A few weeks ago, the following appeared in
Roll Call:
Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), seeking to rebound from several high-profile setbacks in his message battle with Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), is beginning his last year as Majority Leader with a newly assembled rapid-response and message-development team that's designed to enhance the Republican Conference's existing policy and messaging efforts
...
The new communications team is designed to provide better upfront coordination of the party's message and to allow Republicans to more quickly respond to breaking news events and sudden policy priorities.
A GOP aide familiar with the effort said Frist's revamped message effort would be similar to the Advise and Consent operation.
Today, Charlie Cook's increased estimate of Democratic House gains has been largely overshadowed by spats between McCain and Obama, and Specter and Reid.
Congratulations, Mr. Frist. Your "Peace Room" has officially been rolled out.
I must admit, it took me a second to catch on to the strategy, because it seems like such an insider thing. If that Roll Call article hadn't mentioned that it was to be designed similar to the "Advise and Consent" project, I might never have connected the two incidents of otherwise independent GOP senators becoming indignant and enraged in response to Democratic statements for somewhat puzzling reasons. In fact, it took the Specter incident to convince me that this wasn't just a case of a bruised McCain ego. And I must say that even as I noted the likelihood of greater coordination in the two incidents of members claiming their honor had been impugned by shrill, partisan Democrats, I couldn't fully see how this could possibly be an effective way to get your message out and/or a viable strategy.
Until I read this:
Specter could have asked the Senate Parliamentarian to rule on whether Reid's comments violated the rule, which generally is interpreted to require that lawmaker impugn another by name. Specter did not request the Parliamentarian to rule on the issue, however.
Reid initially appeared taken aback by Specter's charges, and spent several minutes apologizing for any transgression, repeating his apology for the staff memo and lauding Specter.
But Reid quickly regained his footing, saying that, despite any hurt feelings, "everything that I said about this legislation in my remarks is meant by me ... and ... if the Senator thinks in some way [I] was disparaging him, I certainly didn't mean that. I'm disparaging this legislation. I think its bad legislation and I think the people it hurts more than anyone else" are victims of asbestos contamination.
And that's when it struck me that the goal of this approach is merely to berate Democratic members for their lack of decorum until they back off their statements, out of respect to the Senate and the senator in question. This is why these spats arise from "clean" senators that Democrats across the aisle respect. This is very similar to the crocodile tears shed during the "Advise and Consent" operation for Democrats "going beyond the pale" and "doing something that has never been done before", so that rather than admit that the substance of Democratic arguments are entirely correct (the abestos legislation is awful, and reform ought be done in committee, not die on commission), the debate is shifted to decorum, which on the public radar, is a real snoozer.
Moreover, nobody sounds good when apologizing. The more a party apologizes for itself, the less likely the public is to trust them. Remember Durbin's tears on the floor of the Senate? That's the goal here.
So, how to stay above it....well, so far, we've parried. Obama took the high road, and comes off looking better than McCain who (see above) looks like his ego is bruised that Obama wouldn't join his little panal. And overall, it dampens the credibility of his commission by engaging it in partisanship. Reid, despite initial hesitations, quickly got back into fine form by saying, as Reid spokeswoman Rebecca Kirszner so aptly put it:
Sen. Reid did not mean to hurt Sen. Specter's feelings, but this is a bad bill and he's not going to let anyone change the subject and try to hide that fact.
That's good. For now.
The issue is, I hate to let these little internal spats that insider rags love to source overtake debate of subjects. In these particular stories I think we come off looking better, but I'm still not happy that THIS is what I'm talking about today, or that Reid had to apologize at all. And I'm not happy that the GOP is attempting to build a false record of controversy, or paint Democrats as shrill and without respect for their office or fellow officeholders.
So, now that we know that this is how the GOP is planning to respond to our rhetoric, it's time to dance.
If someone accuses you of libel on the Senate floor, give him an option to either ask for the Parlimentarian's opinion or shut up.
If someone accuses you of being too partisan, say simply, it is not my party that rubberstamps policy without even cursory review.
If someone calls you dishonorable, tell him to grow thicker skin and continue your criticism of his bad legislation.
And never forget that this ain't random spatting. This is rapid response.