A highly unusual moment of insight from Dick Morris:

So why did the GOP not deliver the mortal blow when they could have easily done so? My guess is that the White House stopped them from doing so. Bush and Rove must have sent signals to lay off the cloture rule. Only an intervention of that order of magnitude would have been sufficiently effective to vitiate the carefully laid plans of the Republican majority.

But if the administration did intervene and stop the emasculation of the filibuster on judicial nominations, why did it do so? Why would the president voluntarily make it easier for Democrats to torpedo his judicial nominations?

President Bush and Karl Rove probably figured that they did not want the power to appoint judges without opposition from the Senate Democrats. They realized that without the filibuster there was nothing to stop them from nominating judges who would cling to a hard right-wing agenda on Roe v. Wade and other issues, permanently alienating much of the country and driving a stake into GOP efforts to reach out to independents and women.

Bush needs the filibuster so that he can nominate judges who will not drive a wedge into the politics of America. He needs an excuse to tell his far-right friends why he is not naming a new Clarence Thomas or William Rehnquist or Antonin Scalia to the court. Bush grasps that such an appointment would be a step that would shatter the unity he is achieving after his reelection. And he needs the filibuster to keep the loyalty of his base even as he disappoints their most earnest expectations.

Bush might submit a nominee who would trigger a filibuster when the Supreme Court vacancy comes. He might then be forced to name a more moderate alternative. Or he might circumvent the process entirely and name a nominee acceptable to all, as Bill Clinton did. But, in any case, Bush needs the filibuster. That’s why it is still on the rulebooks.

Right ... so worried about unity, that W. In any case, he's probably right about the Lucy holding a football strategy at work here.

UPDATE: James Joyner thinks Bush is a "true believer" who would like nothing better than to nominate another Scalia type. Actually, I think Scalia compares favorably to the latest crop of extremist nominees. There is one point to be made, in any case: Bush has pretty consistently pushed a maximalist, no-compromise negotiating strategy on judicial appointments, and gotten his way on the vast majority without having to resort to the "nuclear option." That's always his style, because he doesn't negotiate with himself. Or something.

Buried in his post on "The Kilgore Switch" is this gem:

I think the next time Bush utters his favorite line, "I won't negotiate with myself," someone should say, "I don't blame you -- I wouldn't negotiate with you either."

Not that anyone would actually get the opportunity to debate Bush on this issue ... but still.

Zing!

This is usually Digby's beat.

J. Dubs gamely attempts to rebut yet another dumb Powerline post:

So why are the Democrats filibustering Pryor? My guess -- because he is a man of principle and because they hate Alabama.

But here's the thing: speaking for myself, I actually do hate Alabama, which is in many ways the last bastion of all that is wrong with the racist and backwards Old South. It's right up there with Mississippi.

I could talk about tax policy and lack of investment in education, blah blah blah. But here's a personal anecdote.

I was in Mongomery last year, for the wedding of a friend of mine. The country club where the reception was held had just reversed its official policy of excluding blacks and Jews from membership five years ago. I was told by the groom that the unofficial policy still remains. The band at the reception was a really hopping all-black jazz group. My friend Kevin, who is black and in the crowd with me, was asked more than once whether or not he had the urge to get up and sing with the rest of the fellas.

And this was the creme-de-la-creme of Alabaman society.

So yes, I do hate Alabama.