The Senate's Quavering Middle

NY Times ^ | May 22, 2005 | DAVID BROOKS

[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...

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

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.

Drink the kool-aid she does. She almost lost her seat in 2002 to an average opponent, and her stands haven't changed since then. Worse for her, she'll be running next time in 2008, when Republican turnout will likely exceed her level of support and flush her out of office.

[neverdem]

There are a lot of senators in so called red states, that Bush easily won, who want to be called moderates.

[Bush 100 Percent]

ModelBreaker, that's not the case. What the compromisers are trying to do is make the Supreme Court Battle friendly (I'm serious). They are SURE that they can come up with some agreement to deal away the majority's rights in order that the minority will be happy during the Supreme Court nomination process. That's sounds sarcastic, but that's what they are saying in their soundbites. If it means that the voters of November 2004 just have to skip picking a Supreme Court nominee and let the Democrats control it - so be it. The agreement will be in writing and they will be stuck by the time that they find that the Democrats have found a new way around even that deal.

[Bush 100 Percent]

One more thing - as part of their deal, they are talking about promising to give up the Nuclear Option through the end of the term in 2006. Even if there is a Supreme Court nomination. Doesn't sound possible does it? But that's the outline of most of what I've heard so far.

[Bush 100 Percent]

And - if just six Senators give away their option to break the filibuster - the remaining 49 Senators won't be able to do a thing about it.

[StonyBurk]

worry more about their precious Institution -and the show of getting along with people they despise more than they are interested in doing the nations work. The Philly -Buster was introduced about 1830 or so-- has been changed several times. The minority Party always insists it be kept as a rule -the ruling class always want to change it.
It has Never been used to bloke a Judicial nominee from an up or down vote. Fortas was already a Judge and the problem was neither Dems-nor Repubs wanted him as Chief Justice. I wish the silly boys would be served a dose of REALITY and voted off that island by "we the people"

[Nuc1]

I would go further, why read the NYT at all? Ever!

[RedRover]

Is John Tierney supposed to be a Conservative??? I read his recent Times Op-Ed on nuclear energy and thought he was reasonably smart--for a Liberal! By Conservative standards, he's a zero. Thanks for putting me straight.

[xzins]

Forget "extreme circumstances"....who trusts their promise????

[Norman Rogers]

Here's a letter I just wrote to Mr. Brooks: What exactly is "fair" about consigning two or three qualified jurists to the ashbin? Pragmatic, perhaps. But why fair? The Republican party has fairly won the Presidency and the Congress. The Democrats lost, because they have no message -- other than the other guys are "losers". Was (then majority leader) Robert Byrd "unfair" when he invented the parlimentary trick the Republicans will likely exercise on Tuesday? Will the Republicans be "unfair" to the Democrats? I voted for President Bush because he has the courage of his convictions. I don't expect him to throw two or three qualified people overboard to "get a deal done". I'd rather see him lose all his appointments and throw this mess back to the electorate than have him accept the "compromise" you endorse. And, I expect much of the support for the Republicans feels the way I do. Acceptance of your "fair deal" is a ticket to minority status.

[RedRover]

Well said!

[Bush gal in LA]

Who would ever make a ''deal with these sneaky Dems. They concocted this whole scheme up the day after Bush won in 2000. Supposedly Lawrence Tribe and a few of the RAT leaders went to some ''retreat'' together vowing not to let Bush appoint anybody ''they'' consider too conservative.This filibuster scam is just one of their tactics. None of these judges are ''extreme'' or'' outside of the mainstream''.They just figure they'll keep smearing them and someone will believe it! No deals with these dirty RATS!

[Tannerone]

A fair deal?? You live in booger land if you think that is fair. The dems have said none of the pending people are qualified. That they are too mainstream or some such other drivel.

now the dems say choose any four they will be good. So if they are all bad to start with what suddenly made any four good?

Yep, the majority of American voters are stupid enough to buy this crap!

[Personal Responsibility]

I like to read the Slimes simply for the entertainment value. I take out my "Democratic Talking Points Bingo Card" and see how long it takes me to make "bingo" using quotes, buzzwords and all around lib slant ideas.

Usually its only one or two articles. Sometimes less. Never more.

[CyberAnt]

Frist has already drawn the line in the sand - ALL NOMINEES GET A VOTE - PERIOD!

[davidtalker]

He was their replacement for Safire. Safire,btw, voted twice for Clinton. Tierney is supposed to be a Libertarian. Both he and Brooks are sad.

[Soul Seeker]

Brooks will never match Buckley but he does get in a few good knocks at the moderates. Glad to hear the talks are still currently collaping. Maybe a few RINO's still have a little grey matter left in their heads? At very least if they wish to protect their own hides they had better be smart enough to realize we WILL front challenges in their primaries or cast them out for a Dem. I have about had my feel of RINO's, and I used to be of opinion they had SOME value. they've convinced me otherwise.

Neither party is prepared for the quagmire and for how the public will react.

Wrong.

I am fully prepared for the hysteria of the Left and their PR organ. I am fully prepared for them to sink even lower than calling the President a Loser, Liar and Hitler. I am fully prepared for something of greater significance than the Boxer rebellion. The Dems will try to torch the building to the ground if they continue losing, I suffer no delusions. They'll attempt to take our Republic with them. I also suffer no illusions that we must fight to the bloody end to defeat them permanently. Otherwise we might as will surrender to France.

[Soul Seeker]

Wrong.

Frist will take the vote.

If the Six Cowards refuse to break the filibuster, they'll be on record with that refusal. That record will be used against them in their next elections by our side. perhaps even the Dems would use it against them.

The cowards do not want to make a recorded vote on this issue, but Frist is going to force them to do so and there is nothing they can do to stop that.

It doesn't mean they can't make a back door deal to vote the judges down once on the floor, but it does mean if the Dems force us to call for a vote to amend the rules that no one will be able to hide their voice vote from their angered constituents if it is a "no".

[Jim Robinson]

All Democrat senators are leftist extremists who believe in murdering babies, restricting rights to free religion, infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, pushing wacko envrironmentalism, forcing feminism and homosexualism on the rest of us, promoting international treaties not in our best interest, refusing to defend the nation when attacked, doing all in their power to eliminate constitutional limits on government, advocating Marxist/socialist government programs that would redistribute wealth, destroy private property rights, capitalism, freedom, liberty, etc, etc, etc. The only judges they would willingly accept would be those from the same Marxist/socialist extremist mold.

Damn the Marxist Democrats. Exercise the constitutional option now!

[Malesherbes]

This is another instance in which the comments by Freepers are far and away more interesting than the original article.