As I am writing my last column as a bachelor, I feel that I must share some wisdom I have learned from premarital counseling with Senate Democrats. Collaboration -- not confrontation -- is the way to make a relationship run smoothly. If you want to get what you want, you must also be willing to give the other party what it wants.
Thus, my question to Senate Democrats: Do they think their filibustering (along with other obstructionist policies, as seen with John Bolton and Social Security reform) will help them in the long run? That will make quite a campaign platform: "Vote for us and vote for gridlock!"
Perhaps if any of these positions currently held with such vigor by many of these Democrats were based in principled support of the filibuster, I could take their arguments at face value. But, sadly, this is just another example of Democrats putting partisanship ahead of principle.
In January of 1995, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, proposed allowing the Senate to invoke cloture with a simple majority vote, effectively ending the filibuster not just for judicial nominations, but for every procedure in the Senate. Those who voted for the bill besides Harkin include Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Jeff Bingaman, Frank Lautenberg and Joe Lieberman -- all of whom have voted against cloture on the filibustered nominees every time.
Even ex-Senator Tom Daschle, architect of the Democrats' current filibuster strategy, spoke out against them, saying "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination. ... Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock."
Or take Senator Patrick Leahy, in 1998: "I have stated over and over again ... that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported."
Or Ted Kennedy: "Senators who believe in fairness will not let a minority of the Senate deny [the nominee] his vote by the entire Senate." Apparently, these Senators no longer believe in fairness, only in partisan obstructionism.
Democrats like to say they have confirmed "most" of Bush's judicial nominees, but again, this distorts the facts. The percentage of judicial nominees confirmed during Bush's presidency is the lowest since the Roosevelt administration. Less than 70 percent of federal circuit court nominees have been approved, and in the vital D.C. circuit court, a mere 33 percent have been approved.
Some commentators point to opinion polls that say Americans favor retaining the filibuster, but few reveal how misleading these polls are. The most oft-quoted poll, conducted by ABC/Washington Post, asks such questions as "Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?" It's an obvious leading question that any first-year political science student should know better than to include in a supposedly scientific poll. In addition, the poll oversamples Democrats -- 35 percent to 28 percent.
In the last few days, Democrat leaders have put forth a weak attempt to avoid a vote on a "Constitutional Option" by signaling that they might agree to two of the judicial nominees getting a vote. After years of filibustering, this is clearly a sign that Democrats fear they will lose the Constitutional Option vote.
Far from being the "constitutional crisis" that some Senate Democrats claim it is, invoking the Constitutional (or "nuclear") option is quickly becoming the only viable method of moving forward in the face of unprecedented obstructionism. Democrats should be quick to remember their legislative losses in the last election. If these Senators continue their unprincipled obstructionism, they should expect a repeat in 2006.
Write to Time at
redbaron.strikesagain@gmail.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
