Judicial Nuclear Options
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Senate Majority Leader Frist will not be able to muster the required votes to end Democrat filibustering (or threat thereof) because of "moderate" Republicans in the Senate. There are approximately 8 - 9 moderate Republican Senators from Maine to Virginia on the East Coast and two outposts in the west in Nebraska and Arizona.
For these moderates, the ability to leverage their position is stronger while democrats filibuster than if Republicans can vote in a plurality to get Judicial Nominees voted for confirmation. To be a "pariah" is a greater reward than joining the "pack" and otherwise being invisible. In other words, these Republican moderates will throw a wrench into the Republican agenda to maintain their "strong" status quo in relation to both parties in the Senate. To do away with their "strong" hand would be foolish in their eyes. Therefore, they will not vote to undermine their own narcisstic political fantasies for the greater Republican good.
Conservatives should not blame all Senate Republicans for this problem. The vast majority of the Senate Republicans want to push the President's and the Party's Agenda forward, alas, the moderate few will act otherwise. I can sense the Democrats upbeat and highly vocal grandstanding as they are clearly pleased with themselves over this political development. The Democrats haven't felt this good since Clinton beat Dole in '96. I sense a "Cheshire Cat" moment in the Senate for the minority Democrat Party.
Conservatives should not take their wrath out on the party either come the next election. The internet, blogosphere and radio are exposing the traitorous machinations of these moderates and all we have to do is "remember". These moderates must be made to suffer for their lack of vision when it comes to plum Senate posts as well as support from the President in their re-election campaigns. If Republicans can knock Senator Lott from Leader of the Senate to just a sitting Senator then how much more could we do to these other fair weather moderate Republican "friends"?
For these moderates, the ability to leverage their position is stronger while democrats filibuster than if Republicans can vote in a plurality to get Judicial Nominees voted for confirmation. To be a "pariah" is a greater reward than joining the "pack" and otherwise being invisible. In other words, these Republican moderates will throw a wrench into the Republican agenda to maintain their "strong" status quo in relation to both parties in the Senate. To do away with their "strong" hand would be foolish in their eyes. Therefore, they will not vote to undermine their own narcisstic political fantasies for the greater Republican good.
Conservatives should not blame all Senate Republicans for this problem. The vast majority of the Senate Republicans want to push the President's and the Party's Agenda forward, alas, the moderate few will act otherwise. I can sense the Democrats upbeat and highly vocal grandstanding as they are clearly pleased with themselves over this political development. The Democrats haven't felt this good since Clinton beat Dole in '96. I sense a "Cheshire Cat" moment in the Senate for the minority Democrat Party.
Conservatives should not take their wrath out on the party either come the next election. The internet, blogosphere and radio are exposing the traitorous machinations of these moderates and all we have to do is "remember". These moderates must be made to suffer for their lack of vision when it comes to plum Senate posts as well as support from the President in their re-election campaigns. If Republicans can knock Senator Lott from Leader of the Senate to just a sitting Senator then how much more could we do to these other fair weather moderate Republican "friends"?
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 9:25 PM
2 Comments:
Why do you discount the possibility that "moderate" republicans are voting their conscience and are not merely reactionary. Can people who hold the middle ground be just as devout in their convictions?
We are fighting an ideological battle in this nation over the pervasiveness of government control over personal beliefs. "Moderate" Republicans have sincere reservations about changing Senate rules extant for centuries. Which is really more conservative, to keep the status quo or up-end it?
www.kalamazoopost.blogspot.com
I thank you for your comment.
I'm not sure "moderates" vote their conscience. At any rate what is a "moderate"? Someone who is less conservative or less liberal? I'm sure the nomenclature is less than satisfying when identifying the political standard of a certain individual.
As to the "moderate" Republicans holding up the agenda of the President, I really don't believe they are considering anything other than political advantage. Why is it that they are being so extreme in their moderation? Why don't they "moderate" their position and allow the Senate to vote up or down on the President's Nominees?
As for "changing Senate rules", the abuse of the "filibuster" has already broken the rules of decent and civilized debate regarding the Senate's ability to Advise and Consent. Obviously, they can't Advise and Consent when nominees are in the political netherworld of the filibuster.
Post a Comment
<< Home