Good news for a Saturday night

This is certainly encouraging:

In recent weeks, four moderate Republicans have criticized the nuclear option in published remarks that their offices confirmed or did not challenge on Friday. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) told the Portland Press Herald, "I just don't see how it's going to benefit us, even in the majority, to change it to a simple majority [vote] because ultimately it could create more wedges and political wounds." Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) "doesn't think the nuclear option is a great idea," her spokeswoman, Jen Burita, said.

Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) has said "I'm not in favor" of the option. And Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) recently told CQ Today he would not support the option because "the Senate should not be like the House."

Meanwhile, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) said in a statement Friday: "I have not reached a firm view on the matter. However, I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception. Without question, though, I am strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations." He said, "I remain to be persuaded that the seriousness of the problem merits such an extraordinary solution," but "the Senate may be forced to take some action to preserve the president's Constitutional obligation to fill [court] vacancies."

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) also has questioned the wisdom of eliminating the minority's right to filibuster, citing times when Democrats ruled the Senate.

At least three GOP senators -- Thad Cochran (Miss.), Ted Stevens (Alaska) and John E. Sununu (N.H.) -- have declined to take public stands on the issue. Democrats hope veterans such as Cochran and Stevens, who have served in the minority, will vote to preserve the filibuster tradition even though they like Bush's nominees.

The real question for me is how hard the extreme Republicans will attempt to target some of those moderate Senators when they come up for reelection. I would think it would all but doom a guy like Mark Warner in Virginia, and with it the Republican's chances there.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I have no doubt that Republicans would pay money to cripple their opponent before he runs (a la Nader funding in an attempt to draw votes from Kerry). Is it something that Democrats can stomach, if necessary? I'm not so sure. But again, it could be an effective campaign strategy come 2006.