Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Bleed the Democrats badly

HughHewitt blogged The New York Timesincludes a few paragraphs on why this debate will ultimately bleed the Democrats badly:

"On Thursday, Dr. Frist will participate in another rally at the Capitol, by socially conservative African-American pastors who want to create support for Justice Brown, who is black. Organizers say Dr. Frist has agreed to appear.

This should really cut into their automatic support from the Black community
An online invitation casts the rules change in terms of racial justice, saying: 'Racial profiling, unfair sentencing and a disproportionate number of number of blacks in prison all spell racism and classism. But how do we fight against these trends?' It concludes by urging 'all American citizens to call their senators and demand an up or down' vote on Mr. Bush's nominees and says the pastors want to 'formally endorse' Justice Brown."

The Democrats are trying to defend minority rule, which has never been a principle acceptable to Americans who, from the time they start voting for classroom representative in the third or fourth grade, know that majorities matter. Majorities matter in school council elections, homeowners associations, American Legion halls, Junior League and faculty meetings. They matter on elder boards and booster clubs, Dartmouth alumni elections and especially in the United States Congress.
The Dems are so used to being in the Majority they think that they should still be able to run things from the Minority.
Trying to confuse "minority rule" with "minority rights" worked as long as no one focused on what the Democrats were doing and who they were doing it to. Now the stage lights are on and the Democrats seem to have missed the opportunity to retreat with something in tact: The Fortas precedent, for use and abuse in the looming battle over the Chief Justice's nomination. Had they not forced the issue now and done so with so much venom and obvious ideological motivation, their opportunity to filibuster a single or even two Supreme Court nominees would have been in tact.
That is why conservatives are pushing Frist as much as we are to get this out of the way now.
It might not have worked, because the Fortas filibuster was grounded in an ethical challenge to the nominee, not an ideological one, but the "bridge too far" campaign against the appellate nominees has stripped all the camouflage from the Democratic extremism. This is a great debate worth having, and we will focus on it extensively today and the days that follow.

If you are motivated, call 202-225-3121 and ask for the office of Senator Collins of Maine and urge her to support the Republican caucus and the president's nominees.
And tell her that if she doesn't, then to forget any hope of a position in the Leadership.
Then use the same number to call John Warner's office. Then, for safety's sake though his name is no longer mentioned on the wobblies list, put a call into Chuck Hagel. And if you have anymore time and energy, call John McCain and let his staff know that, in no uncertain terms, you will use all your time to assure he doesn't get the presidential nomination if he holds to his announced aim to side with the Democrats on this vote.

Rarely has a major American political figure contemplating a run for the presidency made such an unnecessary blunder on a policy matter as McCain has made here. He spent five years rehabilitating his image with the GOP base, and had made great strides, especially when he worked hard from the convention forward to re-elect Bush/Cheney. But he almost casually threw it away in a conversation with Chris Matthews. He could, of course, announce that he had to change his mind and vote with the GOP because of the intransigence of the Dems, which would be a very shrewd cutting of his losses, but the McCain stubborn streak may prohibit such a move.
I don't think he is capable of changing his mind, even though I agree he does not stand a snowballs chance of getting nominated otherwise.
And Lincoln Chaffee's vote will be interesting as well. If Chaffee sides with the Dems, it will end his career when the voters come around in next year's primary and general elections in Rhode Island. He has voted against the war in Iraq, didn't vote for the president's re-election, and now will side with the Dems on the crucial domestic vote of the past decade. Getting Bolton out of committee doesn't give him cover. Michael Crowley has a piece in The New Republic that suggests otherwise, but it doesn't mention the judges' vote. Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey will find my check in his campaign account if he challenges Chaffee, and if Laffey doesn't, then either Matt Brown or Sheldon Whitehouse --the two Dems in contention to challenge Chaffee-- will be getting some surprising dollar support next summer and fall. Paybacks are unpleasant, but a tent isn't a tent unless it has an inside and an outside. Chaffee is making his choice.

For more, visit ConfirmThem and BenchMemo throughout the day, and just watch C-Span.

No comments: