Senate moderates deal: A house of cards

By Lisa Fabrizio
web posted May 30, 2005

Last Monday night's deal between fourteen Senate moderates
gladdened seven self-important Republicans and a whole lot of
Democrats, especially their media wing. Typical comments on
the Memorandum Of Understanding contained the usual words
'courageous,' and 'maverick' when referring to the leader of the
coup, their icon, John McCain.

For some reason -- perhaps just to annoy conservatives -- the
media actually believe that McCain's antics are a stepping-stone
to the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. They also believed
this in 2000 and 2004 and will probably go on believing it until
he either switches parties or dies. The thinking seems to be:
anger Republicans and they will vote for you.

What are these people smoking? They gave McCain all the juice
they could in 2000 and he was badly beaten by conservative
George W. Bush once the primary route turned South. And the
country is even redder now than it was then. Have the media
noticed that almost anywhere conservative Republicans run for
Congress they usually defeat moderate ones?

An interesting exception to this was Arlen Specter in blue
Pennsylvania, whose victory was ensured by President Bush and
arch-conservative Rick Santorum campaigning on his behalf. The
result? You didn't see Specter's signature on the MOU.

As for the MOU itself, it is a beautiful example of a dish of
Seinfeld-like hash -- it is a deal about nothing. The 400-word
ditty basically says, 'we Democrats will vote for your three most
extreme nominees in exchange for your not stopping us from
doing what we promise not to do to less extreme nominees.'

When faced with such daunting concepts, even most
conservative pundits found themselves howling indignantly before
they could figure out that the document is not worth the
embossed paper it is written on. Almost before the ink was dry,
signatory Republicans Lindsey Graham and Mike Dewine were
swearing oaths of fidelity to the 'nuclear option' should any of
their Democratic counterparts misbehave.

Let's do some simple math. With the pristine fourteen occupying
the sacred middle ground, the GOP has 48 votes and the Dems
have 38. Should the Dems want to filibuster again, they first must
peel off at least three of the moderates while to counter, the
GOP needs only two to go nuclear and at least two have already
pledged to do so. So the majority is no worse off than it began
the week and has gained the approval of three conservative
judges in the bargain.

Meanwhile, those who claim that the MOU was a victory for the
minority party, should consider some anonymous words from a
far leftist at DemocraticUnderground.com:

"Let's see. The Republicans and Bush "only" get 8 of the 10 most
reactionary and right-wing judges we have seen in a long time
approved. Yup. I'd call that a big win ..... for Bush. Well, Bush
finally needed to win something. After all, George Bush only got
all of his key presidential appointments and some really nasty
anti-consumer legislation (class action tort reform, bankruptcy
bill) passed with the help of Democratic Senators, including
Harry Reid. Anyone going to pop the bubbly tonight and
celebrate this great victory?"

In the end, it's not about nuking the filibuster, which was just the
means to an end. The filibuster has, in one form or another,
existed for centuries in the U.S. Senate. The task consists of
backing the Democrats down from using it to prevent votes on
nominees that clear the Judiciary Committee. The Republicans
win when its use is not abolished but, as the left says, safe, legal
and rare.

As for the media, they can gush all they want about the pristine
fourteen 'saving the Senate' but the end of the Senate -- as
envisioned by the Founding Fathers -- began back in 1913 when
the 17 th Amendment rendered it popularly elected and thus
subject to the influence of lobbyists. So much so, that to curb its
wretched excess, the beatific McCain had to craft legislation
aimed at checking that influence, but which resulted instead in
limiting the freedom of political speech.

Democratic leaders think the MOU is teaching the executive
branch a lesson by admonishing it to end its "power grab." They
don't seem to realize that the GOP didn't have to grab the
power, it was granted them by the American electorate in
increasing numbers over the last ten years. It was the minority in
this case who tried to assert 'rights' that the voters have simply
removed from their grasp.

So hopefully when all the smoke clears, the Senate minority can
drop the filibuster threats and return to its time-honored tradition
of conducting confirmation votes: mere character assassination
and calumny.

Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut. You
may write her at mailbox@lisafab.com .

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com