By the headline "Gang of 14 Fractures Over Alito," I expected a discussion of the new unsurety surrounding both the idea of a fillibuster and the nuclear option in response to it. Do Democrats have the 41 to sustain a filibuster, when Senators like Pryor, Nebraska Nelson and Tim Johnson have all spoken moderately and cautiously praiseworthy of Alito? And if they do, does a clearly weakened Republican coalition that really did not prefer a vote on the nuclear option six months ago, want to try again in the current political climate?
Somewhere along the line however, somebody told the AP that 51 votes were the Lock of the Week for the nuclear option (despite 51 never having been counted or verified on the record):
The unity of the seven Democrats and the seven Republicans in the "Gang of 14" was all that halted a major filibuster fight between GOP leader Bill Frist and Democratic leader Harry Reid earlier this year over Bush's lower court nominees.
The centrist Democrats plan to urge their GOP colleagues to withhold judgment, since Alito's nomination is not even officially at the Senate yet. The defection of even two members of the group — which decided earlier in the year to support filibusters only in "extraordinary circumstances" — would virtually ensure that Frist, R-Tenn., would win a showdown. [emph mine]
In short, WTF? Did we all so quickly forget last April?
[According to a WaPo/ABC News Poll,] by a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found.
It is certainly fair to consider the Democrats' circumstance weakened by Graham and DeWine making clear they would bolt the agreement if Alito were filibustered, and by moderate Democrats questioning their will to do so. But it's entirely irresponsible to simply declare that their defection puts Alito's confirmation on the brink of fait accompli. Not pointing out that the Go14 compromise caused a sigh of relief on both sides of the aisle lest the vote actually have to be cast and choices made, is a serious omission of political conditions affecting any upcoming vote.
Is this like a lobbyist writing a bill that a compliant Congressperson can put their name on and claim as their own? Did the GOP just pass this article on to Jesse Holland and have it run verbatim? That's the only circumstance that would excuse such poorly reasoned analysis--and of course that would expose a more serious problem: willful distortion of the state of the Senate right now. If Bill Frist can get so thoroughly face-slapped in front of all his colleagues over Phase II of the Iraq hearings, Mark Schmitt is quite correct to wonder: how can he outwit Harry Reid on the nuclear option?
--TJ
Comments