Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Senate's Quavering Middle
NY Times ^ | May 22, 2005 | DAVID BROOKS

Posted on 05/21/2005 4:42:36 PM PDT by neverdem

Here's an example of why moderates never accomplish anything in Washington.

Twelve independent and moderate senators - six Democrats and six Republicans - spent much of last week trying to work out a deal to head off a nuclear showdown over judges.

They agreed on the basic approach. The Democrats would allow votes on a few of the blocked judicial nominees (Priscilla Owen, William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown, I'm told). In exchange the Republicans would drop a couple of the nominees (probably Henry Saad and William Myers).

The Democrats would promise not to use the filibuster, except under extreme circumstances. The Republicans would promise not to exercise the nuclear option except under extreme circumstances.

That was the deal, and a very fair one, too. But of course these are moderates. They can't just shove something through on the rough and dirty the way the partisans do. They can't lock themselves in the room until they reach a deal and then march out and announce it to the press.

They have to shop it around. Some of the 12 felt compelled to check with their leaders and others in their parties, so nobody would feel offended or left out. Some of the 12 had to quibble, fiddle, worry and adjust. One Democrat asked the Republicans if they could move a judge from the D.C. Circuit to the Ninth Circuit. (Huh?) Senator Robert Byrd joined the proceedings with a complicated proposal that threw everybody into confusion.

Then they had these arcane discussions about exactly which words to use. Since even moderates don't really trust one another, they were looking for language that would codify every possible contingency. A few gutless wonders were hoping they could find the words that would protect them when the attacks started coming from the pressure groups...

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona; US: District of Columbia; US: Maine; US: Rhode Island; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 109th; democraticparty; filibuster; republicanparty; rinos; senate; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

1 posted on 05/21/2005 4:42:36 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yup. Spines of Jell-O. Useless.


2 posted on 05/21/2005 4:47:42 PM PDT by USArmySpouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
That was the deal, and a very fair one, too.

No, it isn't.

3 posted on 05/21/2005 4:48:27 PM PDT by Bahbah (Something wicked this way comes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Democrats would promise not to use the filibuster, except under extreme circumstances.

Who gets to define extreme circumstances? Lemme guess--the dems. An extremist judge is one who believes a pregnant 12 year-old should check with mom and dad before getting an abortion.

4 posted on 05/21/2005 4:48:53 PM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Twelve independent and moderate senators - six Democrats and six Republicans...

This is utter nonsense. I challenge anyone to name me six moderate Democrat Party Operatives in the Senate. There aren't six. NO way.

Now, six "moderate" Republicans? Sure. But not six Dems.

I can name maybe one or two. Maybe. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and, at times, Landrieu of Lousiana. But even Mary is drinking the 'rat Kool-Aid on judges. She does, I think, believe in oil exploration--she'd best do that, since her state benefits.

Bottom line--there aren't six moderate Democrats in the Senate.

The NY Slimes is wrong. Again.

5 posted on 05/21/2005 4:49:27 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So, Byrd-brain orated on the floor of the Senate about how the rules were sacrosanct and then, behind closed doors, offered a wheedling compromise to change the rules. He blew his chance for this year's Mr. Integrity for the 25th year in a row.


6 posted on 05/21/2005 4:50:39 PM PDT by Socratic (There are methods and meth-heads. Life is about choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Haven't you heard?

Hillary is a moderate now.


7 posted on 05/21/2005 4:50:52 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Spec.4 Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Brooks is the perfect example of a mushy, milquetoast, moderate.


8 posted on 05/21/2005 4:54:10 PM PDT by MamaLucci (Mutually assured destruction STILL keeps the Clinton administration criminals out of jail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Why bother to post a NY Times article.


9 posted on 05/21/2005 4:55:18 PM PDT by golfisnr1 (Democrats are like roaches, hard to get rid of.>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It looks like Mr. Brooks has jumped ship.

If the judges are EXTREME, then the Dems can point that out real clearly, in a protracted debate. If the Dems are right, they will pick up these same 'moderate' Republicans and the nominee will lose the vote, with less than 50 votes in favor. Just as Robert Bork lost (unfortunately for us).

What the hell is it that scares Mr. Brooks into thinking that this new 60 vote majority is now needed? Where was he when Clinton and Carter were putting the absolute NUTCASES on the courts?

No Mr. Brooks, join the Dems on some other issue, President Bush deserves the same up and down votes that Clinton and Carter got.
10 posted on 05/21/2005 4:56:16 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1
"Why bother to post a NY Times article."

True - soon it will be behind their fee-based subscription firewall - and we won't have to deal with this garbage out of Brook's mouth anymore.
11 posted on 05/21/2005 4:57:49 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

You hit it the nail on the head.


12 posted on 05/21/2005 4:59:30 PM PDT by conservaDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
And Ruth Ginsburg, who the Republicans eventually supported, wasn't extreme? To the Dems, anyone to the right of Ginsburg would be considered "extreme".
13 posted on 05/21/2005 4:59:45 PM PDT by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
NO DEAL. The only reason the Dems are negotiating is because they will lose the floor vote. There is no need to give an inch. This is a dress rehearsal for the SCOTUS confrontation. "Extreme circumstances" allow Dems to filibuster. Forget it. Every nominee will be seen as "extreme" by Kennedy, Schumer, Biden and Sheets.

This is another example of how the NY Times picks "safe" Conservatives for their op-ed writers. Brooks and Tierney are "wienies." They couldn't allow real movement Conservatives on the op-ed page.

14 posted on 05/21/2005 5:00:46 PM PDT by davidtalker (David Gold - goldtalk.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

Precisely - "extreme circumstances" means whatever the Democrats claim it means.


15 posted on 05/21/2005 5:03:59 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Who is going to protect them from the everyday Average Republicans or, even, the Moderate Republicans? I think they are sadly mistaken if they think that it is only "pressure groups". Many people won't bother to contact them ahead of time because they do not really think anyone in their party would ever make such a miserable deal on their behalf. However, it will surface in future elections and the time, effort, and money given to the party.


16 posted on 05/21/2005 5:05:04 PM PDT by Bush 100 Percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This is such a stupid article. All the compromise did was, at most, defer the nuclear option until the supreme court nominations.


17 posted on 05/21/2005 5:06:47 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, John Warner and maybe Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe will vote against the nuclear option

In all fairness, a few Democrat moderates ought to vote for the constitutional option so the right wing will like them.

18 posted on 05/21/2005 5:08:48 PM PDT by Milhous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Moderates are liberals who don't know who they are. Name me a book in the library named "Great Moderates Of History." When you lack real principles, you inevitably slide left.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
19 posted on 05/21/2005 5:10:25 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
" Senator Robert Byrd joined the proceedings with a complicated proposal that threw everybody into confusion."

If the old Klansman, sheets byrd, is a moderate, there are no partisans.

20 posted on 05/21/2005 5:12:38 PM PDT by lstanle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson