We Asked For It: Calling for New Senate Leadership
By Sean Hackbarth Posted in User Blogs — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
When Sen. Trent Lott made his stupid Strom Thurmond remarks that cost him his leadership post I heard nothing about how the lack of experience in his replacement, Sen. Bill Frist, would affect the GOP. I admit I thought it was good for Lott to move aside. However, I wouldn't have backed Frist knowing then how ineffective the Tennessee Senator would be. Frist demonstrates his lack of political savy with his inability to get President Bush's judicial nominations passed and John Bolton through the Foreign Relations Committee. Even more surprising is that the bogged down judicial nominations cost Tom Daschle his Senate seat, and a Republican stopped the Bolton nomination. I'll state it bluntly: the GOP made a mistake in elevating Frist to majority leader. He doesn't have the hardball political skills needed to beat the Democrats. Frist's ineptitude has pushed some to withhold their political contributions to GOP Senators. In order to salvage anything of his legislative agenda the President needs to tell Frist he had his chance. Replacing management is what Bush did when he was running the Texas Rangers, and items like Social Security reform and conservative judicial nominations are way more important.
Lott was finally finished when the White House said they would accept Frist as his replacement. So, in fact, Bush does have a powerful role to play. That's not surprising since he is the leader of the GOP.
Why would the Senate GOP want to be weak?
Remember being prone to the Democrats for too long. It's practically instinctive now.
The bull about the august nature of the Senate cows the rest.
Should no more be a Yes-man club for the Executive than it should be a cheering section for the courts or a rubber stamp society for the House. Checks and balances ain't always pretty and sometimes they result in "taurine byproduct" but it's how our system works.
I think you guys have over-simplified the problem that faces the Republican majority in the United States Senate and have prematurely accused Frist of being an ineffective leader.
I realize that I might get a pie in the face, trying to defend Bill Frist and (some of) the Republicans, but here goes......
The Democrats' tactics in the Senate, filibustering judicial nominees, is a new invention. I will define filibustering as denying the 60 votes needed for cloture so that debate can end and a vote be held.
The current group of Democrat Senators are more partisan than the Democrats of 1991, the year Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52 to 48. Notice that Thomas didn't have 60 votes? If every Democrat (there were 46 Democrats who voted no; Republicans Bob Packwood and Jim Jeffords (then a Republican) were the 2 Republicans who voted no) who voted against Clarence Thomas had voted against cloture, Thomas wouldn't be on the US Supreme Court.
Anyone who paid attention during the Thomas hearings knows that it was a very polarizing debate. But still no filibuster.
So, the Senate Republicans are dealing with a super-partisan minority of Democrats, which the current Senate rules are ill-suited to deal with. In the US House, such partisanship is swatted away fairly easily, assuming you have party unity.
Ah! Party unity. That's my next point. Republicans break down in two categories (although this is an oversimplification too):
(1) True blue Republicans. They vote with their party most of the time, even if they have doubts about the position.
(2) "Independent" Republicans. They vote their self-interest, conscience, feelings, liberal voters attitudes.
Among the current 55 Republicans, I would say that about 45 of them are true blue Republicans.
Frist has a difficult task trying to piece together at least 5 of the "independent" Republicans.
Was Trent Lott able to prevent the passage of campaign finance reform or the acquittal of Bill Clinton's impeachment trial or the Chemical Weapons ban treaty? No. So, I think we need to cut Frist some slack and who knows; he might be able to pull off the Bolton nomination and the judicial nominations in the next two months.
It's no more removed from the people than the House. (Thanks a lot, Progressives.) Why should it be different?
I think the biggest criticism of Frist is to be found in the committee makeups. How did we get 4 moderates on Foreign Relations again? Whodathunk that the guy from Minnesota would be the stand out?
While you qualify your comments with a fear of oversimplification, I would agree whole heartedly with your assessment of the renegades in the party, the so-called "independents". In my opinion, though, the motivation for these recalcitrant RINO's has nothing at all to do with conscience, but more to do with ego. The "look at me" attitude of these guys is astounding. McCain is transparent in his desire to "loved", and Voinovich, before this latest fiasco, who outside of Ohio had even heard of him? Hagel is just a waste of campaign funds and the Northeastern Senators (Snow, Collins, Chaffee, et al) have no real conservative motivations.
In addition, it would appear that all Senators are afflicted with Senate Syndrome with a touch of Beltwayitis. Basically, Senators are supposed have "decorum" so everyone has to get along, and not fight (Heaven forbid that they become like "those people" in the House) plus the Beltway mentality that permeates these career politicians overrides party loyalty at times.
(1) True blue Republicans. They vote with their party most of the time, even if they have doubts about the position.
(2) "Independent" Republicans. They vote their self-interest, conscience, feelings, liberal voters attitudes.
Emphasis mine.
in decisions related to committees?
I thought there was some type of formula related to seniority or is that just for committee chairs?
all the people of a state, and senators must convince a majority of the state electorate to elect them. Hence senators will be on the whole less ideologically extreme (or "pure" in you prefer) than congressmen whose dictricts may themselves more extreme/pure (and can be drawn to produce that result and often are nowadays)
As what you said. Suppose Texas has (pray God) an all Republican House delegation some day. Should the Senators from Texas rubber stamp the will of their people?
Frist's biggest criticism is the fact that for months and months he dangled out the threat of a nuclear/constitution option to get the bottled-up nominations an up-or-down vote. He's been doing it for so long I don't think he has the guts to do it.
As for the Bolton mess Voinivich(sp) better be taught a lesson for himself and other Republican Senators. Take away some spiffy project he really wants for his Ohio voters. Don't threaten, do it. You can disagree with leadership but don't make your party look like fools. It only emboldens your opponents. I don't expect that from Frist because, frankly, I don't think he'd think of something like that. Let's be honest. Frist is only Majority Leader because President Bush wanted the prescription drug package attached to Medicare. We're stuck with this lame leader because Bush wanted to expand government.
Re: Should the Senators from Texas rubber stamp the will of their people?
Senators in principle are supposed to represent their states. Granted the 17th amendment has hobbled that to an extent, but if the people of a state, through their House representatation, want something that is a bad idea for their state I would say that their senators have a duty to voter against such a proposal, just as the President has a duty to veto legislation that he perceives as bad for the country as a whole no matter how popular it may be.
Why, if they're popularly elected? The Seventeenth Amendment didn't "hobble that to an extent," it gutted it outright. They're just House members on a larger scale.
The Senate chooses its own leadership. Bush has nothing to do with it. His appearing to even advocate a change would not go down well with the Olympian gods who inhabit the Senate.
The GOP Senators have either elected two spineless weasels in a row by accident, or they want it to be like this.
I choose Door #2.