ConfirmThem

By Quin Posted in Analysis and Predictions — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Whenever the first judicial nominees come up, I urge conservatives and all who care about fair play to watch Mary Landrieu closely, and to try to reason with her. Why? Because she should be a real bellwether as to the Dems' plans to press the multi-filibuster strategy. Some background is in order....
Sen. Landrieu is, I believe, a liberal posing as a moderate because she represents a center-right state. I've watched her for her entire career; I grew up in the state legislative district that neighbored hers, and I've crossed her path in person a number of times, always cordially, and conversed with her, once, at some length. She is no radical, and she proved as LA State Treasurer to be a reasonably responsible public official. She's a political animal, through and through, hardly averse to hardball, but she and her family have earned reputations as people with a sense of decency as well. (Her aunt, Phyllis, is a particularly fine lady, gracious and kind, who had the guts to openly support Bob Livingston for governor of LA one year). If not provoked otherwise, Mary Landrieu will act with as much fairness as she can, all other things being equal.

As far as purely political calculations go, she is in a cross-current. If she wants to run for re-election in 2008, after barely squeaking by in her two previous races, she cannot move too far left or look too obstructionist. Her best play, locally in LA, would be to vote against a number of nominees but not filibuster them. Vote for cloture, but then against on final passage. On the other hand, I believe she has national ambitions, maybe as a V-P choice in 2008 if Hillary crashes and burns for the top spot. If so, she can't afford to cross the liberal interest groups too flagrantly -- which means that she has reason not to stick out as one of the only anti-filibuster Dems. On the other hand, there are plenty of other ways to please the interest groups -- she has four years to do so -- while enhancing a reputation as a moderate by not filibustering (while still opposing the nominees themselves). It's all a game of positioning.

I truly believe, though, that the main thing that impelled her towards filibusters in the last Congress is the nasty campaign run against her in 2002. In truth, even her 1996 campaign, where she eked out a win in a disputed race on the basis of extraordinary New Orleans black turnout paid for by gambling interests to approve a ballot initiative for a casino, was a bruising affair that SHE probably thought featured cheap shots against her. But the GOP charges against her then were fairly standard hardball (although I have no idea of how accurate they were or weren't, as I was just an observer from DC, trading in campaign gossip like anybody else), and she gave as good as she got.

But in 2002, I thought the attacks against her wer WAY below the belt, on several fronts. The GOP Senatorial Committee brutalized her, and her opponent, Suzie Terrell, who I've known well and liked for many years, became quite shrill in debates and even had the gall to say she was "a better Catholic" than Landrieu was, based on their public stances on abortion.

First, that's an extremely personal way to approach the issue. Second, Mary KNEW that Suzie was hiding a past as a middle-of-the-road, split-the-difference on abortion person -- NOT the hard-line pro-lifer that Suzie claimed to be during the campaign. Result: Mary Landrieu entered the last Congress in a rage that her faith was directly and unambiguously questioned, especially by somebody whose former abortion stance was only shades apart from Landrieu's own -- and in a rage, in general, because the whole campaign against her was so nasty. Hence, her openness to filibusters -- and her lamentable, and unfair, decision to join the filibuster against Miguel Estrada.

Even so, when Bill Pryor's nomination in particular came up, my sources say she was on the fence not just about filibustering him, but even about confirming him. Pryor had gone to college and law school in LA, and had clerked for a legendary civil-rights federal appeals judge, and Landrieu had plenty of people from back home telling her he was okay. Then came the CFJ "No Catholics Need Apply" ad, concerning Pryor. In context, the ad actually was fair. It did NOT accuse Dems of deliberate anti-Catholic bigotry. It made the point that a number of Demo lines of questioning of Pryor put him in a box where it was clear that his strict Catholicism was, IN EFFECT, being held against him, whether by deliberate design or not. By the standards of those lines of questioning, almost no strictly orthodox Catholic could indeed be confirmed. The Dems were crying crocodile tears when they said their own faiths, their own status as Catholics, was being assaulted by the CFJ ad. Or at least most Dems were. Their complaints were utterly bogus.

But for Mary Landrieu, just off a campaign where her own faith had been DIRECTLY attacked, the CFJ ad really did seem like a continuation of a nasty slander against her.
Hence her decision (and, I believe, John Breaux's decision in support of her) to filibuster Pryor, less because they found Pryor so offensive than because they found the GOP tactics so offensive.

But now time has passed. Daschle has lost, clearly in part because of the filibusters. Her own state went, for the second straight time, strongly for Bush. It also elected a GOP senator for the first time since Reconstruction. And John Breaux retired, so the position as the "go-to" deal-maker in the Senate is hers for the taking if she wants it. She thus has many reasons to be amenable to fair-minded appeals to her own fair-mindedness. Maybe to support some filibusters, but not others. Maybe to let Pryor through, because she knows he is a man of integrity and decency, etc. Who knows?

The point is, she is in a position where she may be amenable to honey rather than worthy of political two-by-fours across her scalp. She has a good staff. She represents a conservative-leaning state. She learned from her legendary father, the New Orleans Mayor and HUD Secretary, and then from John Breaux, the fine arts of how to cut political deals for the greater good. When I last sat down with her, circa 1999 or so, she was charming. Yes, she's a liberal, and yes, she's tough as nails. But she's a practical pol, and she has worked hand in hand even with strong conservatives like Jeff Sessions in the past. I urge conservatives to try all in our power to reach across the aisle to her, to see if there is any way of getting her to help avoid a massive filibuster conflagration. Appeal both to her better angels and to her political instincts concerning her opportunities as John Breaux's heir. Give her a chance. Treat her with respect. For conservatives, she'll never be an ally, but she doesn't have to be an enemy. And maybe, just maybe, she can help lead Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and others, to a middle ground.