Still a Lousy Deal

I came into work, booted up (which automatically logs me onto AOL Instant Messenger, which automatically pops up the day's news headlines), and saw this article by Jim Abrams of the AP.

Headline: "Senate Averts Fight Over Filibusters." Unfortunately, I wanted that fight. I wanted the Senate to settle, once and for all, that legislation gets filibustered and nominees don't. Simple.

But not for Senator McCain (RINO-AZ), who held the secret meeting in his office to hammer out "The Deal."

The AP story opens with, "Judicial nominee Priscilla Owen gets the vote she's been awaiting for more than four years, the most immediate beneficiary of a deal worked out by Senate moderates to avoid a debilitating fight over filibusters."

Check out that last part of the quote again. Media bias is showing. This was not a "debilitating fight." The rules reinterpretation was poised to go through today, and when it did, the change would have been debilitating to the obstructionist Democrats.

Later in the article, Abrams says, "But of greater import, the deal on the rights of the minority party to filibuster judicial nominees avoids a showdown that could have shaken the traditions of the Senate, weakened the powers of the minority and threatened the comity the Senate needs to function."

This sentence is chock-full of Democrat Talking Points. The traditions of the Senate have never, before President GW Bush took office, included filibustering majority-supported judicial nominees. Supreme Court nominees, even the embattled ones like Clarence Thomas, have never been filibustered.

As for weakening the powers of the minority, that's just plain stupid. Our nation believes in majority rule, not minority rule. But the Dems, through the use of the filibuster against nominees, have sought to thwart the will of the majority and instead institute minority rule in the Senate.

And "the comity the Senate needs to function"? Please. The Democrats have shown that they don't give a rip about comity, friendliness, congeniality, or just plain being nice. "Comity" is a sharp stick to poke at the Republicans when it suits the Democrats' purpose, but it is not something the Dems have been interested in actually having themselves.

But larger questions and issues remain.

Why did the the squishy Republicans do this? Considering that the negotiations took place in McCain's office, it would appear he was the ringleader. My guess is that McCain has a Savior Complex. He wants to be the one to bring salvation to the Senate, to get the glory for resolving the bitter divisiveness over the filibuster. Because, if McCain gets the glory, then Frist doesn't, and that could mean something in the 2008 presidential election, when both of them will likely be seeking the the Republican nomination.

What does this mean to the Republican caucus in the Senate? Trouble. With a capital "T." McCain and his groupies have just declared that they refuse to recognize their own elected Senate leadership. They have rejected Senate Majority Leader Frist as their leader, and have implicitly named McCain as the Senate Squishy Leader. Frist remains the nominal leader of the Senate Republicans, but he no longer commands the majority of the Senators.

McCain, Snowe, Chaffee, DeWine, Collins, Graham, and Warner have thwarted the will of the people in a huge way. This abandonment of the Senate leadership will have repercussions far beyond just the judicial filibuster issue. Just wait and see.

Update: I just contacted the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the organization that helps Republican Senators get re-elected. I told them I'm not going to contribute anything to them (I contributed in 2004), because I won't take the chance that some of my money could go to any of the Senators who signed The Deal. I'll be contributing to individual campaigns in an attempt to unseat these Senators.