A thought about the filibuster fight: For several weeks, we've been puzzled why the Republicans are so gung-ho for eliminating the filibuster. They say it's only for judicial nominations, but if they abolish it for them, it's likely the filibuster will disappear entirely in short order. The standard argument, that someday they will be in the minority and then they will want the filibuster, doesn't seem to be registering. Well, it does register with old-timers (Bob Dole) and independent minded Senators (John McCain), but that's about it. So why is Frist pushing for the elimination of the filibuster? And why this for a measly seven nominees?
Some people were thinking dark thoughts that the Republicans were planning to be the majority - permanently - through devious means. So who needs to care about minority rights in the Senate?
Think back to when Trent Lott was in hot water over his remarks at a party for Strom Thurmond. We thought Lott was actually not that bad. He conceded much to Daschle in 2001. We always viewed the movement to oust Lott as a White House effort, despite the claims of bloggers (Sullivan, Marshall). In any event, Lott got tossed and in his place came the White House approved Frist. Frist is totally artificial and not really steeped in Senate tradition. But there he is, the Majority Leader, working at the behest of Bush.
Does the White House care about Senate tradition? No. They don't give a rat's ass. And the leadership in Congress has demonstrated that it is very much under the control of the White House (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug Bill).
Sure, part of this is Frist and whatever ambitions he may have, but it's looking more and more like the filibuster elimination is a White House operation. Something that tends to reinforce that notion is the fact that senators who have already demonstrated independence from Bush are for keeping the filibuster.
The decision this week on the filibuster will be a test, not so much of Frist, but of the power of the White House. If Frist loses, the White House may also loosen its grip on Congress.
By the way, we think that the existing Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change the filibuster. This nonsense about a tie vote and Cheney deciding on the constitutionality of the filibuster, followed by a simple majority vote to change rules is, exactly that. Nonsense.
posted by Quiddity at 5/15/2005 08:46:00 PM
Fixed. If you want to find typos and other errors, check out Yglesias' blog. He'll keep you busy.
But who decides, what the rules are? Courts are extremly reluctant to touch the question of Senate rules, because it's the Senate's task to supervise itself. And who rules the Senate?
Reality notwithstanding, the Bush administration has lost no battles.
I agree entirely. Lott, a stalwart of the old racist-right, an ex-Dixiecrat himself, was moved aside for the new, squeaky-clean religious right (Columbia HCA notwithstanding).
He's a veto-less President.
Losing is unpresidential.
He's said as much himself, about the importance of seeming like a good leader.
