According to today’s Hotline (paid subscription), New Hampshire State Representative Michael Brunelle in a phone news conference said the Senate Democrats now believe they have 66 votes, one short of what is required to override the Presidents veto on the stem cell bill. The House already has enough votes, this override would be an important rebuke to the President’s authority, and mark the first actual legislative victory of this Congress.

According to the Hotline and the Union Leader, Sununu, a major target for Democrats in 2008, is the only member of the NH delegation who is against the position. As a very vulnerable target, he seems the most likely candidate for Democrats and activists to lean on to gain 67.

What remains to be seen now is when the vote to override will take place. If I were involved in strategy discussions I would wait until after Labor Day, and turn this into a wedge issue against conservatives as people finally start tuning into the primary races.

Making good on a promise he made earlier in the week, Senator Obama has made all of his budget requests, a total of $300 million dollars public. President Bush, threatening to use just the fourth veto of his entire administration is citing the amount of pork in the current budget as his reason, apparently he really misses that line item veto he had in Texas.

I personally don’t have the same tax payer penchant to see the death of earmarks and if people would realize those evil earmarks have built plenty of the things in their states they would calm down as well. That being said, I do think the process should require MoCs to disclose their earmarks. This adds transparency to the process and requires candidates to respond to questions from voters about money they are requesting. I see no reason why this, or any act of Congress with the exception of the most sensitive national security issues should not be revealed to the public.

Despite where I stand on immigration, the President today suggested compromise and that his opponents should tone down their rhetoric. I find those suggestions coming from this president to be, well, hypocrisy.

Without going in to great detail, I mostly agree with the President and the Senate bill on this matter despite my above issue.

DailyKos has Ken Salazar reading George Washington’s farewell address on the Senate floor, in a rebuke to those who apparently think that separation of powers is secondary to what Ben Franklin referred to as ‘temporary security’.

Not much else to say, there. On a related note, though–our administration apparently thinks that the Constitution ought to mean today exactly what it did at its creation. How come they think the Geneva Conventions can change their meaning over time, or through outdatedness? Are these two different theories of the rule of law, or do they actually have a coherent theory?

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) has promised to vote “no” on the Alito nomination, according to the Washington Times today. He’ll vote today to end the Democratic filibuster and eventually won’t support Alito’s nomination in the up-or-down vote. This is probably a safe bet for Chafee given the outrage in (blue) Rhode Island that could erupt if he voted yes… but it will only prove safe if he can make it through the GOP primaries this fall.

His GOP challenger, former mayer of Cranston, RI, Steve Laffey, and Dem challenger Matt Brown, have each levied attacks on Linc for being a “flip-flopper”: Laffey said that Linc has an “inability to make a firm decision, which once again made him irrelevant to the process in the Senate.” As a very conservative Republican, Laffey’s future prospects in the Senate seem especially irrelevant. On the other hand, if Laffey can wrest the GOP nomination away from Chafee because of local Republican disillusionment with Chafee’s moderate voting record (National Journal says his social policy votes are more liberal than 60% of Senators).

If the “no” vote against Alito does hand Laffey the GOP nod this fall, it “could kill the GOP’s chance of holding a seat in liberal Rhode Island,” because a Laffey candidacy would almost certainly be too conservative to win in Rhode Island.

I do love them, I use to watch CSPAN all the time in high school. Today Byrd and Frist had a fun back and forth.

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia said Monday he doesn’t expect Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but he still chastised Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for threatening to stop any such effort through a drastic parliamentary effort that has been dubbed the “nuclear option.” “If he ever tries to exercise that, he’s going to see a real filibuster if I’m living and able to stand on my feet or sit in my seat,” Byrd said in a Senate debate with Frist, R-Tenn. “If the senator wants a fight, let him try it,” said Byrd, the Senate’s senior Democrat. “I’m 88 years old, but I can still fight, and fight I will for freedom of speech. I haven’t been here for 47 years to see that freedom of speech whittled away and undermined. ”

and another part of the debate from Think Progress

BYRD: And the Constitution says that the Senate has the power of advice and consent. It doesn’t say how that consent would be measured. It doesn’t say it has to be an up or down. Nothing in the history, nothing in the Constitution says that. Yes, you can point that out in the Constitution to me, where it says a nominee shall have the right to an up or down vote. Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me? Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me? FRIST: If the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would let me answer, I would be happy to. BYRD: Yes. FRIST: It’s not in the Constitution that a United States Senator specifically has the up or down – the right for an up or down vote.