'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.
(From
People For the American Way)
TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD:
Nuclear Option Should Go Down 62-38
Virtually everyone agrees that if there were a secret ballot on the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, it would go down in flames--and there's plenty of evidence to support that theory.
If Republican Senators voted consistently with what they have said on the record over the past two years, the nuclear option would be defeated by a 62-38 vote. If all 17 of these Senators placed the interest of the nation over narrow political interest, and resisted the enormous pressure coming from Majority Leader Bill Frist, Karl Rove, President Bush and the radical religious right, the nuclear option wouldn't have a chance.
Will they stand on principle and their own words, or give in to partisan pressure?
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
"I'm going to use every ounce of my energy, Wolf, to avoid confronting the nuclear option, because I think it would be disastrous for America. The Senate has a long, rich tradition for protecting minority rights."
CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," 02-27-05
"I'm going to exercise every last ounce of my energy to solve this problem without the nuclear option," he said. "If we have a nuclear option, the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell."
Washington Post, 02-24-05
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
"It's important that we protect the institution of the Senate and the tools of minority rights because if those are eroded, you will then put the institution on a slippery slope to keep--by straight majority vote. By saying this rule's going to change. This rule's going to change. ... I do not like this approach. It's a dangerous approach. It's an irresponsible approach. And it further erodes the constitutional minority rights element of the Senate." CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," 04-17-05
"We have to sit down ourselves, look each other in the eye and talk not just about short-term consequences but, more importantly, long-term consequences for the institution of the Senate. The Senate was primarily built around protection of minority rights."
CBS's "Face the Nation," 05-01-05
"I don't think it would be wise, in the interests of our country or the United States Senate to let this come to this kind of an explosion in the United States Senate."
Bloomberg.com, 05-09-05
Senator Susan Collins of Maine
"[T]o change the rules of the Senate and to invoke what they are calling the nuclear option ... would so poison the well that I fear that it would be very difficult for us to tackle those major issues that are coming down the road."
National Journal, 01-22-05
"I wish this would pass us by," she said, "because I am concerned about the impact on the Senate of trying to put through a change that does not represent a consensus."
New York Times, 04-20-05
Senator John Warner of Virginia
"I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception."
Press statement, 04-29-05
"I just look at this institution as really the last bastion of protecting the rights of the minority."
New York Times, 04-20-05
"We can't do damage to the Senate rules, which would come back to work against the interests of the Republican Party when we're in the minority. ... This is the last bastion, an institution that protects the rights of the minority."
Virginia Pilot, 04-29-05
Senator John McCain of Arizona
"If we don't protect the rights of the minority ... if you had a liberal president and a Democrat-controlled Senate, I think that it could do great damage."
CBS's "Face the Nation," 04-10-05
"`I don't know why in the last 200 years we have not had this kind of crisis before, but we've always been able to work things out,' says Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is now `strongly inclined' to vote against the rule change. `We will not be in the majority forever. History has shown us that.'"
Wall Street Journal, 04-12-05
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine
"I don't believe that at this point we should resort to changing the rules in order to adapt it to this scenario. We ought to try and make it work."
Portland Press-Herald, 12-26-04
Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
"`Just the word that's being used--the nuclear option--says it all,' Chafee said of the parliamentary maneuver. ... `The acrimony's so thick down here that a step into complete radioactivity isn't good for the American people.'"
The Providence Journal, 05-17-05
Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas
"What goes around comes around ... [it is] not in the best interests of either party or the Senate to take this step."
Kansas City Star, 05-15-05
Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon
"I don't want the Senate to become the House."
The Hill, 03-02-05
Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
"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." Senate floor statement, 04-12-05
Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio
"[T]he best thing to do is to have an understanding between the parties. ... [Changing the rules is] probably not going to be the way to do it."
Congressional Quarterly, 05-07-03
"I think it's in the best interest of the country that we work out something. ... This is a confrontation we should not have."
Chicago Tribune, 05-18-05
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
"`The fact of the matter is that there has been an ability to filibuster judges from the day the Senate was formed,' Murkowski said earlier this year. `And out of protocol, or courtesy, or just a recognition of the Senate's constitutional obligation to give advice and consent on the president's judicial nominees, filibusters weren't even considered up until the 108th Congress. That's where I get frustrated,' she said. `I don't want to have to change the rules because now some people have decided that they can now use it to their advantage to permanently block a president's nominee. It may be that you have four years or eight years of judges that one side doesn't like. But then you've got eight years of judges that the other side likes, so there's an evening of the process,' she said. `I don't like the nuclear option, let's put it that way, and I hope we don't get to the point where we have to institute it.'"
Miner-News, 04-12-05
Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana
"`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
Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi
"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."
Wall Street Journal, 06-05-03
Senator Robert Bennett of Utah
"Once we [Republicans] try to change the rules with 51 votes, the precedent is on the table. ... If Hillary Clinton becomes president with a Democratic Senate and wants to appoint Lani Guinier to the Supreme Court, Harry Reid could make that happen with 51 votes."
Farmington Daily Times, 05-18-05
Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico
"I will listen to that debate carefully, but it will be very difficult to get me to vote to change the filibuster rule. ... I always thought that the filibuster rule protected the minority in a rather exceptional way, better than almost any other rule we've got."
National Journal, 12-11-04
Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire
"I'm just thinking through the history and the precedents of changing the rules. Like any rules change, I want to ask the question: If the rule is changed, is it something I'm comfortable with whether I'm in the majority or the minority, whether we have a Republican president or a Democratic president?"
Wall Street Journal, 04-12-05