So with today's back and forth between Harry Reid and Evan Bayh/Ben Nelson/Mary Landrieu over whether or not it's OK to filibuster something your leadership wants just because you oppose it, it got me to thinking about some recent US Senate History, the infamous "Gang of 14" -- and how Bayh, Nelson and Landrieu all helped Republicans pass a key part of their agenda, even those three Senators disagreed with it.
Follow me over the jump....
Back in 2005, Democrats had successfully filibustered several of Bush's ultra-right wing Judicial nominees. The Republican Senate got frustrated, so then-Majority Leader Bill Frist offered Democrats a deal: Frist would allow the Democrats to have the power of filibuster so long as Democrats would promise not to use it.
Now I'm sure that makes no sense to any of us. After all, the filibuster has no value if you agree not to use it.
But whenever a partisan fight like this breaks out, you can always count on the Conservative Democratic Senators to prove their independence by taking the Republican side of the issue.
Thus was born "The Gang of 14"
Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson joined Byrd, Inouye, Pryor, Salazar, Lieberman (then still officially a Democrat) and 7 Republicans in agreeing not to filibuster this Republican leadership priority.
It was billed as a compromise, although all the Republicans compromised was that they wouldn't prevent the Democrats from filibustering as long as the Dems promised not to anyway.
But here's the thing -- Bayh, Landrieu and Nelson all opposed the Republican leadership on seating those Judges, but voted not to filibuster anyway.
Got that? In 2005, Bayh, Landrieu and Nelson gave the Republicans the courtesy of allowing an up or down, majority vote even on stuff they disagreed with. Repeatedly. (See here, here, and here for roll call votes of them voting NO after voting not to filibuster.)
So if those three Conservative Democrats are willing to forgo the filibuster when the Republican leadership wants them to, why are we treated to this spectacle today of Bayh, Nelson and Landrieu saying they will filibuster if they don't like the policy?
Why is it that they can block things the Democrats want, but won't block things the Republicans want?
There really ought to be enough votes in the caucus to take all committee assignments and seniority away from those three if they are going to actively block our agenda, after helping Republicans pass theirs -- including the parts of the Republican agenda that they didn't agree with. .
<end rant>