ConfirmThem

By Paul Zummo Posted in Uncategorized — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Andrew has been reporting on potential GOP unease in squashing the filibuster due to bad internal polling data. While Santorum denies the Hill story, it cannot escape our notice that party leadership has not exactly been going full tilt in order to confirm the filibustered nominees. Meanwhile, commenter Eric also noted Dick Morris' concerns that the Republicans face a strong backlash if they go through with the nuclear option. Morris earlier appeared on the Sean Hannity show and maintained that the Republicans will be seen as pursuing a radical right-wing agenda that the country at large is not prepared to accept. According to Morris, a majority of Americans like the filibuster because they don't trust either party, and thus view it as a means of preventing either party from monopolizing the political agenda.

I would strongly disagree with Morris' assertion that the populace at large supports the filibuster in general. I suspect that most people don't really care either way on the matter. As such, I find the fear that the Republicans would face a strong public backlash as unfounded. In fact, as I noted in the comments section, and as Quin eloquently pointed out in his post below, the greater concern for the party is a backlash from their own base if they DON'T pursue the constitutional option, or whatever you would like to label it.

What we really have to examine is the upcoming elections, meaning the 2006 mid-terms. Taking a look at the field, the Republicans have several enormous advantages. First of all, they are already defending what is effectively a six-seat majority. On top of that, they will be defending only 15 Senate seats in 2006, while the Democrats will be defending 17 (or 18, if you count the retiring Jim Jeffords). Finally, when one closely inspects the seats up for grabs, the liklihood of the Republicans losing control of the Senate is almost nil. Tell me folks, who among Allen, Burns, Chafee, DeWine, Ensign, Frist, Hatch, Hutchinson, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Santorum, Snowe, Talent, or Thomas really faces the threat of defeat? Even if you include the already announced retirements and other potential surprises, there are perhaps three seats in play: Santorum's, Frist (and only if the Democrats can find a moderate), and perhaps Chafee. I think I'm even stretching there. In other words, there is no way six Republican seats are being turned over.

On the other hand, there are more than a handful of opportunities to pick up seats. There are good or excellent pick-up opportunities in New Mexico, North Dakota, Minnesota, Florida, West Virginia and Nebraska, and even an outside shot at Cantwell's seat in Washington and Corzine's in New Jersey.

Let's assume for the moment that the public will really become as outraged as Morris and other GOP worryworts fear. Can anyone really imagine that the GOP Congressmen will be thrown out of office as a result? Will voters uprise in Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Mississippi, Indiana and other states as a result of the Senate going nuclear? It's hardly likely, and I would also add that I don't think House members will face any punishment.

So are we looking at retribution further down the road in 2008? I'd be shocked if any residual "outrage" lasted until November of 2006 let alone 2008.

Perhaps I am being overconfident, but I think that we really need to assess the political environment before we tremble at the wrath of the American voter. We still live in the shadow of the government shutdown of 1995 and the supposed fallout that resulted. It is alleged that Republican aggression then cost the party dearly, but what was the actual aftermath of the shutdown? The Republicans retained majorities in the House for the first time since Coolidge. Sure, the Republicans went down to defeat in the presidential election, but they did so with a weak candidate facing a charismatic incumbent with a strong economy - who still did not get a majority of the popular vote. Similarly, the backlash that was supposed to be visited upon the party after the impeachment never materialized.

Thus, I am left to ask this simple question: what is the point of winning elections if you're not willing to accomplish anything with those victories? For all of the missteps this party is supposed to have taken in the past ten years it sits with fairly comfortable majorities in both Houses, and has just had a President win a convincing re-election. It is ludricous to think that stopping judicial filibusters is what will finally drive the party to defeat.

The chicken littles would do well to gain a sense of perspective and recognize the only threat to the party comes from within. It is only inaction that can break up the Republican majority.