Centerfield

What I wish for but, unfortunately, know will not happen is that the 14 will realize that their futures are pretty bleak within their own parties now and this would be a great opportunity (and a great starting base) for a third party.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at May 25, 2005 10:17 AM

John McCain for President... That's what is next. To be followed by a donnybrook for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Bring it on!

I think the split for the Democrats will be less of an event. First, the moderates in the Democratic Party aren't as frustrated it appears, and second, Harry Reid did a good job of embracing the compromise almost immediately. Watch for the negative attacks to start coming out against McCain. I think the difference this time, as opposed to the 2000 primary, is that the right doesn't really have a candidate to rally around this time, and attacking McCain may only make him more popular.

Posted by: Mathew at May 25, 2005 10:52 AM

Can McCain win in Republican primaries? Read the oaths of eternal vengeance from true-blue (or should that be “true-red”?) Republican bloggers. I don't think they're kidding. Will they forget? Can they persuade themselves that a more conservative candidate (McCain is pretty darned conservative—check his voting record) can win in the general election?

Posted by: Dave Schuler at May 25, 2005 11:21 AM

The spin in the aftermath is going to vary wildly. I just this am read a Globe story citing that partisans are promising to bring this issue to the fore again ASAP. Both sides' partisan grumblers think this solves nothing. Whether or not you grant Limbaugh serious status in the GOP, you have to admit he's out front loudly and effectively carrying the water of discontent for the social conservatives, and he's galvanizing the anti-McCain wing, along with a host of other very unhappy GOP members.

To reiterate for the nth time, centrists and independents should be ready to hop into the GOP primaries to ensure a better GOP candidate (and into the dem primaries if circumstances dictate). The conservative wing of the GOP is extremely determined not to let the moderate middle in America have the opportunity to vote for John McCain in the general election.

Posted by: bk at May 25, 2005 11:27 AM

According to Lindsay Graham, what's next is Social Security.

Hat tip to Jeremy at Charging RINO for the link.

Posted by: William Swann at May 25, 2005 11:46 AM

A pivotal center faction means that the parties actually have to grapple with issues, rather than ignoring them to spend all their time pointing fingers, or ramrodding them through by monopoly power. Hoorah!

Posted by: Tully at May 25, 2005 12:57 PM

Partisans may say they're going to push the issue again, but that's kinda like getting up off the ground for more after a one-shot drop in a bar fight. Getting up the first time shows stamina and willingness and courage. Getting up twice is stupid. And inviting that second shot before evaluating your odds isn't the brightest move either. 'Cause if it's another one-shot drop, you're out of the game. Better to spare yourself the pain and save your pride and paybacks for later, when you're stronger and better prepared.

Posted by: Tully at May 25, 2005 01:19 PM

Before the Center can become a political force on par with the wings of the party, they're going to need a better grassroots and special interest support network. I discuss that here.

Posted by: CitizzenQ at May 25, 2005 01:41 PM

I think the recent article in the New Republic on the doubt/faith split in the GOP is worth reading.

While clearly written by a partisan liberal, as the definition of a conservative of doubt sounds more like a straight-up Democrat to me, it does point out a real split that might better be defined as fundamentalist vs. realist. The realists (i.e. those whose conservatism is based primarily on economics and small government) are becoming more and more fed up with the circle around James Dobson (who urged Bush not to "forget" his support). They are beginning their push--read the writing on the wall: the House (generally more partisan by definition) passage of a Stem Cell bill, the judicial compromise, congressional unpopularity of Bush's Social Security plan, Voinovich coming out against Bolton.

Posted by: Evan at May 25, 2005 01:46 PM

Evan, the article you refer to was written by Andrew Sullivan. Know that he's not a partisan liberal, he's a conservative heretic, on the cusp of ex-communication.

He was once a heartily-embraced conservative, until he came out vehemently against FMA and began to break the faith on criticizing the quality of the execution of the WoT by the admin.

Posted by: bk at May 25, 2005 02:16 PM

Before the Center can become a political force on par with the wings of the party

Isn't it possible to see things as a continuum as opposed to the "us" "them" dialectic. Politically McCain is a conservative, stylistically he appears to be a moderate. I'm ok with that conflict. How are the rest of the centrists? Posted by: c3 at May 25, 2005 03:19 PM

Thanks for the tip, bk.
To be honest I read the thing with great interest but had actually missed who wrote it.
One way or the other, the article signals a split that is very much real, and is clearly signalled by the recent compromise.
Whatever partisans or centrists think about the Judicial compromise, it shows that Sullivan's conservatives of doubt (I prefer to call them realist Republicans), with the help of centrist Dems, CAN take issues away from the Dobson activist base.

Posted by: Evan at May 25, 2005 04:03 PM

Important point: to truly be a "liberal" or a "conservative" you have to spout the dogma and buy the line. Heretics not allowed. Which leaves anyone with a brain and a conscience who uses them somewhere in the middle. In the middle, there's no party line.

Posted by: Tully at May 25, 2005 04:08 PM

I strongly dispute Matthew's characterization of Reid as doing "a good job of embracing the compromise almost immediately" - I was watching Reid's comments on the floor following the deal, and the next morning, and he did everything he possibly could to goad Frist and create an environment in which the compromise could fall apart. He embraced triumphalist "we gotcha!" language, claimed the nuclear option is now and forever off the table (it isn't) and generally made it more easy for those on the right to characterize the GOP Senators who were brave enough to get aboard for this compromise as traitors. In short, he made out as if the deal was a victory for him and for the Democrats, and a defeat of Frist - it was neither. It was a victory - snatched from the jaws of defeat - for the Constitution of the United States of America.

If anything, Reid should be condemned for his behaviour by Centrists for his rhetoric, which contrasts to the reason and even temperament shown by Frist (perhaps informed by Frist's doubtless bewilderment and sadness at how what was to be the opening act of his Presidential campaign has become its funeral) following the deal. If it all comes off the rails, I know where I'll be pointing the blame, as yesterday's Congressional Record will show.

Posted by: Simon at May 25, 2005 05:05 PM

Simon, thanks for reiterating my point about the ugliness of Reid's victory crowing.

I think it's too soon to tell what the fallout will be. Today's vote on the floor makes me more hopeful. Byrd and Landrieu voted for Owens, one or two Republicans vote against. The deal worked today.

If the deal continues to work, and the only two judges denied floor votes are Saad and Meyers, then the deal will have been a success and the 14 will get political boosts from it, even among some of the partisans now screaming about the deal. This assumes that most of the judges are actually approved by the GOP majority. If the 7 GOP signers vote en masse against a nominee, that'll look like there was a secret clause in the deal that they didn't tell anybody about, and there will be much hollering again.

If there is an effort by Reid to filibuster a nominee other than Saad or Meyers and Byrd, Landrieu, et al vote for cloture, then the deal is a success and all signers will benefit politically. If the 7 Republicans join the 7 Dems in supporting a filibuster, then that will cause much roaring and gnashing of teeth, but the deal will still look pretty good politically, because with 7 Republicans, there wasn't majority support anyway.

But if there is a split among the 14 on a cloture vote, especially on the 2 nominees (of the filibustered 7) unnamed in the deal, then the deal will fall apart and we'll be at least back to square one, if not even farther back than that, and the signers will probably all suffer politically.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 25, 2005 05:54 PM

Regarding future nominees, SCOTUSblog - following a treatment on The Volokh Conspiracy - floats the possibility of Judge John Roberts as a potential elevation to the Supreme Court this summer which could win the support of both Republicans and Democrats. The best case scenario is that the Gang of 14's bravery has helped create a scenario in which it is possible that the right nominee could make it to the Supreme Court without (nuclear option or no) an absolutely poisonous battle in the Senate; the worst case is that Harry Reid's continued intransigence may doom us (Gang of 14 or no) to such a fight WHOEVER Bush nominates.

Let us hope that the next nomination process is a smooth-sailing Scalia, not a despicable Thomas (or even a rancorous Rehquist). Of course, should Bush nominate anyone even in the same ballpark as those Justices, I'll be wildly thrilled, but Democrats should be very careful about opposing that nominee. What Reid and co. should ask themselves is really simple: whoever Bush sends up, given who else Bush might nominate (and there will not be another Souter), is it worth destroying the filibuster (firing of the nuclear option being the inevitable result of continued and unwarrented intransigence) to oppose that nominee?

Because that's the other side of this debate - the Democrats claim they have won, but in fact, as I see it, what they have acceeded to is the pricking of the public's hostility to the nuclear option. The public was opposed to the nuclear option, but both sides have shown willing to compromise - and the first side to be seen to break that spirit will lose the public's affection rapidly. When in the minority, one must carefully pick one's battles, and I can say with a good degree of certainty that Bush will not lose the Supreme Court fight. With the right base so agitated by this compromise and by Schaivo, the only way they can be placated is by a Supreme Court nomination battle that places a candidate acceptable to them.

Posted by: Simon at May 25, 2005 06:20 PM

Not sure why you guys are so hard on Reid, other than anger at a percieved loss. Reid was smart enough to see the parade and get in front of it. Frist was impolitic in being unable to entirely conceal how crestfallen he was, given his presidential ambitions. If Reid was rubbing it in, that's hardly surprising given their recent uncollegial history.

Plus, given how dismayed many conservatives are over this, it sure feels like a big win to Reid. Frist wanted to ram his way down the Senate's throat. And if he'd chosen to do so, Reid had no recourse within party lines. He had a pretty weak hand, and got a little sum'n-sum'n anyway. If you acknowledge this, then his reaction is to be expected, isn't it. He gets to play to his base after a win, doesn't he?

Posted by: bk at May 26, 2005 09:32 AM

Brian - you've got the point exactly, but not followed it to its logical conclusion. The right are furious at this compromise. They are already talking about doing everything possible to remove Mike DeWine at the next election. What Reid's comments - loudly and intemperately claiming victory - will do is to pour gasoline on a smouldering fire. By attempting to rob Republican moderates of the ability to claim that this was anything other than a capitulation, Reid is either trying to, or may simply be too stupid to realize that this will be the effect, encourage the burgeoning calls for a purge in the GOP, which will remove the very moderates who facilitated this deal. At best - callously stupid. At worse - calculatedly pernicious.

Besides, I dispute the characterization that it's a "victory" for either side. Moderates on both sides can claim a limited victory, and partisans on both sides have deafeningly claimed their party's ignominious defeat. Much has been said about why the Democrats "won" this, and now I shall present my argument why they didn't.

This isn't a victory for Harry Reid - the GOP effectively agreed to not use the nuclear option for as long as the Democrats don't filibuster. Owens and Brown - for all the democrats bitter hostility - will both have their gavels within a week. If the Democrats attempt to filibuster another nominee, thus breaking this hard-won compromise, they will find public support much diminished next time, which means that they've peaked prematurely, scant months before a Supreme Court nomination fight.

Furthermore, while much has been made of Frist's motivations in bringing this matter to a head, it seems to me that Harry Reid was spoiling for a nuclear showdown. Perhaps because the Democrat base has been clamoring for a leader that won't compromise or give in, a leader with more essential "toughness" from their previous four candidates.

Much has also been made of Frist's "refusal to compromise". A compromise is when neither side gets everything they want - what did Reid offer to give up in his proposed "compromises"? Nothing. To my knowledge, Reid never offered to compromise - he demanded that Frist surrender, but for the sake of the cameras, he did so in the dulcet tones of Irish diplomacy, which made it appear that he wanted to compromise.

When, in fact, a compromise came, it came in spite of Reid, not because of him, and he proceded (as discussed above) to do everything he could to shipwreck the deal.

Tell me how any of that is a "victory" for Reid.

Posted by: Simon at May 26, 2005 09:55 AM

Simon, IMO it's a victory for Reid because, as you yourself admit, the right is furious. It's that simple.

Now maybe the right is furious and the middle and the left somewhat pleased, and yet it's not really a big victory for either. Maybe they're all wrong? I dunno. It looks and feels like a win to democrats and moderates, and it looks and feels like a loss to the right.

I agree with much of what you say. On content, it's every bit a compromise, and both sides have given a little to achieve it. And Reid wasn't personally involved, and neither was Frist. They were bystanders. Yet Reid had the sense to to leap to the fore as a party leader, and to understand the emotional aftermath of the compromise, which Frist telegraphed and which righty talk radio and blogosphere have amply confirmed.

Notice that while Reid was, as you say, spoiling for the fight, it was Frist who made the threat to change the rules. The furious on the right were spoiling for this fight every bit as much, and let's face it, they were looking forward to Frist ramming a rules change down the democrats throats unless Reid granted votes for ALL the delayed nominees. That's why the right was furious, because they thought they had the muscle to force their will. Neither Frist nor Reid was really willing to substantively compromise, and that's a fact not lost on you or I or the mod 14.

My best guess is that this compromise may have more unwritten terms. The democrats want a filibuster as an option should a Supreme nomination come come up. This agreement suggests the possibility that the mod 14 would uphold a fillibuster against an attempted rules change at that point, so long as the democrats don't overdo it on appeals noms in the interim.

Which further suggests that Bush should eschew nominating further darlings of the socially conservative wing, in order to get more important business done, and that democrats had better not protest gratuitously.

Let's not forget that Bush is careening towards lame duck status, meaning he has run his last election. Graham has already said the mod 14 is ready to move on to SS. Suppose he goes to Bush and says "let's set aside divisive social policy issues and deal with the solvency of our retirement and healthcare systems in light of current trends." I can see Bush doing the same thing his dad did, making the responsible call on the numbers, and sending the far right into spasms over such a "betrayal."

Posted by: bk at May 26, 2005 11:05 AM