Posted on 09/04/2003 10:47:50 PM PDT by kattracks
Democrats won a Pyrrhic victory yesterday when the Bush Administration bowed to the inevitable and allowed judicial nominee Miguel Estrada to withdraw his name from nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Thus does the filibuster rear its ugly head once again in the Senate.
The modern filibuster is only a virtual filibuster. In the old days, the filibusterer had to actually stand up and talk for hours on end, like Senator Jimmy Stewart did (heroically) in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," or like Senator Strom Thurmond did (ignominiously) in his fight to stop the 1957 Civil Rights Bill.
Our current crop of Senators are a bunch of namby-pambys in comparison to those giants of filibuster history. They wouldn't deign to actually go to the floor and wear out their precious vocal chords. They simply announce their intention to filibuster.
It's all very modern. A mere generation or two ago, when Farmer Jones wanted a nice chicken dinner, he had to go out in the back yard and kill, pluck and gut a chicken, which Mrs. Jones would then stew. Nowadays, Software Engineer Jones picks up a package of chicken "short cuts" from the meat counter at the supermarket, strips open the zip-lock package and sprinkles the cooked, seasoned and sliced morsels on the Caesar salad he and Mrs. J. will share when she gets home from the office.
The modern filibuster is like chicken short cuts. Unmessy.
The shame of the Estrada Filibuster has brought forth a number of proposals to reform the Senate rules on filibustering, but the best reform might well be simply to require honest-to-gosh nonstop talking. If Chuck Shumer thought he was actually going to have to stay up all night and talk himself hoarse, I wonder if he'd actually do it. Let's go back to the old practice and schedule round-the-clock sessions, and see if today's solons are made of the same stern stuff as their forebears.
The original filibusterers, by the way, were pirates who preyed on Spanish treasure ships in Caribbean waters not far from Miguel Estrada's homeland of Honduras. The word comes from the Dutch word for "freebooter," via French and Spanish translations into English, and was used in its present meaning at least as early as the debate over the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854.
In real life, as opposed to Hollywood movies like "Mr. Smith," the filibuster has almost always been used for evil purposes, notably by the pro-segregation crowd. It's just the nature of the tactic – not only negative, but nasty.
Seldom has it been nastier in motive or execution than in the Estrada case. Americans of all parties ought to be standing up and cheering for this remarkable man, who well deserves his characterization by President Bush as the "embodiment of the American Dream."
He came here from Honduras at the age of 17, and in spite of speaking poor English, managed to graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. As far as I can tell, the only real negative on his resume is his service in the Clinton Justice Department. It's documents from that era that Shumer and the Democrats have demanded in order to figure out whether Estrada is a conservative, as if that ought to be a disqualifier.
If the Democrats want to know what Estrada thought, or wrote or advised when he was working for Janet Reno, why don't they just ask her, or any of the other political appointees for whom Estrada worked in those days?
Of course the whole "release the documents" argument Shumer and his friends have been spouting is not real, anyway, it's just a smoke screen.
The Democrats are desperately trying to prevent Bush from creating a more conservative judiciary, and for them any means justifies that end. There's a second motivation with regard to Estrada, too, and that is to prevent the placing of an Hispanic in such a high position – one that could well lead to the Supreme Court.
Republicans are trying to figure out how to gain political points in the Hispanic community by making Democrats look like bigots because of their shabby treatment of Estrada. They can be successful in this, but only if they are willing to go hard at the issue, with first person Spanish language advertising featuring Estrada himself. That would have a huge impact, but it's not certain the GOP has the cojones to be sufficiently aggressive; that's what the Democrats are counting on, anyway.
But if Estrada and the Republicans are willing to play hardball, they can turn the tables. True, an Estrada so politicized could never again be considered for a high judicial appointment, but there are other career paths. Who knows, a seat in the U.S. Senate might even be possible some day.
Then we could all find out just how conservative Estrada really is, and my guess is he's a lot closer to the American mainstream than Chuck Shumer.
Veteran GOP media consultant Jay Bryant’s regular columns are available at www.theoptimate.com, and his commentaries may be heard on NPR’s “All Things Considered.” .
©2003 Jay Bryant
Does the author mean republicans doing "roll over & play dead" ?
That's not a filibuster..
Recently I watched the Larry King love-in show with Dole and news anchors and democRATS.
Less and less difference.
Sickening, and no one seems to care much.
It's a sign of the times, and a slippery slope to the next level, Homeland Security II.
What? They "allowed" him to withdraw his nomination? Well, wasn't that nice of them. After Estrada got jerked around for so long, with no real support from the Republicans, and he finally got fed up and wanted his life back, they "allowed" him to withdraw? What a bunch of crap.
I susptect the Republicans don't want a real conservative on the court any more than the Democrats do. After all, they are the party of Lincoln.
In short: escalate, baby, escalate.
--Boris
The time for that advertising and hardball tactics has come and gone. This was an abject defeat with strong repurcussions. Bush's power in Washington is now significantly diminished. And at onyl 41, Estrada has a family to support, and cannot afford to spend time in ads which would only turn off potential clients for Baker Botts, his firm.
For the record, my company SUBMITTED SPANISH-LANGUAGE ADS TO THE GOP LEADERSHIP, on many different levels. They were strong stuff, but not out of bounds of offensive to viewers. They highlighted Estrada's bio and Democrat racism for opposing him. ALL ADS WERE REJECTED. The despicable "New Tone" was the off-the-record reason given. Apparently the White House put a squelch on any real battle on behalf of Estrada. I am still stunned by this arrogant stupidity on the part of Karl Rove. After media consulting 4 successful GOP Sentorial candidates last cycle, I am seriously considering sitting out 2004.
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.