Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is again being reasonable and trying to avoid a crisis over the nuclear option. Here is his latest statement, in its entirety (not available online yet):

Two weeks ago, Bill Frist and I exchanged proposals in an attempt to avert a vote on the nuclear option.

One proposal allowed for up or down votes on all but four judges – which many of us on both sides of the aisle considered to be the goal of this hyped battle over judicial nominations.

It also took the “nuclear option” off the table, which even Ken Starr said yesterday was damaging to the Senate as an institution and “amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.” This compromise would break the gridlock over these seven judges, and allow us to get back to doing the people’s business.

Senator Frist’s proposal does nothing to end the judicial impasse, as it would wipe away the very checks and balances that have prevented an abuse of power for more than 200 years.

That result is unacceptable.

Sen. Bill Frist may have developed a classic case of trigger-finger on the nuclear option. Despite pleas from the radical right evangelical fringe, he hasn't launched the plan. Despite pleas from fellow Senators and Congressmen, he hasn't called it off. What's causing him to stay in status quo mode, despite earlier promises to launch the nuke? Some possibilities:

• He doesn't have the votes necessary to win
• The public opinion polls are against the nuclear option
• His job as Senate leader is to compromise. The nuclear option is anything but, and will throw the Senate into disarray. His leadership ability will be called into question if he takes this risky route.

This is Frist's moment.

Frist's daunting challenge is to somehow keep both factions happy, soothe the nerves of moderate voters - and thereby keep his own presidential hopes alive.

Frist needs to call off the nuclear option. It's his only chance at survival. If he pulls the trigger, he's history.

If you had any doubt that evangelical leader James Dobson's grand plan is to for the radical right fringe to assume the leadership of this country, here's your final clue. In a radio address about the filibuster and nuclear option,

James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, described the fight as the tipping point of the Bush presidency. "Nothing good took place last November, only the potential for something good," Dr. Dobson said.

Colorado Governor Bill Owens, a faith-based Republican, was considered a party superstar until two years ago when he and his wife of 28 years split up amid undisclosed reasons. Owens promptly became a liability to the values crowd. When Sen. Nighthorse Campbell decided not to run for re-election, many expected Owens to put his hat in the ring. He didn't, saying the time wasn't right for him or his family. Friday, the couple announced their reconciliation. Tongues are now wagging as to what's behind the sudden rapprochement.

Denver's increasingly influential monthly magazine, 5280, (a finalist this year for the National Magazine Awards in two categories), just released its May issue with its annual list of the 25 most influential Coloradans. (Sorry, it's not available on line.) Number one on the list is Colorado first lady Frances Owen. With a little humor and amidst great film-noir graphics, the magazine details Frances' ascent and the Governor's political decline. Owens' hand-picked Senate candidate, Pete Coors, lost to Ken Salazar in November. While the state went red for Bush, the state legislature went blue for the first time in 44 years. It seems Gov. Owens is mostly in the news these days for using his veto power (More here.)

How's this for a tie-in between evangelical houses of worship and the politics of exclusion? The East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina voted out its Democratic members.

Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville, had been exhorting his congregation since October to support his political views or leave the church, said Selma Morris, a 30-year member of the church.

“He preached a sermon on abortion and homosexuality, then said if anyone there was planning on voting for John Kerry, they should leave,” she said. “That’s the first time I’ve ever heard something like that. Ministers are supposed to bring people in.”

If true, the church could lose their tax exempt status:

by TChris

Hypocrisy, anyone?

Mayor James E. West of Spokane, a Republican opponent of gay rights, was accused in a newspaper on Thursday of molesting two boys decades ago and the paper also says it caught him using the trappings of his office to try to court a young man online.

Mr. West, a conservative, rose to become majority leader of the State Senate during a two-decade legislative career. He consistently opposed efforts to expand civil rights protections for gay men and lesbians and voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, a ban on same-sex marriage, in 1998.

Whether or not the molestation allegations are true, the anti-gay mayor acknowledged he "had relations with adult men."

by TChris

Recognizing and (even better) responding to an obvious conflict of interest, two Republican members of the House ethics committee, both donors to one of Tom DeLay's defense funds, agreed not to participate in investigations of DeLay's alleged ethical improprieties.

Democrats have complained for months that Speaker Dennis Hastert appointed Republicans Lamar Smith of Texas and Tom Cole of Oklahoma to make the panel more favorable to DeLay, R-Texas.

Smith and Cole replaced two Republicans who voted to admonish DeLay on three separate matters in 2004.

Concerns that Smith and Cole would not be impartial were substantial.

Cartoon of the week. [hat tip T. Kindlon]

The New York Times reports:

Newly disclosed documents from an American territory in the Pacific show that the powerful Washington lobbyist at the center of federal corruption investigations here paid directly for travel to the islands by several members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, as well as two senior aides to Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, despite House rules that bar such payments.

The total exceeded $350,000.

Here are some of today's news and events on the nuclear option and protecting the filibuster:

• The Princeton Filibuster of Frist continues today with Rep. Frank Pallone. The filibuster has been going on 123 hours as of now. Any Senator or other elected official who is interested in speaking on campus should call 301-793-0046.

• Newsweek: The War on Judges

• Is Hatch's Fury Hypocrisy

• Republican Lisa Murkowski doesn't like filibusters but gets targeted by the right for looking for a compromise. The Anchorage Daily News says, Stand Up, Senator.

• Mario Cuomo speaks out against filibuster change

• Filibuster a hedge against a majority stampede

Now that I've had a few days to reflect on Bush's proposed plan for social security, I unequivocally find it warrants rejection. The New York Times reports today on how it would work:

Under Mr. Bush's approach of "progressive indexation," a typical low-income worker who earns about $16,000 a year today would be entitled to retirement benefits equal to about 49 percent of his or her wages, the same amount that is promised today.

But those earning an average income, about $36,500 in today's dollars, would see big changes. Instead of replacing 36 percent of that person's working pay, as promised under today's system, benefits would cover only 26 percent of pay by 2075. And people who earn $90,000 a year in today's dollars would continue to pay as much as ever in taxes but would receive benefits equal to only 12 percent of their pay.

There are intellectual and economic reasons to oppose the plan, as Josh Marshall points out every day. I like the plain English reasons, like this one from Matt Yglesias who is guest-blogging for Josh this week.

Did you watch? What did you think?

Update: Shorter version:

Listen Up, said the President
We are programmed to deceive.
We will spin out any lie we like,
'cause money you won't receive"

[hat tip to the Eagles and Hotel California]

Update: The Washington Post article on the speech (not an oped, but a news article) bears the headline, "Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits"

And another illiterate Bush line that makes no sense: "Bush said. "I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith."