Posted on 02/10/2007 11:53:35 AM PST by RWR8189
What prompted Senate majority leader Harry Reid to think he could outmaneuver Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell on which Iraq war resolutions would be voted on is anybody's guess. Reid never had a chance, and he lost badly. The media played the story as a simple case of Republicans, led by McConnell, blocking a debate on the Iraq war that was certain to be dominated by war critics. But that's not what happened--not even close.
Republicans were, in fact, ready for the ballyhooed week of debate that would include votes on two resolutions. Democrats would get a vote on their anti-President Bush, antiwar resolution. McConnell insisted Republicans be given a vote on the resolution of their choice. That resolution, authored by Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, promised to continue the funding of troops in Iraq.
Reid and Democrats panicked at the thought of having to vote for or against this measure, which didn't express an opinion on Bush's "surge" of 21,500 more troops in Iraq or on the war itself. Voting for the Gregg resolution would make it more difficult for Democrats to cut off funding later. They'd look like flip-floppers. But if they voted against it, they could be accused of not supporting the troops. So Reid refused to allow a vote on the Gregg resolution. McConnell responded by mounting a Republican filibuster Democrats couldn't overcome. And the Senate was prevented from proceeding with its planned week of debate on the Iraq war.
That Republicans won this encounter should have been clear to everyone. A poisonous debate on Iraq, attracting massive press coverage that was bound to be unfavorable to Bush and his war plans, was averted. Democrats were denied the headline they craved, "Senate Rebuffs Bush on Iraq." And Republicans sent a message that they wouldn't be pushed around by Reid and the Democrats. A more succinct way of putting all this is that McConnell won and Reid lost.
"Our goal was not to kill the Iraq resolutions," McConnell says. "Our goal was to have the debate, but in a manner that was fair to both sides." To McConnell, fairness meant Reid could not impose his will on Republicans and determine which of their resolutions would be voted on. (For the Republican resolution, Reid favored the one authored by Senator John McCain that defended President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq but set rigid benchmarks the Iraqi government must meet.) As it turned out, Reid clumsily overreached. Without much trouble, McConnell collected enough Republican votes, plus Democratic senator Joe Lieberman's, to block Reid's gambit.
On Iraq and every other issue, the struggle in the closely divided Senate comes down to this: McConnell understands the situation and knows how to deal with it far better than Reid does. Republicans are the minority, 49 to 51, but the minority has advantages in the Senate. "The Senate is built for defense," McConnell says. "The House is built for offense."
The key tool in the hands of the Senate minority is the filibuster, which allows unlimited debate if 41 senators reject cloture, which shuts off debate after 30 hours. "If you have 41, you can dictate the process," McConnell says. "If you don't have 41, you get rolled." McConnell intends to keep Republicans from being rolled. So far, he and Republicans have defeated all four Democratic efforts to halt debate.
"There are two things you can do with 41 or more dissenters," according to McConnell. You can block a bill or a resolution or you can "shape" it. In the Iraq debate, McConnell wanted to shape the outcome, not bar a vote on resolutions. He and Republican senators had come up with five separate resolutions. But the cleverly drafted Gregg resolution stood out. It said, "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds."
"That created a unique dilemma," says McConnell. Because Democrats were wary of voting against the Gregg resolution, it was likely to gain more votes than the antiwar, anti-surge resolution. Indeed, it was expected to get more than the 60 votes required for passage. Thus it might overshadow the Democratic resolution. Under the circumstances, Reid and Democrats decided no resolution and no debate would be preferable to allowing this one to pass.
Even so, Reid was not spared the embarrassment of being asked by Gregg, on the Senate floor, if he would vote for "my resolution." Reid dodged the issue. "I don't think I have to make that judgment now," he said. "Because the judgment, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, is not some diversionary matter. The issue before this body and the issue before the American people--that's why we're getting hundreds of phone calls in my office and other Senate offices around the country--the issue is, Does the Senate support the president's surge?"
McConnell, after a dozen years of Republican rule in the Senate, has schooled Republicans on how to operate effectively as a minority. He recruited Martin Gold, an expert on minority rights in the Senate, to advise senators and their staff. The filibuster that stopped the Iraq debate, Gold says, "was a very early and very important test of whether the McConnell minority would stand up for itself or whether it would fracture." It showed Republicans would "not be railroaded."
They weren't railroaded when a bill boosting the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour reached the Senate floor in January. Democrats wanted a "clean" bill with only the wage hike. Republicans wanted tax cuts for small businesses that would be affected by the higher wage. Reid tried twice to halt debate and failed. So tax relief was added to the minimum wage bill. Republicans also used the filibuster to have a say on congressional ethics reform. McConnell mustered 46 votes to block the shutoff of the ethics debate.
McConnell wants a role in shaping the House-passed energy bill too, once it reaches the Senate. But he is bent on killing the legislation, already approved by the House, that would have the federal government negotiate drug prices in the Medicare prescription drug benefit program. "We're going to kill that proudly," he says. "It won't be a question of shaping."
The filibuster, even in the hands of as skilled a Senate leader as McConnell, has its limits. For instance, it won't help Republicans win confirmation of federal appeals courts nominees. "There's no easy way to extract nominees from committee," he says. The last three presidents got on average 17 appeals court nominees approved in their final two years, while facing a Senate ruled by the opposite party, McConnell says. To be fair, Democrats should allow at least that number to be confirmed now, he argues.
McConnell's first major venture in exploiting minority rights in the Senate came in 1994 when Democrats still had a majority. A campaign finance reform bill that would have imposed public financing on congressional races had passed both houses of Congress. McConnell consulted Senate secretary Elizabeth Letchworth to find out if there were any options left to block the legislation.
Letchworth told him three motions must be passed before conferees can be dispatched to iron out differences between the Senate and House bills. But of course nobody had ever filibustered those motions before, and she recommended against breaking new ground. That didn't stop McConnell. He succeeded in blocking the second motion. The bill died. Six weeks later, Republicans captured the Senate and House in the 1994 landslide.
Now, in the minority once more, McConnell is prepared to filibuster conferees again. He's wary of what might happen in a Senate-House conference on the minimum wage increase. The House passed a hike with no tax relief, and he doesn't want the Senate conferees to go along with that.
"We'll have to have a discussion of what might come out" of the conference, McConnell says. "That will be a lengthy and interesting discussion." In all likelihood, McConnell will get his way.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
...and a brain... like about 50,000 to one over "dingy harry"
This has nothing to do with predicting the future although (correct me if I am wrong) he and Chrystal (yes, the female name) predicted lossed in the 2006 election.
His analysis is spot on.
Why would any Pubbie expect the Dems to "play fair"? There is no way that the Dems will "play fair" with judges. Even if they had any thoughts of doing so (which they don't), they wouldn't dare do so now because that would offend their radical Leftist base.
Dingy is about as bright as Patty Murray.
I think my dog could have predicted how the '06 elections were going to play out.
I prefer my political analysts to be non-partisan. Leave partisanship to the politicians and agendists.
I can hardly believe that pubbies in Congress have a senator with brains, guts and a spine. It makes me almost believe in Santa Claus.
Yet when the republicans were in the majority we all bitched about the dashole minority stopping any and everything.
And yes I know he was in the congress.
Have always liked Mitch McConnell. Good wrting by Barnes.
Oh Fred is OK but my concern is why did not the Pubs use this brilliant party strategy in '05, '06 when they should have been beating the brains out of the Dem lib minority?? They should have been pushing every BASE concern for the years they held the Senate. Now it is too late.
The writing's on the wall....base concerns have taken a backseat to international concerns, and our voters are feeling a bit used by having their concerns used solely as an electral device while being legislatively ignored.
It's not TOO late. It is better late than never.
Well .. I sure told him:
1. We are mad as hell (and we're not a bunch of wild-eyed kooks) - we're your BASE.
2. We want the repubs to stop playing footsy with the dems.
3. We want the rampant spending (pork barrel stuff) to STOP!
4. We want the corruption to be dealt with fast and sure - and we don't care how the dems handle it - we know they're going to lie and hide - but the repubs better not try that.
These are the reasons most of the base didn't show up in 2006. We didn't want the dems to win .. but you were ignoring us .. and .. WHAT EVER YOU DO .. DO NOT CONFUSE 2006 WITH ANY EFFORT ON OUR PART TO CUT AND RUN FROM THE WAR. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO WINNING ..??
We want to WIN in Iraq! .. we do not want to tell the families of our fallen .. your family member died in vain.
you should still be encouraged. Mitch McConnell is a real man and won't be rolled by dingy harry and his ilk. McConnell knows how to fight and isn't afraid.
Yeah, but the Senate can't do anything legislatively without the House stamp.
I noticed that the legacy media went out of its way to explain cloture, something they never did when the dems were obstructing GOP bills.
Plenty of people on FR couldn't. Hell, there were some Kool-Aid drinkers predicting republican gains.
Fred votes republican. I can live with that.
Imagine how effective Mr. Barnes could be for Republicans if he were advocating for the Democrats.
Too bad they weren't very good when they had the MAJORITY!!! Frist was a HUGE disappointment.
Reid will be totally shown to be the total FOOL and GIRLY MAN he is.
I suspect I'm going to have to email Sen. Reid and tell him he is an embarrassment to Nevada. He is so full of himself, it's not funny. How anyone can believe the lies that come out of his mouth is beyond me.
Thanks for the ping...I'll forward the URL...
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.