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 ...
Tierney is Safire's replacement. Brooks joined the Times in the wake of L'Affair Blair.
Tierney is supposed to be a Libertarian. Both he and Brooks are sad.
They are both head and shoulders above Krugman, Dowd, Herbert, Rich and The New York Times Editorial Board.
How so? He's no moderate. Here's a listing of columns. I believe they have all been posted here.
I believe that is called "damning with faint praise."
On the other hand Nick Kristof sometimes makes sense. Recent columns on Religion and nuclear power were quite thoughtful.
I didn't consider Bashing Newsweek to be a scolding. Maybe some skins are too thin.
Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review Online had the same reaction as Brooks in The Smug Delusion of Base Expectations: Count me out of the Newsweek feeding frenzy.
Both articles are requests for some perpective.
Brooks isn't one of us. He's a weenie.
Because the NY Times is the pace car of the news media. Whatever they print it has a profound impact on the rest of the media and usually leadoff most newscasts.
They still have a powerful influence, despite the fact that the paper isn't worth to swat flies with.
"However, it will surface in future elections and the time, effort, and money given to the party."
I already sent a handwritten note on the back of an RNC fund raising letter telling them that as long as activist judges are running this country we don't need a political party, a congress etc.
Also complained about open borders and CFR while I was at it.
We are P!SSED - we didn't give our time and money to win an election only to have our "representatives" act like we lost it!
And they could still filibuster to ANY nominee -- even from the "acceptable list" -- because Ben Nelson said that it would be left up to each individual senator to define "extreme" or "extraordinary."
At least somebody partially gets it. While some stories are obviously slanted, not all of their stories are politcized. They have resources other papers just dream about, especially regarding stories that are not about politics.
"Here's an example of why moderates never accomplish anything in Washington."
That was the first sentence.
Exactly if there were even five moderate Dims, there would be no filibuster. It does not take a gang of 12 from both parties. It takes five Dims to vote for cloture and this whole silliness is over.
Filibuster would theoretically remain if a presidential judical nominee with majority support was a threat to the US. This would unlikely ever happen given that the US managed to survive even the Dred Scott decision and many other terrible US Supreme Court rulings in our history.
So with a mere 5 moderate Dims, we would be back to pre-Bush status quo in the area of judicial nominations. It will be interesting to see if there are 5 moderate Dims who would value the institution of the Senate over party possible short term gain.
We know that Ben Nelson has stepped up. Are there 4 more? Bill Nelson has vote for cloture once and ducked lots of other of these votes. Tim Johnson saw what happened in his state to the last obstructionist Dim senator seeking reelection. Ken Salazar campaigned saying that judicial appointments deserved an up or down vote. Kent Conrad has to run for reelection in a little over a year in a state, North Dakota President Bush carried with 63% of the vote. He too surely had to notice what happened to an obstructionist Dim running for reelection in the state south of his? Those 5 would be enough and others like Landrieu, Byah Pryor, Lincoln or even Bryd or Reid come from states that help elect Bush and know they should help end this silliness. Heck even a guy like Lieberman from a state that voted against Bush knows that he too should help end this.
It is shocking that 5 of those Dims will not step up to the plate and return comity to the Senate? Surely out of 45 Dims there are 5 moderates who value the Senate over their party and would be willing to stop filibustering qualified judges based on politics or sex or race or religion? I know the Dim party has sunk pretty low, but this low?
I guess so. Didn't Moveon.org say something to the effect to the dems that your base belongs to us, at least for fund raising?
Oh, great! Now instead of 40 Senators deciding on judges, 12 will. Give me back my constitution! Return to pre-Byrd days!
Don't let the 'RATs take over. The GOP has got to remember that it was THEY, the GOP, who won the last two elections and it's they, all of them, who should vote for the Judges!
I have gained a great deal of respect for Senator Frist. What he is doing is something that must be done.
If moderates dominated the Philadelphia Convention in 1776 we'd be discussing when Prime Minister Bush should again dissolve the American Parliment.
LOL!
Much as I hate to give him any credit, Spector hit it on the head Friday when he pointed out that in the compromise when the Rats offered to confirm any 1 of the 4 judges in exchange for withholding a vote on the filibuster rule, they were admitting they were ALL qualified, and THAT made the filibuster's not ABOUT the individuals judges a partisan tactic.
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.