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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: davidtalker
He was their replacement for Safire.

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.

41 posted on 05/21/2005 9:01:31 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
How come we now have to excerpt the NY Times, if I may ask? A bunch of folks are only reading the excerpt on this story, The Message From the Sunni Heartland, and just embarrassing themselves in their comments.
42 posted on 05/21/2005 9:07:45 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RedRover
By Conservative standards, he's a zero.

How so? He's no moderate. Here's a listing of columns. I believe they have all been posted here.

43 posted on 05/21/2005 9:16:24 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
They are both head and shoulders above Krugman, Dowd, Herbert, Rich and The New York Times Editorial Board.

I believe that is called "damning with faint praise."

44 posted on 05/21/2005 9:34:19 PM PDT by LexBaird ("Democracy can withstand anything but democrats" --Jubal Harshaw (RA Heinlein))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
That's true. However, that's faint praise. The NY Times Leftists go for the jugular. The so-called Conservatives try to make nice. Brooks scolded Conservatives earlier this week for getting after Newsweek and Michael Isikoff. When is the last time you ever saw Dowd, Rich, Krugman or Herbert get after the Libs?

On the other hand Nick Kristof sometimes makes sense. Recent columns on Religion and nuclear power were quite thoughtful.

45 posted on 05/21/2005 9:34:47 PM PDT by davidtalker (David Gold - goldtalk.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: davidtalker
Brooks scolded Conservatives earlier this week for getting after Newsweek and Michael Isikoff.

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.

46 posted on 05/21/2005 9:56:05 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: everyone

Brooks isn't one of us. He's a weenie.


47 posted on 05/21/2005 10:49:55 PM PDT by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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

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.

48 posted on 05/21/2005 11:00:36 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Harmful Or Fatal If Swallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bush 100 Percent

"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!


49 posted on 05/21/2005 11:15:19 PM PDT by Let's Roll ( "Congressmen who ... undermine the military ... should be arrested, exiled or hanged" - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
The real deal breaker in this "compromise" is that the Democrats are demanding that the Senate be able to compile a list of "acceptable" nominees for the President to choose from for HIS nominees. (They've been dying for this provision for about ten years.)

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."

50 posted on 05/21/2005 11:22:43 PM PDT by Howlin (Up or down on Janice Brown!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
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.

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.

51 posted on 05/21/2005 11:35:47 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot
Brooks isn't one of us. He's a weenie.

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

That was the first sentence.

52 posted on 05/21/2005 11:39:23 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

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?


53 posted on 05/22/2005 12:07:51 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JLS
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?

54 posted on 05/22/2005 12:20:11 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RepublicanMensan

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!


55 posted on 05/22/2005 3:41:36 AM PDT by SouthCarolinaKit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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

I have gained a great deal of respect for Senator Frist. What he is doing is something that must be done.

56 posted on 05/22/2005 4:26:00 AM PDT by Bahbah (Something wicked this way comes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If moderates dominated the Philadelphia Convention in 1776 we'd be discussing when Prime Minister Bush should again dissolve the American Parliment.


57 posted on 05/22/2005 4:30:26 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Howlin, I think everybody needs to contact these Senators and their Senators and let them know what an INSULT this is to the voters.

What power does the Senate want to take away from the Voters next?

Changing a RULE is a problem, but changing the CONSTITUTION
is not?
58 posted on 05/22/2005 6:43:14 AM PDT by Bush 100 Percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

LOL!


59 posted on 05/22/2005 6:49:45 AM PDT by strategofr (What did happen to those 293 boxes of secret FBI files (esp on Senators) Hillary stole?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Socratic

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.


60 posted on 05/22/2005 7:10:31 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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