In a Conscience Vote, Nuclear Option Would Go Down 62-38
by Hunter
Fri May 20th, 2005 at 14:50:56 PDT
'On the fundamental issue, I believe we are skating over very thin ice here with regard to the continuity of life in the Senate as we've known it,' Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said on CNN's 'Late Edition.' 'I'm opposed to trying to eliminate filibusters simply because I think they protect minority rights, whether they're Republicans, Democrats or other people.'"
-- Los Angeles Times, 05-16-05
"It's very important that one faction or one party not be able to ride roughshod over the minority and impose its will. The Senate is not the House."
-- Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi
Wall Street Journal, 06-05-03
"I am one of the Republicans who believe such a rules change is not a good idea--not good for the Senate, not for the country, not for Republicans, and not for Democrats. The Senate needs a body that by its procedures gives unusual protection to minority rights."
-- Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
Senate floor statement, 04-12-05
According to this People For the American Way release [PDF] (reprinted in extended text, below), if you count the number of Republican Senators who have spoken against eliminating the judicial filibuster, the vote for the nuclear option wouldn't even be close. PFAW counts Specter, Hagel, Collins, Warner, McCain, Snowe, Chafee, Roberts, Smith, Alexander, DeWine, Murkowski, Lugar, Cochran, Bennett, Domenici, and Sununu as among those who have made statements in favor of keeping the rules of the Senate intact. Some of those statements, of course, are far more milkwarm than others; nonetheless, the fact remains that there is a keen awareness among Republicans of just how damaging the nuclear option is.
And yet, we are here. We are here primarily because moderate Republican Senators have lost all control of their own party, a marginalization that began when Rove's smear machine eviscerated McCain with racial attacks against his own children in South Carolina. Some, like Specter, seem effectively neutered at this point by Frist's threats against their own dwindling power. Others, like Hagel, Lugar and Alexander, seem more than begrudgingly willing to abandon their well-spoken, deep institutional values for a very fleeting party gain.
If there is anyone who would gain from the successful defeat (whether through compromise or vote) of the nuclear option, it is the more moderate Senate Republicans. Pulling their own party from the brink of the James Dobsons and Grover Norquists of the world would help to re-establish their own legitimacy; the Republican party itself is seeing devestating poll numbers on this issue, with most Americans fully aware of the difference between "reasonable" judges and those on the fringes, and the difference between following basic rules and breaking them. Clearly, the more moderate wing knows all of this, which is why a number of them have been engaged in negotiations with like-minded Democrats. As we have seen, however, this topic is by nature not one which lends itself to compromise.
Any compromise must of necessity be predicated on future promises and on the notion that all parties can agree what "extreme circumstances" represent. Those are flatly unenforceable, and any "compromise" based on them would be nothing more than delaying the same battle for a future date. To make matters worse, the White House and Frist specifically chose, for this fight, to begin with the two most controversial nominations in an explicit attempt to circumvent the chances of a compromise position.
What has been discussed less is that when these moderate Republicans are meeting with Democrats, they're also meeting with each other, and that's probably the more important interaction at this point. You can bet that the "undecided" Republicans involved are in close contact with each other, and that the majority of the private conversations center around one key point: I'll do it if you do it first.
If Republican members voted their conscience, as PFAW points out, the nuclear option would fail by a wide and nonpartisan margin. Obviously, that margin isn't going to happen. It's a shame, however, because if it did, there would be virtually no possible retribution against conscience voters -- as it stands now, however, we are in the usual position, where a handful of moderate Republicans are being held against the wall, and they are very aware of the brute viciousness with which the White House punishes those who oppose them.
The moderate wing of the Republican party is facing a crossroads, this weekend. Voting according to conscience, or voting according to actual constituent polling, or voting according to the advice of the Senate parliamentarian and Library of Congress researchers all lead to the same outcome; voting against the nuclear option as being a clear violation of Senate rules. On the other hand, defeating the measure will be a blow to both the White House and to a select set of powerful fundamentalists who have latched onto this debate as being somehow a referendum on their particular goals for the American nation.
On the other, other hand; handing a momentary defeat to those two groups may not, long term, necessarily be a bad thing. Not for these moderates, and certainly not for the Republican party as a whole.
It is time, this weekend, for these Senators to meet with each other, in their homes and away from the threats and the phone calls, and decide amongst themselves whether to stand together. Diverting this "nuclear" crisis will gain them outrage among the deepest of the far-right partisans, but it will also reestablish their leadership positions among the far larger group of Americans that wants nothing to do with a one-party judicial state or government by fundamentalist threat.
Put a large pot of coffee on (or open a full case of scotch), and determine among yourselves, Senators, whether conscience trumps arm-twisting, whether constituent opinion trumps lobbyist influence, and whether the integrity of the American process trumps momentary party gain.
It really shouldn't be a tough choice. If your party thinks it is, your party has lost its way. |
