Posted on 06/10/2005 9:39:49 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
WHO'S WINNING IN WASHINGTON RIGHT now? Republicans, President Bush included. But they are winning ugly, and just barely. Actually, if success on Social Security reform is the yardstick, Republicans aren't winning at all. What changes the score is success on judges. Thanks to the Gang of 14 deal to save the filibuster, a parade of relatively young and attractive conservatives are now being confirmed for the federal appeals courts, putting them in position to be nominated later for vacancies on the Supreme Court.
When the agreement on judicial nominations was struck in May by seven Republican and seven Democratic senators, many conservatives agreed with Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid that it was a victory for Democrats. They were wrong. Since the agreement, the three prime targets of Democrats--Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor--have all been confirmed, plus two other less controversial nominees. And more conservatives are in the confirmation pipeline. So while Bush's chances of creating personal investment accounts have faded, his goal of shifting the ideological tilt of the federal judiciary is closer at hand.
Considerable credit goes to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Without his pressure to enact the so-called nuclear option barring filibusters of judicial nominees, the deal leading to the string of confirmations would not have occurred. Also, the showdown over filibustering helped place the very idea of filibustering judges in an unfavorable light. This is especially significant with the likelihood of a Supreme Court vacancy (or two) this summer. Another result was to declare, as the Gang of 14 senators did, that the filibuster may be used to block a judicial nominee only in "extraordinary circumstances."
Who decides when these circumstances occur? The answer is Republicans. Reid said the nuclear option is "off the table." But it's not. Three Republican members of the Gang of 14--Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and John Warner of Virginia--indicated they would vote for the nuclear option if Democrats filibustered a nominee who was a conventional conservative and not an extremist. Such a nomination would not constitute "extraordinary circumstances." And only two of them would need to defect from the Gang of 14 deal to pass the nuclear option.
The fight over judges showed again the fecklessness of Reid. He mischaracterized the upshot of the Gang of 14 deal because he actually believed it was a triumph for Democrats. Reid has scarcely any influence over the Senate Democratic caucus. Heavyweights like Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware don't follow his orders. Reid promised Frist he would deliver enough Democrats to prevent a filibuster of John Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations. He couldn't deliver. Reid is no Tom Daschle, who was an effective obstructionist.
Republicans have also been aided by Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, who has made himself a big issue. He has stereotyped himself as a trash-talking party chairman. And the press has responded accordingly. Reporters now look for him to blast Republicans in over-the-top language. Or they ask him to repudiate the harsh things he's already said. Rather than make a fool of himself, Dean is supposed to be raising money and expanding the party. He's failing at both.
In comparison, Ken Mehlman is doing exactly what he's supposed to as Republican national chairman. Mehlman spends much of his time proselytizing Hispanics and blacks. He makes no wild charges about Democrats. Interviewed on Meet the Press, he declined even to criticize Dean. Mehlman proves that a strategist is better suited to be party chairman than a politician who has held elective office. His top goal is enlarging the Republican coalition. Dean lusts after the roar of the crowd and thinks about what office he'll run for next.
At a White House meeting last week with Republican congressional leaders, the president made a confession. He's been promoting legislation to allow thousands of illegal immigrants to get green cards and work legally for three to six years in the United States. "I have not communicated this issue as well as I should have," he was quoted as saying. "I'm going to do better."
What Republicans on Capitol Hill want is for Bush to emphasize border security. At town hall meetings in the home districts of House Republicans, the problem of illegal immigrant crossings is a hot topic. House Republican whip Roy Blunt believes a few legislative steps are needed to pave the way for Bush's plan to let illegals work in the United States. One would be to tighten restrictions on hiring illegal aliens. Another would be to give employers access to information about an immigrant's legal status. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay favors even tougher legislation. In any case, the Bush plan is not a top priority in Congress for now.
Social Security reform, however, remains a priority, despite the president's inability to stir public support. His plan is in the same position tax reform was in 1986. It seemed to have no national constituency, but it had the backing of President Reagan and a few Democrats. Tax reform passed, cutting the top rate on individual income to 28 percent. Bush's hopes for overhauling Social Security now depend not on public enthusiasm but on "legislative maneuverings" in Congress, a White House official said.
That is shorthand for persuading a few Democrats to break with their party. Bush hasn't been able to recruit any and neither have Republican leaders. But they faced the same situation earlier, on judicial nominations, and look what happened there.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
This is straight out of Saul Alinsky's playbook for radicals. And all the ubers here on FR keep thinking we lost. Perhaps they didn't read enough Marx or Lenin when growing up: this is exactly how you win. Whenever there is a compromise that offers ANYTHING tangible, take it, then fight about the intangibles such as "the principle of judicial filibusters," about which NO ONE gives a hoot. If you have the judges, the "principles" are irrelevant.
I'm really surprised that so many hard-headed conservatives refuse to admit this: it's the same concept as elections---it's who COUNTS the votes that is important.
I tend to agree with you.
....i sure don't. It has failed, and his 2nd term is a real disappointment thus far.....
What a load of crap. His second term is 120 days old and the list of accomplishments is both long and deep. The issues have been raised and the battle joined.
So far he is winning the actual skirmishes on the gropund. There is real Rat blood on the floor.
The process works one issue at a time in a carefully coreographed legislative schedule. You should be enjoying the unfolding process rather than carping about everything at once on your own schedule.
I think Dean's just being himself. This is exactly the kind of behavior that lost him the nomination. It's just what he does.
A reasonable opposition party should be expected as well.
Didn't happen....so it's lemonade time.
I think it may turn out fine after all, but I believe it was your (and the base's) anger that made it so.
Lindsey, et al, have taken a severe beating by their constintuencies over what they did, and they're now in a position where they'd better stand firm against democrats claiming extraordinary circumstances where none exist.
BTTT
Bump
With the additional benefit that failure of the left in 2006 will get them to sit down and shut up about a "moderate" Hillary. All they need to seal the deal is another 9-11 before the election. They could then cash in politically on Bush's open border (the Hildabeast has been wailing about "border security" for some time (as if she really cares)). I'm certain they can find the technical help abroad to get it done.
The fact that the cloven-footed one has taken to wearing cowboy boots to hide the sign of the beast {and cover those beautiful skankles} does not even come close to changing her communist outlook on politicis. She is a witch, the daughter of {and lover to} satan and all of the gentle media spin will never change that bitch. piaps has managed via her friends in the msm to keep her lezbo lovers well hidden but they still exist. After writing about the wife of bj, I need to go and shower.
Thousands? Try millions and tens of millions.
Bush's ability to move the Supreme Court to the right will be limited. It depends on who steps down. Rehnquist, of course, is likely to leave the Court soon, but replacing him with a conservative just maintains the existing breakdown. If O'Connor retires, she might be replaced by a true conservative--in which case we will see a battle royal in the Senate. The oldest liberals (Stevens and Ginsburg) will probably try to hold on until 2009.
Clarence Thomas holds the seat formerly held by Thurgood Marshall, who retired in 1991 but didn't die until 1993. I wonder if Marshall's decision to retire was based on the assumption that George H. W. Bush would be re-elected, since his popularity ratings were so high in 1991 after the Gulf War.
I agree. I've heard Lindsey say on several occasions that he would support the Nuclear Option if the dems try to filibuster someone that he does not consider extreme. I've also heard Frist say words to the effect that the Nuclear Option is off the table only as long as there are no judicial nominees being filibustered.
They both are. No..my point is that Bush's relatively meager SS plan was poorly marketed and sold from the get-go. All the massive time and traveling across the land he spent on that and pushing the bankruptcy bill, he could have made enormous headway slamming the fillibuster issues down the RATs throats nationally, humiliating them over Janice Brown's sharecropper ancestry, and destroying their Senate insurgency.
What is Clinton's legacy? Two bills...Family/Medical leave (yawn) and Assault Weapons Ban (now extinct). Nothing else of substance was his (welfare reform was 100% Gingrich, after 3 Clinton vetoes). BUT Clinton put on the bench more judges than Reagan. THAT is a legacy we and our children are and will have to live with for a long time, in the form of outrageous "living document" ACLU leftists on courts across the land working hard every day to undermine our nations and its values.
Now Bush's SS plan is DOA, and he has 1/3 the amount of judges benched as Clinton did atthe same point in his administration. THIS is Bush's legacy, and it should have been Job #1 after the last election, not fourth fiddle to SS, Bankruptcy, and Alien Amnesty.
Am I making sense to you now?
I disagree with you. If Dean wanted to get fired, believe me, there would be a handshake and he'd be gone. Dean actually thinks this is the way to raise money. There are three reasons why he is wrong: (1) That's not a good sign to big money donors, they like to be associated with a winner. (2) Small money donors don't donate money except during hot political contests, not in off years. (3) Democrats just don't raise money from the granola crowd. The money comes from Peter Lewis, George Soros, and similar types. As radical as those guys are, they do not like to be associated with such a nutcase, unless they are pulling the strings.
I admire your idealism. However unless you run a credit card company, the already-passed legislation is unlikely to make your life better. To borrow your phrase, this administration has done a "piss poor" job in packaging, marketing and selling the SS reforms to the American public and Congress alike. Remember how Clinton's inept handling of several initiative left them in the dust? Politics is not big on second chances. By contrast, Bush handled the tax cuts brilliantly and deciseively, and that is a huge part of his legacy. I wish he had done the same with the SS plan, but he has not. Hope springs eternal, but it doesn't look too promising, and given the lousy reaction, it's unlikely too many GOP candidates are going to run on private accounts in 06.
As far as your downplaying the importance of judges as legacy in favor of "legislation", you should remember well how up in arms we are nearly everyday as Conservatives, as a result of left-wing judges doing an enormous amount of legislating themselves (from the bench) over the past 40 years, to the great harm of this nation.
He seems to be implying that Republicans might use the 'nuclear' option for legislation. They had good arguments when it came to nominees (judicial or otherwise). I don't think the filibuster will be overturned on legislation, though.
Post 1995 the only legacy that matters is judges. Bar a constitutional ammendment ANY legislation passed by any president and congress can be warpped and or negated by the courts.
The courts ARE the issue, because they are acting as defacto unelected lifetime legislators. I voted for Bush for mainly for two reasons: WOT and judges. This is not to say that I think he was a substandard candidate, nothing could be further from the truth; but of the two main reasons to elect a president the war and judges will have the biggest long term impact on this country and my children.
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.