solaris_219 (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} solaris_219) wrote,@ 2005-05-26 08:52:00 |
|
I'm going to write more about the nominees later today, if I get time, but I wanted to repost a comment I made in objectioon to people lionizing Harry Reid for his performance in the filibuster fight.
I wrote a fairly scathing post about Reid's behaviour post-compromise, and was questioned why I was being so hard on Reid. Well, here's why.
The right are furious at this compromise. They are already talking about doing everything possible to remove Mike DeWine at the next election. What Reid's comments - loudly and intemperately claiming victory - will do is to pour gasoline on a smouldering fire. By attempting to rob Republican moderates of the ability to claim that this was anything other than a capitulation, Reid is either trying to, or may simply be too stupid to realize that this will be the effect, encourage the burgeoning calls for a purge in the GOP, which will remove the very moderates who facilitated this deal. At best - callously stupid. At worse - calculatedly pernicious.
Besides, I dispute the characterization that it's a "victory" for either side. Moderates on both sides can claim a limited victory, and partisans on both sides have deafeningly claimed their party's ignominious defeat. Much has been said about why the Democrats "won" this, and now I shall present my argument why they didn't.
This isn't a victory for Harry Reid - the GOP effectively agreed to not use the nuclear option for as long as the Democrats don't filibuster. Owens and Brown - for all the democrats bitter hostility - will both have their gavels within a week. If the Democrats attempt to filibuster another nominee, thus breaking this hard-won compromise, they will find public support much diminished next time, which means that they've peaked prematurely, scant months before a Supreme Court nomination fight.
Furthermore, while much has been made of Frist's motivations in bringing this matter to a head, it seems to me that Harry Reid was spoiling for a nuclear showdown. Perhaps because the Democrat base has been clamoring for a leader that won't compromise or give in, a leader with more essential "toughness" from their previous four candidates.
Much has also been made of Frist's "refusal to compromise". A compromise is when neither side gets everything they want - what did Reid offer to give up in his proposed "compromises"? Nothing. To my knowledge, Reid never offered to compromise - he demanded that Frist surrender, but for the sake of the cameras, he did so in the dulcet tones of Irish diplomacy, which made it appear that he wanted to compromise.
When, in fact, a compromise came, it came in spite of Reid, not because of him, and he proceded (as discussed above) to do everything he could to shipwreck the deal.
Tell me how any of that is a "victory" for Reid.
I wrote a fairly scathing post about Reid's behaviour post-compromise, and was questioned why I was being so hard on Reid. Well, here's why.
The right are furious at this compromise. They are already talking about doing everything possible to remove Mike DeWine at the next election. What Reid's comments - loudly and intemperately claiming victory - will do is to pour gasoline on a smouldering fire. By attempting to rob Republican moderates of the ability to claim that this was anything other than a capitulation, Reid is either trying to, or may simply be too stupid to realize that this will be the effect, encourage the burgeoning calls for a purge in the GOP, which will remove the very moderates who facilitated this deal. At best - callously stupid. At worse - calculatedly pernicious.
Besides, I dispute the characterization that it's a "victory" for either side. Moderates on both sides can claim a limited victory, and partisans on both sides have deafeningly claimed their party's ignominious defeat. Much has been said about why the Democrats "won" this, and now I shall present my argument why they didn't.
This isn't a victory for Harry Reid - the GOP effectively agreed to not use the nuclear option for as long as the Democrats don't filibuster. Owens and Brown - for all the democrats bitter hostility - will both have their gavels within a week. If the Democrats attempt to filibuster another nominee, thus breaking this hard-won compromise, they will find public support much diminished next time, which means that they've peaked prematurely, scant months before a Supreme Court nomination fight.
Furthermore, while much has been made of Frist's motivations in bringing this matter to a head, it seems to me that Harry Reid was spoiling for a nuclear showdown. Perhaps because the Democrat base has been clamoring for a leader that won't compromise or give in, a leader with more essential "toughness" from their previous four candidates.
Much has also been made of Frist's "refusal to compromise". A compromise is when neither side gets everything they want - what did Reid offer to give up in his proposed "compromises"? Nothing. To my knowledge, Reid never offered to compromise - he demanded that Frist surrender, but for the sake of the cameras, he did so in the dulcet tones of Irish diplomacy, which made it appear that he wanted to compromise.
When, in fact, a compromise came, it came in spite of Reid, not because of him, and he proceded (as discussed above) to do everything he could to shipwreck the deal.
Tell me how any of that is a "victory" for Reid.
