How the tables have turned. Just five years ago, when chatter about a “permanent Republican majority” was still on the lips of hopeful pundits, Ann Coulter was hailing the prospect of abolishing the filibuster as the common-sense “constitutional option” — and Bill Frist nearly exercised it in the name of passing a few judges. The evil Gang of 14, filled with evil RINOs — John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham — did something very evil and preserved established historical rule. Most pundits identifying themselves with “the base” lambasted this decision, but prudent commentators praised them: we might be in the minority again soon, and this is a power we might want.
Well, we are in the minority again, and it is a power we want. If we’d exercised that option back then — just a few years back, with the very same members of the Senate we’re counting on now — what could we say? “Do as I say, not as I do”? “The filibuster for me, but not for thee”?
Thank God for RINOs like McCain, Snowe, and Graham. We owe them a lot of thanks right now for their foresight.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
You’re either ignorant or completely re-writing history on the nuclear option from 2005 Alex. No one suggested that it be abolished for legislation. It was for nominees.
And the Gang of 14 nonsense was a huge blow to the judiciary. Because of it (and Chairman Specter) Obama’s filling tons of Circuit positions with hacks left and right.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Thomas,
Only for the nominees then, only for “much needed” health care reform now.
That’s the trouble when you start making exceptions. Each new exception makes every future “exception” that much easier.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Anyway, Biden is doing a complete flip flop on the other side now, despite the lengthy and eloquent defense he made of the filibuster a few years ago.
We’re not out of the woods yet, and may have to cobble together a new “gang of 14.”
January 20th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
2:
But still damn near impossible. No way the Dems would have been able to get rid of the filibuster for legislation.
All the Gang of 14 did was hamstring Republican presidents from nominating people to the judiciary into perpetuity. It wasn’t farsighted, it was disgusting.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Alex I agree with you on this.I am a conservative on both the fiscal and social issues,however there are more important issues than the ones I hold dear. Like national security and a balanced budget. Hagel, who was a senator from my state, really upset me with the way he cozied up with Obama and the way he turned on Israel. To me he crossed the line.( Nat’l security) Snow skated close with the dancing with the HC bill(budget) Those two issues are concrete for me, go against them and you go against me. I will support anyone in the primary to retire you.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Right it was the gang of 14, that led to the picking of Harriet Myers. They are still planning for the nuclear option, through reconciliation, so it’s a little premature to be triumphant on this point
January 20th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
1 – How the tables have turned. Just five years ago, when chatter about a “permanent Republican majority” was still on the lips of hopeful pundits, Ann Coulter was hailing the prospect of abolishing the filibuster as the common-sense “constitutional option” — and Bill Frist nearly exercised it in the name of passing a few judges.
…Also, see #2.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
6 – Not triumphant so much, but aren’t you really, really glad that we still have this card to play?
January 20th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
7:
Yes, I read it. And it still would not have abolished the filibuster which means your post is still nonsensical.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Health Care is dead many blue dogs will get off that train now but I do hope Obama tries one last push and hurts his political capital even more.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
They don’t care Alex, about any rules, they changed the rules about Senate selection, they switched
out the nominee, in New Jersey, Corzine for Torricelli. They fixed the seat for Franken
January 20th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
It would have abolished the filibuster as a fixture; it would have decimated its place in the Senate rules. Abolish it “just this one time” means “whenever it’s important” which in practice means “whenever we say so.”
January 20th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Alex,
“aren’t you really, really glad that we still have this card to play?”
I am. It will be tough to be the first party to do it, as there is no “precedent” to point to, and there will probably be hell to pay for it. Now Republicans can say, ‘we didn’t do it when we had the chance and our base wanted us to.’ Democrats will have to decide- after all their eloquent defenses of the filibuster- whether they want to be complete hypocrites, and reinforce the concerns voters just expressed in MA.
Even though many voters don’t understand or even know about the filibuster, they will if it is scrapped, and voters in the bluest state of the union just gave their dominant party a royal smackdown in large part because they thought they were getting too powerful and power hungry.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
12:
It would not have abolished the filibuster as a fixture. The filibuster being applied to nominees was a new concept that only started 2 years earlier in 2003.
You have no evidence that it would have ended the filibuster for legislation. The rule was not being touched for that. Democrats wouldn’t dare remove the filibuster today. Especially with the likelihood of taking a bath over the next 3 election cycles.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Kind of like “emergency” or “supplemental” spending bills.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
I take it they white house is expecting only like 2= 3 loses in nov 2010 they already seem pretty confidant ?
January 20th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
I have mixed emotions about the topic of the thread. I can see sense in the argument that if Frist had gone nuclear we would see Reid do it now. I still would like to see a change in the Senate rules for judicial nominations to need only a 51 vote majority, and not 60.
I think that it is very important here to thank other RINOs who made this breathtaking win in Mass happen yesterday. First off we should thank Brown for running such a great campaign. Then Romney and team should be thanked for all the behind the scenes support they gave Brown. But most of all, the moderate and liberal voters in Massachusetts should be kissed thoroughly by the rest of the country for saving our collective bacon. It sure wasn’t a bunch of conservative voters in MA who stopped ObamaCare dead in its tracks, it was moderates, independents, and even a large number of liberals who made the difference.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
14 – Who the f(ar)k would you expect to actually buy that argument?
“Come on guys! We didn’t mean it for legislation! That’s not what we wanted! Just for our judges! Guys! Guys…guys?”
January 20th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
And I state again, the Gang of 14 effectively ruined the judiciary forever. And we’re supposed to be happy because maybe, somewhat, we the Democrats would seem a bit less hypocritical if they followed Howard Dean and dumped the filibuster when they don’t have the votes to change the Senate rules anyway.
God, some people spend too much time in the insular world of beltway politics. If the Dems could get rid of the filibuster for legislation they would have by now, no matter what Republicans did 5 years ago. One extra talking point or not.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Excellent post, Alex.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
18:
Talking point. Everyone cower in fear!!!
Few want the fillibuster gone. You’re just presenting a false choice to cover RINO butts for their betrayal.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
…of course, there’s the argument that, absent the filibuster, the GOP would have been able to push through a lot that it couldn’t thanks to the DNC, and we wouldn’t even be in some of the places we are today.
January 20th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Particular issues aside, the filibuster is very much a small ‘c’ conservative instrument. It slows things down, it guards against radical changes both left and right. It helps make sure that our society, government, and way of life is not going to radically change with every election. It allows us to worry less about who is in government (I know, I know, we’re all bad examples here) and lets people get on with their lives (or at least those who are so inclined). That is the essense of small ‘c’ conservatism.
January 20th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Count me on the side of those who support the filibuster regardless of who’s in power, and even if it’s used to stop good legislation / prevent the appointment of good judges / whatever.
Although I hardly feel the need to pat Snow or Graham or McCain on the back. Being right on one issue doesn’t make up for being wrong on a host of others. It is fortunate that they were right on this particular issue though.
January 20th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
23 – Exactly! It’s a check on power.
January 20th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
BTW, if 60% of you want to stop this debate, you may do so at any time.
January 20th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
26 – this is not a constitutional democracy, it is a community blog.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Haha! I love it. Alex, MWS….you are right!
Faye,
I grew up in Nebraska…and I remember when Hagel was being considered for VP. There was even talk that Cheney was going to be taken off the ticket in 2004…although that was probably just wishful thinking for a lot of people. I always liked Hagel. He responded to my correspondence…but he did absolutely abandon several conservative positions…although i myself in hindsight would NOT have gone into Iraq…i think we needed to at least make it secure before we left. Hagel was right on one thing….the republican party went down in flames in 2006….he said it would happen because of the attitude of the republican party, and because we had abandoned conservative principles. He was right….and the fact that he even spoke like that cost him the Senate. Rightfully so…..as I was getting tired of his internationalist speak, but we lost a true conservative the day we invaded iraq. Hagel was a star, but his star faded. Now we look at people like Hagel and call them RINO’s. Are you kidding me? Hagel was conservative on everything except the perception of national defense, and support of Israel….and the UN. Other than that he was right on. Pro-life, cut taxes, cut spending, no earmarks…the man was a hero. Then he was not. He screwed himself.
I think we look at some of these people and say, “i don’t want them in my party”…but when it comes to a time that we need them, we change our minds. We need the RINO’s…if for no other reason than that MOST of them are NOT RINO’s. They are moderate on several issues and conservative on several issues…that makes them moderate-conservative’s. We WANT these people, and we NEED these people. If the dems excercize the nuclear option…they will live to regret it. Come 2012, NONE of them will be left, and republicans will use the nuclear option to derail EVERYTHING they’ve accomplished. If they want to preserve anything, their best hope is to reconcile with republicans and get a bill passed that can at least be respected by most republicans…even though i myself don’t want a bill at all.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
“Particular issues aside, the filibuster is very much a small ‘c’ conservative instrument. It slows things down, it guards against radical changes both left and right. It helps make sure that our society, government, and way of life is not going to radically change with every election. It allows us to worry less about who is in government (I know, I know, we’re all bad examples here) and lets people get on with their lives (or at least those who are so inclined). That is the essense of small ‘c’ conservatism.”
Perhaps….but there is a big difference between a government that moves at a respectable pace, and one so deadlocked by its own rules that it has difficulty tackling legitimate issues.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
This post is almost unbelievable. Are you serious? Fact is that the nuclear option had nothing to do with the filibuster in general — only related to nominees, because there is a compelling constitutional argument that the filibuster should not apply to judicial nominees.
And the fact you’d thank God for RINOs at all is a bad sign. The party would be in a lot better shape if it weren’t for McCain, Snowe, and Grahamnesty.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
waterseed, I was ok with Hagel till he started playing footsie with Obama. It was like his true self came out. Just did not trust him afterwards.
We need the moderates in the party, it helps us to stay balanced. I’ve seen too often when a group becomes unbalanced because they refuse to listen to opposing ideas or even ideas that are less than 90% of their core beliefs. When these groups become this isolated they become irrational very quickly.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Faye,
Absolutely agree. I’m not really into anybody that is close to Obama. I couldn’t believe it when Hagel was being considered for Secretary of State and Defense. It was like….are you kidding me?
January 20th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
30:
Alex and some others are engaging in naked history re-writing to cover RINO butt.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
BTW, this is the type of holier-than-thou juveneille crap that makes RINOs so destructive. They injured the judiciary for no gain, and here we are making up an unlikely alternate history where this would have been extended to general legislation. All so that we can give them the false premise as the wise ones.
No, the Gang of 14 were the WORST kind of RINO misbehavior. They put their own sense of superiority over the good of the country, the party, and frankly the Senate. Lately they’ve been behaving, and I have hopes that Brown will be a good moderate that will not put his own grandstanding above the good of the party. But it’s this type of nonsense that makes me so gunshy about trusting them.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
I notice that there was no mention of Arlen Specter. He was there at the time and he was a RINO, but now he’s a DINO. In fact he became the “60th” vote and he has done huge damage to the Republican Party. So, don’t go too far in praising the RINO’s most if not all of those you mention could yet jump parties and become the Democrat’s poster boy for a day.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Alex Knepper is absolutely right. The RINO’s were right back in 2005, before Katrina brought down Bush and his Administration.
Does ANYONE believe that if we had abolished the “judicial” hold on nominations, the D’s would have respected the filibuster now to pass National Socialist Health Care?
Not a chance.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
I did in regards to his chairmanship.
But technically, Specter wasn’t part of the Gang of 14. He played coy with his vote.
Not a chance that they WOULD you mean. Please stop living in your dreamworld, the filibuster wasn’t going anywhere regardless of the nuclear option.
January 20th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Crist: Seat Brown on Thursday
http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/77105-crist-seat-brown-on-thursday
January 20th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Thomas,
Imagine a Democrat saying “it’s only for the purpose of passing important things like healthcare. Conservatives would never have the nerve to take this just argument we are using, and use it to abuse the filibuster for nefarious things like stacking the courts with their judges when they get in power”. It’s the exact same thing!
Folks hate with good reason parties that abuse power like this. The Bush Administration’s love for pushing through all sorts of controversial (and sometimes corrupt) deals got them thrown out on their hind ends. When was the last time McCain, or Graham, or Snowe tried to ram through some huge spending bills, or packed the budget full of their pork, or took ski trips with Abramoff, or kicked around the opposition party as much as they could without respecting the concerns of the voters?
The lesson of the last decade, was that these guys were right! And all the “RINO hunters” in our party were too drunk with power to realize it, until the voters had thrown each and every one of them out. This is why it is so, so important that our candidates, moderate and conservative, from Massachusetts and from Alabama that we send to the legislature this year are quality men and women we can count on to do their jobs right, to be better than partisan idiots that raid the place as soon as they can bust the door in.
January 20th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Cindy McCain Joins Campaign in Favor of Gay Marriage
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6121366.shtml
January 20th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
39:
Oh gee, I suppose completely ignoring the fact that the filibuster has been used exactly for things like the health care bill and was never used for nominees just makes no difference. It’s all the same. My God duck that talking point.
No matter how many times you pretend otherwise, the filbuster for legislation was in zero danger because of the nuclear option. These guys aren’t heroes, they’re self-pretentious jerks.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
39:
Oh gee, I suppose completely ignoring the fact that the filibuster has been used exactly for things like the health care bill and was never used for nominees just makes no difference. It’s all the same. My God duck that talking point.
No matter how many times you pretend otherwise, the filbuster for legislation was in zero danger because of the nuclear option. These guys aren’t heroes, they’re self-pretentious jerks.
McCain doesn’t have any problem ramming stuff down people’s throats. Just look at the zeal McCain displayed during the Immigration debacle. Graham has no problem telling his constituents to take a flyer. And Snowe voted for the biggest piece of pork of all-time last year with the stimulus. Don’t give me that they’re the sort of people we should be listening to.
Beyond which THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. I’m not a RINO and I wasn’t happy with the pork nonsense. Neither were most strong conservatives.
January 21st, 2010 at 12:45 am
Thomas,
It’s about arrogance and hypocrisy. Wiping out the filibuster to put your guys in reeks of overreach of power. And, as I said, it gives the Dems complete cover to wipe it out for other legislation deemed important when they are in power.
That’s funny, I don’t recall McCain cackling as he stuffed McCain-Kennedy through the Senate, swearing to wipe out the filibuster unless everyone complied.
Graham also has the job of representing an entire State, not just the local Tea Party gathering.
Snowe was a net drop on that bill. Democrats had to take the axe to some of the worst parts in order to get her on board. A party always behaves better in Congress when it has an opposition that can keep it in check, even if that opposition is totally disorganized and only Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins show up.
They are the same issue because it is the arrogance of conservatives when they reach power, and think that they can do anything and everything they want, even if it means pushing the same 51-vote reconciliations they cry about when they have a minority, just like the Democrats do, that causes the corruption of conservatives. And these so-called “RINO’s” have been the only Republicans out there that seem to recognize that.
I don’t know how guys like DeMint can live with themselves, wanting to “Waterloo” the Dems one day, then wanting to play Napoleon the next. And least of all change the rules that were meant to contain power from getting out of hand, when they themselves have the power.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:30 am
It gives Dems minimal cover to do so and they don’t want to anyway.
No matter how many times you repeat the nonsense, whether the nuclear option had been deployed 5 years ago, the filibuster would be in zero peril today.
Well, perhaps you’ve forgotten that he was practicing Dem style legislation of slamming it through before anyone can pay attention.
Graham represents the area between him and any nearby camera.
I can’t believe you even tried to make that argument.
Actually, it was an attempt to back down Democrat arrogance of deciding that nominations required a 60 vote margin for the first time in history. No president before Bush faced that obsticle for their nominees.
Making it so that the current president has the exact same power as every one of his predecessors is far from an arrogant grab for power. And it’s terrible that you’ve conceded to the Dems the ability to block any nominee for any Republican president forever.
February 13th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Valtrex….
Valtrex door delievery. Valtrex prescription cheap. Order valtrex online….