Wampum

Nuclear Option Becoming Less Likely

In a very smart post at Tapped, Sam Rosenfeld argues that the chances that the Republican Senate will “go nuclear” to prevent judicial nominees from being blocked by filibuster is fading. There are a number of reasons why that may be true.

Rosenfeld links to this article in The Hill noting that internal Republican polling looks bad for the nuclear option:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a leading advocate of the “nuclear option” to end the Democrats’ filibuster of judicial nominees, is privately arguing for a delay in the face of adverse internal party polls.

Details of the polling numbers remain under wraps, but Santorum and other Senate sources concede that, while a majority of Americans oppose the filibuster, the figures show that most also accept the Democratic message that Republicans are trying to destroy the tradition of debate in the Senate…

Confirming public disquiet over the “nuclear” or “constitutional” option, Santorum said, “Our polling shows that.”

Some party elders, like Bob Dole, have also been urging caution. An AP report from the Oklahoma Daily:

A looming power play by Senate Republican leaders to clamp down on filibusters against judicial nominees is a high-risk strategy.

It could change the balance of power in the Senate, erode the rights of the minority party and backfire against Republicans in the long term.
The Senate is "not always going to be Republican," former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, the 1996 GOP presidential candidate, is reminding fellow Republicans. "Think down the road," he advises.

Dole is one of several former Senate majority leaders who have counseled a go-slow approach on the brink of a parliamentary war over Democratic filibusters--delaying tactics--against President Bush's judicial nominees.

A third reason that Republicans may shy away from the nuclear option is the fall out from the Terri Schiavo matter. As the Hill reports:

“He (Santorum) was concerned that too many things are competing in the same area and you couldn’t get a clean shot at it,” a GOP aide said. The aide cited the “fallout” from congressional Republicans’ intervening in a Florida court’s decision to remove Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube and the subsequent controversy caused by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) statement that “the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.”…

Senate and House Democrats have woven the Republican intervention in the Schiavo issue, DeLay’s statement about judges who declined to save her life, and GOP consideration of the nuclear option into a broad message that Republicans are abusing power.

Perhaps the most powerful reason for declining the nuclear option is that the resulting slowdown or stoppage of Senate business will leave Republicans in the position of not having addressed issues that actually matter to the American people. Eric links today to a Washington Post story about how out if touch with the concerns of the American people Washington has become:

Inflation and interest rates are rising, stock values have plunged, a tank of gas induces sticker shock, and for nearly a year, wages have failed to keep up with the cost of living.

Yet in Washington, the political class has been consumed with the death of a brain-damaged woman in Florida, the ethics of the House majority leader, and the fate of the Senate filibuster.

The disconnect between pocketbook concerns of ordinary Americans and the preoccupations of their politicians has helped send President Bush's approval ratings on the economy down, while breeding discontent with Congress. The problem has yet to grow into a political wave that could sweep significant numbers of lawmakers from power next year, but both parties face risks if they fail to pivot their attention to economic issues.

"There is a lot of frustration," said Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R) on Tuesday, as he was returning from his district in western Michigan. Republican leaders "need some seats from the Midwest and Northeast to maintain a majority, and if we continue at the rate we're going, we may well lose a few seats." …

Ehlers said he has been getting an earful from constituents, angered by gas prices, frightened by the latest layoff announcement, this one from the Grand Rapids-based office furniture giant Steelcase Inc., and frustrated by Congress's inattention. The negative reaction to Congress's intervention in the Schiavo case was particularly jarring, Ehlers said.

"Many are rather upset at the Terri Schiavo issue," he said, even "moderately pro-life" voters. "I'm getting a lot of the, 'Why are you spending time on that when we don't have jobs?' type of thing."

Republicans will try to blame Democrats for any gridlock in the Senate. At the end of the day, however, it is the GOP that has the power and the duty to govern. If the concerns of the American people are not addressed, it is the GOP that will bear the brunt of the blame.

Take Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, for instance. He is up for reelection in 2006. He has remained mum about his position on the nuclear option. Does he really want to run for reelection against a backdrop of a poor economy after casting a vote to ensure that the Republican Senate will do nothing to alleviate (or even to appear to alleviate) the problems? Can he go to his constituents and successfully argue that it was more important to get seven or so of the most wingnutty judicial nominees confirmed than to do something about gas prices, stagnant wages, and job losses?

"In terms of what they're looking for out of Washington and the president and Congress, [people] are expecting some policy that will address this issue [gas prices]," said GOP pollster David Winston. "It doesn't have to happen tomorrow, but they expect to see some progress being made."

Is it wise to vote for a provision that makes it impossible to meet the public’s expectation?

Rosenfeld writes:

A large number of Republican senators -- far larger than the number who've publicly expressed ambivalence -- simply don't want to pick this fight. They (reasonably, from their perspective) don't think ramming through a tiny handful of judicial nominees is worth the sacrifice of being able to pass more GOP-friendly legislation in the coming months. The real enthusiasm for judicial battles is concentrated in a number of hardcore Senate fire-breathers and a huge array of conservative interest groups, and the continued push for the nuclear option has been fueled more by Bill Frist's presidential ambitions (that is, his need to earn the credibility of a religious conservative movement that has long cast a very skeptical eye on him) than it has by any real desire on the part of most of his caucus.

Are Republican Senators such as DeWine, Smith, Sununu, Collins, and others willing to risk their majority status and even reelection to improve Bill Frist’s chances of being the 2008 Presidential nominee?

I suspect that is a hard sell.

Update: Or maybe not.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at April 21, 2005 01:44 PM | TrackBack