PhotoDude.com

From a 10,000 ft. view, with no judgement at all, Frist did fail in his job to get the nominations to the floor for a vote. That’s undeniable.

Now, good or bad for the Republic? Meh—too early to know. Likely neither.

I am worried about the New Center Party “encouraging” the Prez to consult with them prior to nominating anyone else. What are your thoughts on that?

Scott, I’m going to “use” you, “tweaking you, but just a little bit” as a way to point out some of the representative views I’ve read this morning (most of which I know you don’t represent, but you’ve given me a starting point).

In another comment you said “Allowing 14 senators to demand and receive a group hug and a singing of Kumbaya is an odd way to run a republic.”

Any odder than allowing special interest groups on both sides to force partisan battles for short term gain for “their side”? I don’t think so.

And I’m not alone : “They found both the language to make a deal possible and the courage to risk the wrath of partisans on both sides who were pushing for an all-or-nothing outcome. ‘Everybody in the room wanted to get it done,’ Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) said in a telephone interview last night. ‘Everybody felt it was in the country’s best interest to get this agreement made.’”

And that appears to have completely flummoxed partisans on both sides. What is this, this centrist concept that what is in the country’s best interest takes precedent over the Party’s short term interests?

Heresy. Blasphemy. That’s what it is. This was supposed to be all-or-nothing, with one winning side, and lots of blood. Most dissappointing, like going to see a NASCAR race where there’s no crashes. Just a clean race, and victory.

The Washington Post continues, “it was an extraordinary moment for the moderates in Congress, who have talked gamely about working across party lines but have often fallen short in delivering on their promises. For that they have been ridiculed, held up as examples of weakness and vacillation. But for the time being, they have demonstrated that there is an alternative to the partisan polarization that has been so much in favor in both parties.”

Boy, that’s got to piss the partisans off: an alternative to partisan polarization? That’s how they raise money! We can’t have moderate compromise, the checks will stop coming in because people will think the crisis is over!

I truly think you can judge this by the fact the special interests on both sides … are livid! Gary Bauer called it a “travesty,” a “sell out,” and said “Shame on them all.” The liberal Alliance for Justice is very disappointed. James Dobson of Focus on the Family Action calls it a “betrayal by a cabal of Republicans.”

That’s a pretty clean sweep. And if you add the “usual suspects” on both sides of the political blogosphere, many of whom seem to be bleeding red or blue this morning, well, I’d say those 14 Senators created the best piece of political work I’ve seen in maybe a decade.

Because, frankly, I view this like a child who refuses to take some nasty tasting medicine that will truly make him better. Recent polls have shown that the approval rating for Congress is maybe a notch or two higher than Michael Jackson’s, and the political warfare that would have followed a cloture vote today would have taken that approval rating lower than Michael’s. Even business groups are tiring of the GOP focus on social issues

When it comes to long term interests, these centrists just did both their country and both parties a big favor. They restored a small segment of sanity, which is clearly so long gone that partisans don’t recognize it now that it’s been stuck under their nose, and therefore are trying to spit on it, defame it, and hopefully kill it. But the beauty of the math won’t allow that.

Steven Bainbridge asks of his fellow conservatives, “Will somebody please get these folks some cheese to go with their whine? I find these reactions not only short-sighted but also surprisingly unconservative. They reflect a willingness to put possible short-term partisan gain (and I emphasize the word possible) over both principle and long-term advantage.”

He’s dead right. But his peers won’t listen. They’re all woodied up.

“I am worried about the New Center Party ‘encouraging’ the Prez to consult with them prior to nominating anyone else. What are your thoughts on that?”

What a radical concept: “maybe if we could talk about this in advance, we could avoid some of these ugly clashes via prior consultation.” And if not, what has been lost by this “encouragement” and “consultation”?

I know you may be thinking that this subtly lessens the executive branch right to nominate, but the words “encouragement” and “consultation” indicate it would be just that. 14 Senators can’t change the legally defined interaction between the branches of government. They can only suggest and hope.

And just from my point of view, it would now appear that the alternative, ruling the roost via partisan warfare and changing the rules (given the added back down from changes in the ethics rules to benefit DeLay) ... is a bumpy road that has come to a muddy end.

You may see this as just 14 Senators making a power grab. But in my view, they represent the more than 65% of America in the polls who can’t bring themselves to say Congress is doing even a half-assed job.

Two thirds, majority rules.

Reid,

How is it that compromise is wonderful when three demonstrably bad judges will now ascend to the federal bench? And where was your “moderation” when the Republicans blocked 60 Clinton nominees from even having a hearing? There is nothing inherently good about compromise when it results in a bad decision on the merits.

I’m sorry, I still can’t escape the feeling that this has all been one big fracas to increase Party finanaces, with the inevitable dramatic climax at the end to save the day. I see no compromise or deal, to tell you the truth. It’s blindingly obvious to me that this whole thing was one big scripted event, complete with cheesy last minute dramatic resolution. It’s like watching wrestling, or better yet, any TV show where the hero has to disarm the bomb and just barely manages to do it with only one second to spare. If I want to watch crap like that, I’ll stick to MacGuyver or the A-Team.

All I see is proof that the two Parties are merely two wings of One Party. Each maintains a seperate identity to raise cash and enrich the lives of the higher-ups, but they are a single Party that votes the same way almost all of the time. Like PBS, they do their fund drives every few months by posturing on TV, but at the end of the day it’s just another manufactured crisis with a predictable conclusion.

What a radical concept

Well, that’s decidedly NOT what the Founders decided, so yeah—radical. This is very bothersome to me as a whatever the heck I am.

Melanie: “How is it that compromise is wonderful when three demonstrably bad judges will now ascend to the federal bench?”

I notice no mention of the three or four who won’t, or did you miss that part? No, you didn’t get it all. Neither did they. That’s why both sides are so pissed, and can see nothing “wonderful” about this. Everyone was fully hyped for “winner takes all,” and nothing less than blood on the floor (even if it’s your own) is acceptable.

It is indicative of our political state.

And I won’t even engage in “they did it first” arguments, unless we’re talking about jumping off the Empire State Building. Because who first lowered the filibuster from 67 votes to 60? The Democrats, in 1975, back when they controlled the Senate … with more than 60 votes.

Where does that “who did it first” argument stop? How about here, today?

Paul: “It’s blindingly obvious to me that this whole thing was one big scripted event, complete with cheesy last minute dramatic resolution.”

Then you believe our Senators are much better actors than I do. Bill Frist was clearly not happy … or deserving of an Oscar and a new career direction.

“All I see is proof that the two Parties are merely two wings of One Party.”

Then why is it a “bad thing” that partisans of both parties seem to be so upset over this? Why is it a “bad thing” that maybe … just maybe … a third party could come out of this?

Finally, what exactly would you have preferred? A mutual bipartisan shutdown of the Seante? Yeah, it has a certain appeal. But it’s not a solution.

But I forgot. No one really wanted a solution, even one perceived as temporary. They just wanted to win. Thus, the barrels of boo-hoos today.

Scott: “Well, that’s decidedly NOT what the Founders decided, so yeah—radical”

I repeat, these 14 Senators did not by themselves create a binding change to the Constitutional process. They made a hopeful suggestion, and then signed it. Why is that so offensive? And the Constitution does give the Senate the right to consultation and approval of Presidential appointments. It seems to me that [1] this merely suggests a more informal beginning to that process so that the formal part perhaps won’t fill our entire national agenda with partisan strife, and [2] this is not the “nut” of this agreement, it’s an add-on.

But not the normal Congressional “add-on,” like tacking the Real ID Amendment to the Iraq appropriation bill. This is much less binding.

In the end, I’m sorry I can’t explain to both sides why this compromise is “wonderful.” No one can, in a world where “winning” is the only thing that is “wonderful.” I really find all of this quite illuminating, humorous, and indicative. Someone needs to hold up a big two sided mirror right now, so folks can see themselves. I’m happy to do my part, though I expect no one to recognize their own reflection.

And the Constitution does give the Senate the right to consultation and approval of Presidential appointments.

Approval, yes, consultation, no. Which is not to say that consultation is good or bad or blah-blah-blah, but there is no right to consultation on nominations in the Constitution. Nominees come directly from the President. Article II—note the seperation inherent in the document.

It seems to me that [1] this merely suggests a more informal beginning to that process so that the formal part perhaps won’t fill our entire national agenda with partisan strife,

As a whatever I am, I am inherently distrustful of “informal consultations.” We used to call these “smoke-filled rooms behind locked doors.” One of the few things I am proud of from my generation is a continued insistence on transparent government. Besides, it’s hardly filled the national agenda…cf, Mr. Galloway’s recent testimony on the UN scandal. It’s giving a few Constitutional dweebs like me a few more minutes of reflection, but that’s just me, the auto-didact.

and [2] this is not the “nut” of this agreement, it’s an add-on.

We disagree…I think this is very much a power-grab and it is the nut, which is why it’s artfully hidden on page 2. My lord, it has John “Campaign Finance Reform” McCain’s fingerprints all over it. _“Come and see me first, Georgie boy.”_

Chaffin asks: I am worried about the New Center Party “encouraging” the Prez to consult with them prior to nominating anyone else. What are your thoughts on that?

” . . . by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. . . ”

Ried, I know this isn’t really your style, but why not throw fundraising links to these 14 guys and gals somewhere on the site?

I’d do it, but I don’t really have a blog anymore.

Scott, to me, the Senators non-binding request is perfectly in line with Article II: “he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States…”

Sir Fleshy, it is indeed “not my style,” and if that’s what they were looking for, they should have signed their names to that document in a more legible manner. It almost looked like a subconcious effort to hide … “whose scribble is that?”

And let there be no doubt, these guys are still Republicans and Democrats, and no one has said they are now suiting up in purple rather than red or blue. They’ve just laid a nice foundation, and maybe opened a few eyes.

“I’d do it, but I don’t really have a blog anymore”

Yes, you do. You just appear to have lost the keys to it, or something.

Melanie: “How is it that compromise is wonderful when three demonstrably bad judges will now ascend to the federal bench?”

It’s compromise because with this solution, the Republicans don’t get to automatically push every single nominee forward. In case you forgot, let me remind you- there were more than three in question. The three that are being given a ‘pass’ are the three that most Democrats could even handle to begin with. The most objectionable are not being given a free ticket with this deal.

The nature of compromise is that neither side gets a complete and total victory. This is why there’s no rule in football that allows the teams to compromise- it’d be unsatisfying to the spectators. Much like the rabid football fans, the partisans (like yourself) are finding this a very hard pill to swallow. I’m loving it- Reid and I are truly of a mind when it comes to politics, it seems.

Melanie: “There is nothing inherently good about compromise when it results in a bad decision on the merits.”

So what would have not been a ‘bad decision on the merits’? The Republicans erasing the filibuster, and the Democrats retaliating by bringing the system to it’s knees with every parlimentary trick in the book? In the process, having all five judges you hate so totally put in place for life? You seem to think that would have been better, and that’s truly confusing. Like it or not, had this deal not been made, that’s what would have happened.

To my eye, that would have been a ‘bad decision on it’s merits’, and that’s a big understatement.

Todd,

The Dems held their collective noses and confirmed 207 judges and are blocking a handful. That’s your compromise, 207 confirmations.

Melanie, I think Todd’s point is very valid. If this had come to a showdown today, the Dems wouldn’t have had the votes they needed. I haven’t heard many argue to the contrary.

And then all those bad judges get appointed for life

I’m really hard pressed to understand how losing on all 218 nominees, changing the rules forever, and shutting down the Senate is in any way preferable to what we got.

We being “the American People.”

Reid, EF: From Article II, the whole enchilada: He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court,

Please make note of the distinct seperation betweeen he shall nominate, and the requirement for the Senate’s advice and consent. They have no role in the nomination process. I include the clause about treaties to further define the distinction. Either the Constitution means what it says in plain text, or it doesn’t.

Also, for those inclined to believe that this is nothing but a feel-good-about-everybody request by a few well-meaning senators to avoid nasty public DEBATES (wouldn’t want to expose the public to such trivialities) about a judicial appointee’s credentials and worthiness—Dr. Dean disagrees
I would be hesitant to say it’s a win for the Democratic Party,” said party Chairman Howard Dean in an interview with The Associated Press. That won’t become clear, he added, until “we find out if the president consults with the Democrats” on future judicial nominees.

Anyone want to make any bets on how long it takes to gin up some “extraordinary circumstances”?

Scott, you may well be right, I’m no Constitutional scholar. But there’s nothing there to preclude an informal “advice” session with the Prez … and I find it hard to beleive that no President has ever sat down at least with the Senatorial leadership of his own party to ask … “here’s who I’m thinking about nominating, what do you think will happen if I do?”

But as I’ve said repeatedly, there is nothing binding about that clause of the agreement … as Bush didn’t sign it. If he fails to meet their wishes, what are they going to do? Pout moderately?

As for Dr. Dean, and Bauer, and every other True Believer, you can quote them all day, from both sides, just as I have … and you merely continue to make my point. The partisans in control of both parties could never have made this deal. They’d much prefer blood on the floor … anybody’s ... Senatorial warfare, and By Gum somebody’s damn head on a pike.

Todd’s analogy to football is a good one, but I still prefer NASCAR. In our “post race” morning, everybody seems to be most pissed that there were no crashes. And they therefore are doing their best to convince themselves the race is not yet over, because there’s got to be some crashes…

I continue to be seriously seriously amused, much like the one sober guy at a raucous party with an open bar.

But I’m glad to be your designated driver, should anyone require it.

Melanie: “The Dems held their collective noses and confirmed 207 judges and are blocking a handful. That’s your compromise, 207 confirmations.”

Haha.. that one really did get a true to life laugh out of me, because it really was funny.

Are you really saying that the Democrats only allowed the other 207 judges as part of some incredible compromise? Wow- I must really be out of it. Up to these five judges, which have been described as ‘extremist’ by the Democrats, I’d not heard all that much complaining. Matter of fact, it’s been oft-said by the Democrats that they will allow votes on judges they don’t consider ‘extreme’, and they’ve used those 207 as examples, over and over. Now you’re here saying that it wasn’t that they were being reasonable (like they claim), but that they were cutting a deal that nobody knew about, not even the Republicans.

Cool, man.. cool. But stupid.

And untrue.

This deal was about 5 judges, not 212 judges. Find me a cite that shows it was about every judge, please.

Here’s a couple of interesting remarks.

John Cole, angry conservative:
*********************************
“And the inevitable right-wing temper tantrum has begun in earnest, and believe me, this is a temper tantrum. Like children who were denied an extra serving of ice cream or who were not allowed to stay up past their bedtime, they will scream and yell and threaten and work themselves into a red-faced lather, and I, for one, am not content to sit by and let them be.

I intend to poke fun at them and make their childish tantrums worse.

These people have lost their damned minds. I am tired of trying to walk these wingnuts back from the edge of the cliff. I am close to the point where I start pushing.
*********************************

And this from RedState:
*********************************
“What’s bad? What’s bad is easy enough to see: the party and the Administration have lost their way in the second term. The pressing issues of the day—the war, the deficit, the dollar—have all been ignored in favor of bizarre voluntary fights on Social Security, the filibuster, and the rearguard actions to defend Tom DeLay. It is a stupefying squandering of political capital that speaks ill of the party leadership from the White House to the RNC to the Office of Senator Frist to the offices of activists from Main Street to K Street. I wish I could have faith that the internal bloodletting to come would bring some common sense to bear, but I do not. For the moment, all we can do is cross our fingers, thank God that the Senate Democrats have a pro-life leader to take the sting out of defeat, and hope that the much-reviled ‘moderates’ can, on occasion, save us from ourselves.”
*********************************

There’s gonna be blood on the floor, alright, even if it comes from red-on-red action.

I can understand your amusement…you got what you wanted. A lot of voters did not, though—conservative judges were a campaign promise. Now, there is no question I am sympathetic to that viewpoint, for different reasons than a lot of them, but sympathetic, nonetheless.

As I’ve argued here before, just what do voters do when they follow the rules, go to the polls, elect representatives they believe in, then get left in the lurch, as they have in this case? For a centrist, it might be a laughing matter, but do realize that you’re laughing at a lot more than just the partisan leaders with the florid quotes.

Scott, let me be clear … I don’t mean to sound like I’m laughing at you, or anyone like you. Or anyone who is responding to this with logical disagreement, rather than entirely predictable knee jerk boilerplate, ad hominem, and/or threats. That’s what I find so funny. And I only laugh because it is a welcome relief from my usual inclination towards sputtering and mumbling disgustedly at the goings-on in DC. Much as you must be right now.

But don’t worry, I figure the center gets maybe a couple of weeks to “feel good,” and the left and right can haggle over who controls the remaining 50 this year. I’ll be back to sputtering and mumbling shortly. Today, I’m giggly.

But let’s also be clear. Just because Bush won 51-48 does not mean this country is 51% Republican and 48% Democrat. It was not that kind of mandate. On election day, it was 37-26-37. There’s 26% of this country that refuses to label themselves a Democrat or a Republican. Most of them happened to vote for Bush (but do you really think it was because of judges ... or were there other factors that might have brought them to vote for Bush?).

And either “37” needs a large chunk of that “26” to win an election. It’s … gasp … a coalition.

And now, in a way, a portion of it has broken. And just as there are people like you peeved over this, there are conservatives like John Cole disgusted with the very same party for the opposite reason.

And I can only repeat, at the very least, this is a real shot across the bow of the partisans on both sides. Ignore the “sensible center” at your own peril. It can rise up to bite you in the ass.

I would hope everyone can at least agree on that. And that is the source of my mirth.

“On election day, it was 37-26-37”

I’ll take those measurements! Yowza

but do you really think it was because of judges

I think that a very large portion of them understand the ‘lifetime’ effect of federal judges, and that a Republican legislature and a 2nd-term Republican president should be able to push through a slate of conservative ‘strict constructionist’ judges.

And that is why so many are peeved—the apellate court appointments are most definitely where the obstructionism occurred. The 200+ others are important, certainly, but not as important from a Constitutionalist standpoint. So, anyhoo, cest la guerre.

FWIW, I am laughing at the spluttering a bit, too. But I do think there’s going to be hell to pay for the so-called turncoats. Politicos run on party principles with party dollars, after all, and a whole bunch of peeps just got the shaft. McCain and Lieberman better hope your New Center Party gels pretty rapidly ;-) Naturally, of course, I am probably completely wrong.