Well, since I haven’t really ripped on anyone for a few days (being busy, and all) I thought I’d quick point out something that’s been bugging me. It’s this little graph:
It’s been in virtually all of the MSNBC.com articles on the filibuster showdown lately, most recently this one.
What I don’t like about it is that Reagan and Clinton have the most appointees. Well, duh. They’re the only ones on the list that served two terms. (G.W. doesn’t really count, as his second term just started. Again…duh.)
So I made this to take such things as terms in office into account:
This makes things look far, far different, no? (First of all, I can start blaming Jimmy Carter for more stuff, which is always loads of fun…)
But this chart, also, doesn’t tell the whole story. It would also be fun to see what percentage of nominees were appointed. Thanks to a great, fact-filled post at Daly Thoughts, I cobbled this together:
Definitely a trend. But while G.W. certainly seems to be getting the short end of the stick, his percentage is not totally out of line considering the direction things seem to be going.
Carter is the only one on the chart that served his entire time in office with the Senate in the hands of his party. G.W. Bush had a 49-50-1 deficit during his first two years, though of course the tie-breaker was his. It only makes sense that Carter’s rate is the best.
I don’t have a particular point, here. I simply want to show charts that tell us a bit more about the filibuster showdown than what we’ve been given. I’m sure that there’s far better stuff out there, too. And you should be sure to take a look at that Daly Thoughts post.
As for the “compromise” in the filibuster situation, both sides are claiming victory. Followers of both sides are declaring defeat. From what little I understand of it, it seems like nothing more than a move to put off the showdown for a short time (at most).