Decision ‘08

Morning Must-Read: Carrie Underwood Edition

Please note: this post has nothing whatsoever to do with the new American Idol, Carrie Underwood; I have simply lured you here under false pretenses to make sure you have heard of the Coalition of the Chillin’…

For further evidence that the Coalition is on the right path, read this piece in the New Republic (free registration required - and the hat tip to RealClearPolitics). I quote:

The filibuster still holds, for the moment. But allowing the confirmation of three radical Bush nominees — Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor — in exchange for a Democratic promise to filibuster only in “extraordinary circumstances” created a false equivalence between the extremity of the GOP’s approach and the Democrats’ simple adherence to Senate rules.

Moreover, when the filibuster fight comes to a head again–as it will–the Democrats’ task will be made all the more difficult not only by the need to demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances,” but by the implication that the three Bush nominees the deal effectively confirmed, whom the liberal establishment treated as something close to worst-case picks, did not constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” That sets the bar awfully high. (Even some conservatives have fretted over Brown’s onetime suggestion that she observes a higher law than the Constitution.) Furthermore, what happens should Bush choose one of these three to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy?

The answers to these questions all seem to favor the Republicans…

Please welcome our newest members, The Jade Monkey and honorary member too many steves, who, alas, is blogless…

3 Responses to “Morning Must-Read: Carrie Underwood Edition”

1 Fargus Says:
May 26th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
As a liberal, I have to say I agree with you and the article you’ve excerpted here. There was a series of missteps in this whole process, each one upping the stakes, and the Democrats made the last one. The Republicans misstepped in the first place by not simply letting the Democrats filibuster. If they had stood back and cried obstructionism, the Democrats would have come out looking like spoiled little children. Instead, we had the spectre of the nuclear option. That upped the stakes considerably, and opened the door to Republican overreach, in the mind of the voting public.

The Democrats then misstepped by backing down (and especially in such a manner as they did). The positions had changed, and the Republicans would have lost more capital by changing the rules to suit their current agenda than the Democrats would have by following the old rules to suit theirs. But then came the compromise.

As the excerpt says, the bar for “extraordinary circumstances” has been set awfully high with Owen and Brown. And if the Democrats’ principles lay with blocking the most extreme nominees, then their compromise was no compromise at all.
2 Mark Coffey Says:
May 26th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Yep, I’m amazed that so many on the right see this as a crushing defeat, as if our goal was complete domination in the short run, never mind the long run…
3 too many steves Says:
May 26th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
I’m not sure if you meant this or not Fargus, but I too was surprised that the Republicans never made (allowed) the Democrats actually filibuster, in the sense of standing up and talking, non-stop. I guess I understand the idea that the debate continues until a successful cloture vote - even if there is no actual talking going on - but agree with you that making the Dems actually speak would have been a smart tactical move.