« Health Care Reform: Celebrate, Don’t Deride, the Doubters
Qunnipiac Poll: Obama Approval Dips Below 50% For First Time »
How not to lure us back to the “new” GOP
This week the United States Senate briefly turned their attention away from Obama / PelosiCare and considered President Barack Obama’s nomination of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton to an appellate court position, and the results were instructive. During the tenure of George W. Bush, much was made of the judicial nomination and confirmation process, with debates raging over the upper chamber’s proper role in “advise and consent” and whether filibustering nominees was an appropriate use minority leverage. Dana Milbank takes a look at what a difference a few years can make in the words and deeds of some of our very high profile Republican leaders in the Senate. He begins the analysis with a grim, yet still amusing observation:
In their quest to thwart President Obama, Republicans do not fear the hobgoblin of consistency.
Jeff Sessions (R – Alabama)
THEN: Decried Democrats’ “unprecedented, obstructive tactics.” Said to have Bush nominees “opposed on a partisan filibuster, it is really wrong,” Demanded they get “an up-and-down vote.”
NOW: “I opposed filibusters before,” the Alabaman said with his trademark twang. But in this case, he went on, “I don’t agree with his judicial philosophy. Therefore, I believe this side cannot acquiesce into a philosophy that says that Democratic presidents can get their judges confirmed with 50 votes.”
Mitch McConnell (R – Ky.)
THEN: Demanded “a simple up-or-down vote” for nominees. Told Democrats to “move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent.”
NOW: Voted to sustain the filibuster.
Sam Brownback (R – Kan.)
THEN: “Neither filibusters nor supermajority requirements have any place in the confirmation process.”
NOW: Voted to sustain the filibuster
Lindsey Graham (R – S.C.)
THEN: “If the filibuster becomes an institutional response where 40 senators driven by special interest groups declare war on nominees in the future, the consequence will be that the judiciary will be destroyed over time.”
NOW: Voted to sustain the filibuster
I should note that this entry is not intended as a comment on the pros and cons of the filibuster as a valid legislative tool. It’s a long established aspect of the process and each member will have to decide for themselves as to when and how it should be used. (In fact, just yesterday I wrote about how foolish it would be of the Democrats to seek to abolish it.) But that’s not the point here.
I find myself asking a question about these Republicans which I used to regularly ask about Democrats. Do they not know that the voters have access to Google? Have they never heard of YouTube? Do they really think they can just do an about face on such a fundamental question in only a handful of years and nobody will notice?
This isn’t about filibusters. It’s about principles and leadership, and these Senators are demonstrating neither this week. During the Bush years, many of us RINOs (including yours truly) left the party over valid differences of opinion, largely on foreign policy and fiscal responsibility. And even as some in the base seek to keep driving more of us out, (see Allahpundit’s great story on that subject today, by the way) some of us wouldn’t mind mending our fences and coming back. But you’ve got to demonstrate that there’s a real difference between the parties and put something on the table to lure us back. A good start would be to walk the walk as you talk the talk and lead with consistency and principles. This is the exact opposite and makes you look like nothing more than “just another lying politician in an expensive suit.”
That’s not what’s going to bring us back. Integrity, sound ideas and demonstrated personal responsibility combined with a willingness to open the tent up a bit will.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “How not to lure us back to the “new” GOP”
Yep — pretty superficial non-alternative stuff they're “offering,” Jazz. Continued irrelevence, it still seems.
Agree, Jazz. The tu quoque arguments are pedantic whether voiced by Republican Senators today or TMV liberals for the last 11 months.
It's worth noting though that 10 GOP did vote to invoke cloture, including my state's Saxby Chambliss. I thought that I'd heard that Johnny Isakson did as well, but I don't see his name on the list of 10.
and while it is lame, the no's probably knew they didn't have the count beforehand and just cast the no for form over substance retaliation. Surprising Mr. Gang of 14 went down as a no on this.
Actually, upon further reflection, I should have noted that the motion still passed. Should probably update.
Yeah, NPR was playing these sorts of quotes from Sessions, McConnell, and such yesterday, followed by their current, opposite stance. Of course it's worth saying that if there are any Dems who are now huge opponents of the filibuster while having long diatribes about its fundamental importance just a few years ago (and I'm sure there are), then they deserve equal ridicule.
I'd personally like to see the filibuster used the way I believe it was used during the Bush years. A significant majority of appointees who are qualified should go through on a 50/50 vote, and the minority party can filibuster a minority of appointees that they particularly disagree with. I don't believe that is the current Republican strategy. They are delaying or filibustering virtually all.
I'd personally like to see the filibuster used the way I believe it was used during the Bush years. A significant majority of appointees who are qualified should go through on a 50/50 vote, and the minority party can filibuster a minority of appointees that they particularly disagree with. I don't believe that is the current Republican strategy. They are delaying or filibustering virtually all.
Um, I think you missed a few minidramas there. The scenario you describe was the outcome of the Gang of 14 compromise deal. Prior to that, and the reason that the bipartisan compromise became necessary, is that the Dems were holding up a large number of nominations.
My understanding is that only 10 nominees were being stopped by the minority party pre-Gang of 14. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14) A far larger number had gone through, though I haven't been able to find that tally. I did find the number of appellate court nominees which was 46, 36 of whom went through. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_(fi…)) So the exact percentage of blocks depends on who you count. If it's the percent of all judicial nominees needing Senate approval, the percent is tiny; if it's just the percent of appellate court, then it's around a quarter (which is higher than I would like).
Regardless, I'm not trying to say Dems good; Republicans bad. The point is that it seems fair to me for the minority party to have some say in judicial nominees and so using the filibuster on a small number seems fair. Using it to block almost all nominees isn't. And so, if the Republicans were stopping just a few people they had particularly strong objections to, and not almost all, then I would be okay with that position.
I just wanted to add, Jazz, that I followed your link to the Allahpundit's post that a slight majority of Republicans would rather lose with a party they always agree with than win with a party they only mostly agree with, and the comments all pretty much go with the first position. Those commenters don't want your (or my) kind around.
I agree with the principle but of course the problem is getting anyone to define what is a reasonable number to filibuster, or what the criteria should be for those exceptions.
Completely agree. I am trying to say simply that Republicans, as the current minority party, do have a right to filibuster certain nominee, but they shouldn't shut down the judiciary nor prevent the majority from having say as well. I have no idea how to find that correct balance.
[...] From Jazz Shaw at the Moderate Voice: [...]
[...] How not to lure us back to the “new” GOP (themoderatevoice.com) [...]