Halway Blog - Politics - Gang of 14 Saves the Filibuster

The Gang of 14 Saves the Filibuster

The prime villains in this stupid little morality skit are Lieberman, who certainly knows better, and McCain, who probably doesn't.

So the "centrist" senators have sealed their concocted deal to preserve the filibuster while allowing a vote on some of Bush's judicial nominees. Almost certainly, the press will hail these 14 senators as statesmen who have selflessly toiled to preserve the Union, or at least some of its hallowed traditions. An AP story has already given these dealmakers credit for preserving "...venerable filibuster rules."

Baloney. The Senate democrats were breaking the law with their threats of filibuster, and now they have been rewarded for their efforts. The Senate had an opportunity to make another step toward minimizing the filibuster, but the "centrists" traded their votes, probably for public attention.

Nothing has been permanently settled. The agreement is between the 7 democratic and 7 republican senators in this self-appointed gang of 14, and the agreement is between these 14 ONLY. Because the Senate republicans need 1 or 2 votes from this gang to get the 51 votes they need to change the Senate rules, the deal will have force - as long as the 14 keep their promises to each other.

The prime villains in this stupid little morality skit are Lieberman, who certainly knows better, and McCain, who probably doesn't. McCain hasn't yet shown that understands what the job of a senator is. His claims to fame include the failed 1997 "Universal Tobacco Settlement Act", one of several bills that would have created a multi-billion dollar profit-sharing deal with the tobacco companies, and the McCain-Feingold "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997", which violated the First Amendment by banning soft-money anti-candidate ads within 60 days before a general election.

In contrast, Senator Frist deserves praise for sticking to principles and making no deals. At some political risk, he correctly maintained that the Constitution requires a vote on judicial nominees.

The above prediction may have been a bit pessimistic. So far, there hasn't been much praise for the Gang of 14 and their compromise. Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post, each a past supporter of the democrats' stonewalling of Bush's judicial nominees, seemed particularly impressed by the deal. In an editorial today, "Alas, a Nuclear Freeze", the Los Angeles Times was quite scathing in its regrets over the failure to get rid of the judicial filibuster. As the LA Times observed, "...the filibuster is essentially a reactionary tool that unduly empowers obstructionist minorities."
---------

The prediction was correct after all. It looks as if the newspapers were surprised by Gang of 14's compromise on 23 May, and didn't have their editorials sufficiently started to be able to print them on 24 May. However, by 25 May, the liberal arms of the press were embracing the Gang as predicted. ABC News on the radio did indicate surprise, but I can't remember what was said.
If the press was surprised, one might wonder why. This self-appointed group of peacemakers was obviously enjoying the press attention; they were unlikely to give up their moment of fame by failing to produce a deal. Nor should the timing have caught anyone off guard; in less than 24 hours, Frist was going to ask for the rules interpretation (the so-called "nuclear option").

A Washington Post editorial, "The Center Holds", 24 May, said , "The 14 senators nonetheless managed to put principle above self-protection."

The Boston Globe, in "The Senate steps back", 25 May, said, "FOURTEEN SENATORS proved late Monday that they love their country and their institution more than they love the ideological extremists who increasingly drive the national debate. By disarming the ''nuclear option" that right-wing Republicans were threatening to detonate, the senators pulled their leaders back from a very steep precipice."

The New York Times was more restrained in "Disarmament in the Senate", 25 May, in saying "If nothing else, the deal to end the Senate's "nuclear option" showdown was heartening in that it did demonstrate that moderates still exist in Washington, and actually have the capacity to work together to get things done."

The Times editorial was actually rather confusing. It seemed to have a lot to say, and the result was a wandering essay which attacked Bush, attacked Janice Rogers Brown, talked about the "right to filibuster", cogitated about the future, added a few irrelevancies such as John Warner's weekend seminar, and concluded with the non sequitur, "While the idea of letting the majority rule is at the heart of much in American democracy, it has little to do with the Senate, where some members represent 10 times as many people as others."