted on at 5:00 tomorrow afternoon.  There is no indication that her elevation to the most important circuit court, the D.C. Circuit, will be stopped.

So, the majority of the people on this site who voted that the deal was a victory for the Dems will turn out to be right.  The same with the main page diarists who waxed poetic about what a great victory the deal was.  And as a result of their courageous stance, we can all raise a toast to the likes of Ben Nelson, Lieberman, Pryor, etc.  Without them the confirmation of probably the most right-wing judge in memory to a federal appellate court would not have been possible.  Here's to you.