Guess which one is the demoncrat and which one is the "never learn" pubbie..
Posted on 05/25/2005 11:31:45 PM PDT by ambrose
MAY. 24, 2005: THE DEAL
Put me down with those who believe that on balance the Senate deal is pretty good for conservatives.
I fear that many critics of the deal under-estimate the risks of forcing a vote on ending the filibuster for judicial nominations. Let's remember please that it was not at all guaranteed that conservatives would actually win such a vote in the Senate. And even if conservatives did win, the victory would keep at a price in the court of public opinion. Would it make sense to pay so heavy a price for a marginally better outcome?
Let's remember next that on the issues actually before the Senate today - not hypothetically down the road, but right now - the Republicans have got their way. They have got three judges heading to a vote, and two others who may follow. Those are irrreversible facts. In return for which, the Republicans have done ... nothing irreversible. If the Dems act in bad faith, then the deal is off, and Republicans are back where they are now.
Much of the opposition to the deal I think proceeds from two mistakes:
1) A desire not only to win, but to be seen to win - not only to get one's way, but to force one's opponents to admit themselves beaten.
2) Too much attention to the bird in the bush, not enough to the bird in the hand. Conservatives are tormenting themselves with "what if" scenarios: what if the other side breaks its word, or interprets "extraordinary" in too permissive a way, etc. And those may well emerge as pressing problems. Or they may not. For the time being, though, the Republicans have gained their point and without a televised bloodbath in the Senate with unpredictable political consequences.
The great question of course is: what if the Dems cheat? What if they interpret "extraordinary circumstances" to mean "any principled conservative"? The answer is that we then return to exactly where we were the day before yesterday - only up three additional confirmed conservative judges. I agree with Brad Berenson's shrewd point that the president should now promptly test this deal by sending up the names of the dsuperbly qualified lawyers who had till now been stymied by Democratic obstructionism:
"Before the ink is dry on this deal, the White House and Senate Republican leadership should work together to bring to the floor as quickly as possible all the remaining circuit court appointments, including those of nominees such as Brett Kavanaugh and Jim Haynes, whom the Democrats would previously have had on their hit list. If any of those nominees draws a filibuster, we will know that the deal is a fraud, the Republican moderates who cut the deal will look ridiculous, and the pressure will be back on to implement a permanent, institutional solution."
(For those who don't know: Kavanaugh is a brilliant lawyer, now White House staff secretary, formerly an associate counsel in the White House counsel's office; before that a Supreme Court clerk and a graduate of Yale law school. He is being kept off the bench for one reason only: payback for his work as one of the leading lawyers in the Ken Starr investigation. Jim Haynes, a Harvard lawyer and former active duty captain in the US Army, is general counsel to the Department of Defense. In any rational world these would be obvious choices for a federal judgeship - indeed, we would be worrying about how we could attract such high calibre talent away from the plush pay packets of private life to public service.)
And if as Brad fears the Democrats renege - why then yes, the deal would be off. Brad complains that the memorandum of understanding does not explicitly tie Democratic non-performance. That would be bad contract drafting, but I don't think anybody can mistake that one clause of this political deal is a quid pro quo for the other.
Bottom line: I think most historically minded people would agree that the Democratic filibuster of judges has outrageously violated past senatorial norms and amply deserves counter-action. And if you think that action to break the Democratic filibuster would be more or less politically cost-free for Republicans, then yes, I can see how you might object to this deal. But if you agree with me that breaking the filibuster could cost dearly, then I think the deal for all its flaws looks like an accomplishment - and certainly deserves to be regarded as such until we learn for certain that the Dems are weaseling on its terms.
11:57 PM
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Very interesting article. I ebb and flow about this deal. My first reaction was that it was not a good deal. Then I took more of a wait and see attitude.
The reason not to change the rules is that the Dims threatened then to use every trick in the rule book. I think the Bolton confirmation is a huge test of this. There is no excuse for the Dims blocking an immediate vote on Bolton.
The one thing the writer leaves out is that the GOP had the momentum for a rules change. Could that be altered by delay if the Dims later cheat?
In a way, I wouldn't mind seeing the Democrats filibuster some nominee just to see McCain, Graham and the other RINOs eat crow.
And then, some of those who sat on the fence before, will have no choice but to vote to change the cloture rule.
Aside from the fact that I love to bitch, my anger is all about the cabal; the side senate, who determined amongst themselves to surrender power to the minority.
Elections are supposed to have consequences; the most important being, 'winner takes all he can.'
The democrat filibuster was a fraud on its face. Make them filibuster 24/7. Yes, I wanted the nuke.
There is a big difference between the Republicans threatening a filibuster in October 1968 to let the next president who would be elected in a month's time be the one to make the nominations rather than the lame duck Lyndon Johnson and DemocRATS preventing a floor vote for over four years on qualified appealate judges nominated by W. I don't think it would be appropriate for an outgoing president to appoint a whole bunch of judges to pack the courts just prior to an election, but I think it is ridiculous to prevent the Senate from voting on judges for more than a year.
Guess which one is the demoncrat and which one is the "never learn" pubbie..
The "public opinion" aspect of "the deal" was simply part and parcel of establishing cover for a few nervous Republicans. To me, the big question was never about "paying a heavy price" - - it was about WINNING, and to hell with public opinion or any other "heavy price" if a win was assured. But I am not at all certain that Frist had the votes - - in fact I am pretty sure he did not have the votes. (That would explain all the delays and requests for "patience".)
"The deal" will not only soften public opinion, it will also assure the votes Frist needs to WIN. The slightest risk of a loss was not worth it at any price. (Just think for a moment about the ramifications of a failed attempt to go nuclear....) What needed to be done was done.
This desire was NEVER a "mistake".
I always saw this as an essential element of the desired outcome: the Democrats on their knees, bleeding from the nose and mouth, shredded, torn, eyes swollen shut, and pleading for mercy. Such an outcome was not a mistake, but an essential part of gaining true and unchallenged legislative governance for the Republicans.
The Democrats have to be beaten into utter submission. Perhaps thirsting for revenge, but utterly without the means of obtaining it, with two or three Senators peeled off and working with Republicans because they want to be on the winning side - every time. Democrats must be made to live quaking in fearfulness of our wrath. They must forever foreswear attempting to thwart our programs - ever.
Instead, we have left them bowed but unbeaten, and thirsting for revenge. This fight has not been prevented. It has been delayed, and not for long. The Democrats are now busy accumulating weapons, and the next time we meet, those weapons will not be hidden away. We had best be prepared.
Even John Warner is saying the nuclear option is NOT off the table. These so-called RINOs have done us all a great favor. After getting all this media praise for being so sensible, they will have good standing to say that the Rats lied, if they go back on their word.
Anyone heard what Spector is up too?
I was initially disappointed, but today I realized fuming about what could have been or should have been was just a frustrating academic exercise.
I am certain the dems will filibuster again,but when that happens the Rs hold the high ground.This whole dance has been brought to the attention of more folks.
That is a plus,since the dems are weaker when too many people know too much.Like the rats they are, dims prefer the dark.
Somebody posted on another thread that they thought that part of "the deal" was that the conservatives had to act like they lost. There may be more truth to that bit of sarcasm than meets the eye. The irony is that many conservatives DO think they lost - - and it's no act! But of all the people who were apparently fooled by "the deal", Rush is the most disappointing. Rush, of all people, should understand that the act being played out is not for the benefit of any "base" - - it is for the benefit of that huge mindless chattering class of people who get the sum total of their news from top-of-the-hour CBS sound bites on their car radios during the drive home from work.
Think for a minute about the ramifications of calling for a vote to go nuclear and LOSING that vote.... Rush and some other conservatives sound like they were willing to take that risk as a matter of PRINCIPLE! No thanks. In this game, winning is the ONLY thing. Losing while proving that you are "principled" is like being a good driver who gets killed in a car crash that was the other guy's fault.
The fact is, Frist DID NOT HAVE the votes to go nuclear. A few fence-sitting Senators needed cover - - they needed a stronger reason to "nuke" the Senate than a distaste for a Democrat filibustering tactic that had been successfully sold to the masses by the dying socialist "mainstream" media as the only weapon "the little guy" had against "the tyranny of the majority". Add to that all the baloney about the "staid tradition of the Senate", etc., and it was easy to paint the Republicans as bullies. The Democrats were winning the PR war, plain and simple, thanks mainly to their allies in the liberal newsrooms.
But now, thanks to "the deal", the fence-sitting "moderates" have all the cover they need. Any frivolous filibustering of nominees who are NOT as conservative as Priscilla Owens will be viewed as a breach of contract by the Democrats - - a betrayal. And precisely the cover certain nervous Republicans thought they needed. Not only have Graham and DeWine stated that they will have little tolerance for Democrat obstructionism, but now EVEN SUSAN COLLINS has joined them by saying essentially the same thing! Thanks to "the deal", Frist now has the votes to WIN. In the bag.
And it will now be much tougher for the rats and their allies in the press to paint the Republicans as unreasonable bullies - - after all the Republicans "compromised" didn't they?
Game, set, match.
It is a beautiful thing.
Har! You nailed it! And you just said in one sentence what it took me 5+ paragraphs to say! (Post #15)
Regards,
LH
I recognize the possibility that this is a clever plan, and I truly hope you are right. I look at the folk behind this and I wonder if they are capable of such cleverness.
And what about Voinovich's sorry performance on the Bolton nomination? That sniveling weepy speech in the Senate was positively revolting.
The GOP has made the pitch that we need a Republican majority in the Senate and it was delivered, for all the good it has done. You really cannot separate the RINOs from the Democrats.
What has happened here is that the GOP majority in the Senate has been nullified by an alliance of so called Democratic and GOP moderates who have effectively stopped Conservative control of the Judicial confirmations.
There are few issues more crucial to the destiny of the the United States than the direction of Judicial rulings. That is the last place Liberals have the advantage, and it is a dominant one. The Judges say whether there will be abortions or prayers in school or what our gun rights are. You name it, the courts decide.
Can the rest of the GOP believe that Conservatives voted for the loathsome Arlen Spector based on his charm and good looks over a good Conservative opponent or other similar odious choices? No, we swallowed our gorge, held our noses and voted for them in the hope that majority pressure would be enough to direct then in the direction the mandate indicated, but nothing motivates these animals except their personal politcal ambitions and their egos.
I was born yesterday. Everything is good. All that the democrats did was for all of our good! Thanks guys. I know you all are looking out for the good of Americans. Thanks everybody. God bless you all! Gosh, what a Republic we live in! AAAAAhhhhhhhhh! !!!!~!!!!!
-
#15 - good post.
Thing that struck me is neither DeWine nor Graham are known to be "RINOs" - certainly not like Chafee or Snowe. It is almost like they decided to have two more conservative senators in the bunch who'd be willing to pull the trigger if circumstances called for it.
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.