tdaxp

"Let's Make a Deal," by David Brooks, New York Times, 1 May 2005, http://nytimes.com/2005/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html.

David Brooks describes a deal Democrat Minority Leader Harry Reid supposedly gave Republican Majority Leader Bill First

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn't been publicized. I've been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush's pick, he'd come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush's nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

Good deal? Brooks seems to think so

But Frist should have grabbed Reid's offer. He should have done it, first, because while the air is thick with confident predictions about what will happen if the nuclear trigger is pulled, nobody really knows. There is a very good chance that as the battle escalates, passions will surge, the tattered fabric of professionalism will dissolve, and public revulsion for both parties will explode.

If you are leading one of the greatest democratic institutions in history, it's irresponsible to lead it into this bloody unknown if a deal on the table will give you much of what you want. As one senator who supports changing the filibuster rules says, "Is this what you want on your obit?"

Judicial filibusters are new. My former Senator, Tom Daschle, basically invented them. There is no reason for Frist to allow the minority party this new weapon.

I recognize this fight started out with how Daschle was stressing the personal and professional lives of some Bush appointees for political gain. A native of Sioux Falls, because he cared about his family more than Tom's games, left the process early. Doubtless countless more good men will never get a vote, because the Senate Opposition's slow torture was oto much for them. However, there is a larger principal involved.

This is a fight to reclaim the last branch of government from "liberals." This is an attempt by a fourth generation political movement to cement its hold on power. As Ma Jones and dKos reported, by 2009 all but 2 of the 13 federal district courts could have Republican majorities. This goal is too important and too central to the Conservative cause to risk one more election cycle than need be.

Now let's look at Brooks' other reason

Second, Frist should have grabbed this offer because it's time for senators to re-establish the principle that they, not the outside interest groups, run the Senate. Right now, most senators want to avoid a meltdown. It's the outside interest groups that are goading them into the fight.

Of course the groups want a fight. The activists get up every morning hoping to change the judiciary, dreaming of total victory. Of course they're willing to sacrifice everything else for that cause. But senators are supposed to know that serving the interest groups is not the same as serving the people: it is serving a passionate but unrepresentative minority of the people. At some point, leaders are supposed to stand up to maximalists, even the ones they mostly agree with.

David Brooks is either a fellow traveler or behind-the-times. Brooks' assertion that the Senate should not be factional rejects the reality of fourth generation politics. It also rejects the logic behind the federalists papers. The Constitution was actually designed for factional politics more than for partisan politics.

David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times, should know this.

Update: Apparently I'm psychic. Completely by coincidence, this entry channeled a Matt Margolis post at Blogs for Bush.

"'Miracle' needed to win back Senate," by Charles Hurt, Washington Times, 29 April 2005, http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050429-124430-4013r.htm (from South Dakota Politics).

Military confrontations are typically broken down into three levels

• Tactical relates to a specific battle. Napoleon's tactical brilliance allowed him to win the Battle of the Three Emperors, tactical despair is when the front lines break, etc.
  
• Campaign or Operational relates to a series of battles and the operations that support them. The Allied invasion of Northern Africa (Operation Torch) and the German invasion of Russia (Operation Barbarossa) were real life campaigns. Like battles, campaigns can be war-gamed and imagined, like Operation Olympic (the 1946 invasion of Japan) or Operation Return (the Cold War American defense of Europe). When the Germans at Stalingrad surrendered, Germans faced campaign despair.
  
• Strategic relates to the entire war. The America's strategy in the Cold War was to buy-off Germany and Japan and wait out Russia. General Lee faced strategic despair when he felt the Civil War was unwinnable, and so surrendered to General Grant.

Politically, a tactical confrontation would be a specific battle (say, social security or judges), strategic confronations are what the tactics are for (creating a solid majority to enact the entire agenda), and the campaigns are the support actions for the tactical battles -- actual campaign. Then what to make of this:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid raised a few eyebrows yesterday on the Senate floor when he said it would take a "miracle" for Democrats to win enough races next year to take back the Senate.
"I would like to think a miracle would happen and we would pick up five seats this time," he said during a floor debate over the filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. "I guess miracles never cease."
Republicans were delighted by what they called an "admission" from the highest-ranking elected Democrat in the country.

Campaign despair for the top Democrat Senator! That would be like Admiral Yamamoto admitting that the campaign in the Pacific was unwinnable for Japan.

Oh wait, he did.

You know what happened next.

The nuclear option.

"Minutemen Draw Protest," by Michelle Malkin, Michelle Malkin, 21 March 2005, http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001815.htm.

"Bush decries border project," by James Lakely, Washington Times, 24 March 2005, http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050324-122200-6209r.htm (from Drudge).

Earlier, Madame Malkin implied that the protests against the "Minuteman Project" -- an attempt at mass intimidation along the Mexican border -- were spearheaded by extremists.

Jim Gilchrist hopes most of his neighbors won't believe the signs held by protesters at the entrance to his quiet, gated community.

They included "Minuteman, a racist domestic terrorist" and "KKK supports Minuteman" scrawled in bold letters and displayed by almost 50 protesters standing on sidewalks near the Vista de Oro gated community....

Jesse Diaz, a graduate student from UC Riverside, helped organize Saturday's "call to action." On Easter, the group plans to demonstrate again in front of a nearby church where they believe he worships.

"He will not go unfettered and challenged," Diaz s

Fortunately, our pro-North American President George Bush thinks that the "minutemen" are the kooks

President Bush yesterday said he opposes a civilian project to monitor illegal aliens crossing the border, characterizing them as "vigilantes."

He said he would pressure Congress to further loosen immigration law.

More than 1,000 people — including 30 pilots and their private planes — have volunteered for the Minuteman Project, beginning next month along the Arizona-Mexico border. Civilians will monitor the movement of illegal aliens for the month of April and report them to the Border Patrol.

Mr. Bush said after yesterday's continental summit, with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin at Baylor University, that he finds such actions unacceptable.

"I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America," Mr. Bush said at a joint press conference. "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way."

Sadly, Senate Opposition Leader Harry Reid isn't so courageous

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, says Democrats have been willing to work with Mr. Bush, but that first the president must persuade congressmen of his own party to embrace his plan

So Reid will fight for what's right -- after the fight has already been won.

Brilliant.