Losing the battle, winning the war?
Of course, I don't necessarily think that Democrats are losing the battle over the use of the filibuster, but there is a bigger picture here. As we begin our second day of debate in the Senate over some of President Bush's judicial nominees, it's important to consider the ramifications of these actions.
The primary outcome, I believe, will be considerable damage to the Republican Party. Regardless of where anyone comes down over the use of the filibuster or, shall I word it, this particular use of the filibuster, polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to the Republican leadership's move to abolish the parliamentarian procedure. If the Congressional GOP continues to play this hand, it can only backfire on them.
So I'd say it's possible that Republicans may win this battle - that is, undermining the filibuster through means which violate Senate rules - but it's going to damage them greatly in the long haul - that is, the 2006 elections.
But, of course, I don't necessarily think that Democrats are losing this battle. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) completely humiliated Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) in a floor debate on Wednesday:
SEN. SCHUMER: Isn't it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?
SEN. FRIST: The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination - we'll come back and discuss this further. Actually I'd like to, and it really brings to what I believe - a point - and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way.
Hopefully there will be a compromise brokered by the moderates of both parties which can permit a vote on some of the Bush's nominees, allowing both sides to save face. Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has admitted he is open to such a plan, though Frist has flat-out refused. Of course, Reid has outplayed Frist throughout this entire debate, so there is that.
The primary outcome, I believe, will be considerable damage to the Republican Party. Regardless of where anyone comes down over the use of the filibuster or, shall I word it, this particular use of the filibuster, polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to the Republican leadership's move to abolish the parliamentarian procedure. If the Congressional GOP continues to play this hand, it can only backfire on them.
So I'd say it's possible that Republicans may win this battle - that is, undermining the filibuster through means which violate Senate rules - but it's going to damage them greatly in the long haul - that is, the 2006 elections.
But, of course, I don't necessarily think that Democrats are losing this battle. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) completely humiliated Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) in a floor debate on Wednesday:
SEN. SCHUMER: Isn't it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?
SEN. FRIST: The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination - we'll come back and discuss this further. Actually I'd like to, and it really brings to what I believe - a point - and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way.
Hopefully there will be a compromise brokered by the moderates of both parties which can permit a vote on some of the Bush's nominees, allowing both sides to save face. Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has admitted he is open to such a plan, though Frist has flat-out refused. Of course, Reid has outplayed Frist throughout this entire debate, so there is that.
posted by Jmac at 11:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home