Update [2005-5-22 18:15:24 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando. I'm searching for the transcript. Please post a link if you find it.
Flipping through the channels, I caught a John McCain interview on Fox News.
The interview was mainly geared towards the nuclear option. Being on Fox, you can guess what kind of framing was being put on the questions.
He was being pressed hard to be anti-Democrat, but would not do it. He had some good answers, used good terminology, and even took some subtle shots at Frist. Obviously, the 2008 campaign is starting between the two.
When asked what he thought of the democrats obstructing the presidents nominations (framed question), he dodged that to say that never before in history has the rules of the senate been changed with 51 votes. Refusing to throw any negative comments about democrats, and refusing to spit out the "unprecedented use of the filibuster" talking point the questioner was looking for. He even referred to it a "nuclear explosion" in our Senate.
Update [2005-5-22 18:46:49 by Armando]: From the transcript:
WALLACE: I want to get to some of those issues in just a second, but let me just ask you sort of the next question, which is if you don't reach agreement, does the majority leader, Bill Frist, have the 50 Republican votes he needs, plus the tiebreaker from Vice President Cheney to, in fact, impose the nuclear option?
MCCAIN: I don't know the answer to that because there's several Senators who have not indicated exactly how they're going to vote.
So I don't know.
. . . WALLACE: But in other words, there would be a provision that would allow the defeat of at least several of these nominees?
MCCAIN: No, it would mean that there would be a commitment to let most of them go under any circumstances, and then there would only be a couple of others that would then be a decision made as to whether they would continue to filibuster those or not.
It's very possible that there would be a vote on all of them. It's also possible that one or more of them would not reach the Senate floor because of other difficulties that their nomination faces.
Look, we're talking about changing the rules of the Senate with 51 votes, which has never happened in the history of the United States Senate. The Democrats have tried to change the rules when they were in the majority. They tried to get a two-thirds vote.
If you have 51 votes, changing the rules of the Senate, nominations of the president is next, and then legislation follows that. And we will now become an institution exactly like the House of Representatives. That's not what our founding fathers envisioned when they created a bicameral legislature.
. . . WALLACE: But I guess what I'm asking is: What is the impact do you think it would be on the institution if while you're involved in this food fight up here on Capitol Hill, an awful lot of the people's business isn't getting done?
MCCAIN: I think it would be, again, very bad.
I note that polling numbers and approval for Congress is down to where it was in 1994.
I think we have, unfortunately, a tendency to forget that we're in a war. Young Americans are dying every day. We have the threat of Al Qaeda and the war on terrorism. We have an unprotected border. We have Social Security, not to mention a burgeoning deficit.
Understandably, to me, the American people's priorities are not those being displayed by the Congress today, particularly in the United States Senate.
The level of rhetoric has reached a point that's really not helpful to the institution or to the individuals who are part of it.
On several occasions he repeated the term protect the institution, he also mentioned the fact that the majority changes over time, and repeatedly stated that the constitution demands a minority voice in the senate and that the rules change would create another House of Representatives.
Throughout the interview, he kept to his guns that a simple majority changing the rules was unprecedented, and that it would be bad for the institution.
What I liked most is his response when asked if he would lose conservative support for voting against the nuclear option. (Both questioner and McCain used term nuclear throughout) In his answer he replied "I do what I believe is right for my country, I would not put my political ambitions before the will of the people and what is right for this country. I think people respect that and I continue to have strong support among the conservatives. I would not let my ambitions get in the way of such an important decision."
Now that was an obvious shot at Frist. Of course, the shot was a prelude to the 2008 election, but good for Democrats nonetheless. I have often wondered how to get through to Republicans on such common sense issues. I have come to the realization that I cannot. However, coming from one of their own, I think the message has a chance.
The interview concluded with prisoner abuse, he failed to indict the liberal media, as the questions were framed, and said we need to do more to ensure we act in accordance with Geneva conventions. Being a POW and war hero, I think his words on this issue have to resonate with the Republicans.
Now I know this may come off as a McCain love letter, and that will piss some of you off. I do not intend it that way. I do think he has some good things to say on some issues and I think him voicing Democratic opinions can really help us among the Republicans that are getting fed up with the very far right that Frist/Dobson represents.
So he is even vocally on our side on this one, And I thought he did a good job on Fox. He said things in a common sense way that may even get through to Republican voters, if that is possible.
And just of a point of interest, McCain said it is still unclear as to whether Frist has the votes and noted several senators are still considering voting against him.