Fineman: Ready to Blow

Politics: Ready to Blow - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

Newsweek's Howard Fineman likes to portray himself as politically neutral. However, isn't it suspicious that he hangs the outcome of the coming filibuster showdown on a few Republican moderates? Not once does he contemplate the suggestion that the Democrats, who have violated over 200 years of Senate tradition, moderate their stance. There is not a single allusion to a "Democratic moderate" in his article, despite the heading of his article: "a few moderates hope for middle ground." Never in the history of the Senate -- with the exception of Fortas, who had ethical problems, and who opposed by both parties -- have judicial nominees been filibustered. This is the historically extremist position.

I do not believe any compromise is in order because a compromise legitimates an extremist negotiation starting point. By far the most desirable solution, one that everyone looking at the long term would agree on, would be no change to the Senate rules so long as the Democrats restore Senate tradition and quit filibustering judicial nominees. They would have to acknowledge that they have abused Senate rules and violated Senate tradition. They would also have to offer some guarantee that they would not violate their agreement.

However, the Democrats cannot offer any credible guarantee. And so, reluctantly, Senate Republicans must write honorable tradition into the Senate rules. The tradition has been not to filibuster judicial nominees, the change to Senate rules will only apply to this situation. Sen. Frist's proposal does not apply to the legislative filibuster.

Why can't the Democrats offer a credible guarantee?

The Democrats have a history of trying to destroy the filibuster when in power. The argument that someday Republicans will be in the minority and will need the protections of the filibuster assumes too much. If the Democrats ever do get back into power again, what will stop them from changing the Senate rules in their favor? The memory of Republican restraint? I doubt it!

Sen. Robert Byrd led the creation of precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to stop filibusters. In 1995, nine current Democratic senators sought to put an end to all filibusters, even legislative, a step much more radical than anything contemplated here. Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes have already displayed a readiness to bend their principles as politically expedient. They have betrayed a willingness to take extreme positions in the past. What credible guarantee can they offer that they will not do it again?

It is far more reasonable to think they will change the Senate rules in their favor as soon as they get the chance than to think they will respond in kind to a "moderate" concession.

Also, the Democrats are led by a man who does not respect existing Senate rules with respect to confidential files, illegally characterizes these FBI files, and ignores a memorandum of understanding with the White House on treatment of nominees. What guarantee can there be that this man will suddenly learn integrity and keep his word?

No. For these reasons I support Frist's action and hope he presses on with it:

1) It codifies what was the Senate tradition until Democratic extremists highjacked the process.
2) A compromise would legitimate an illegitimate negotiation starting point.
3) The Democrats are much more likely to change the rules themselves in the future than to respect a concession today. Fineman couldn't find a single Democratic moderate.
4) The Democratic leader won't adhere to any agreement anyway.