A new nuclear option skeptic?

Going back over the last six months, Sen. Pat Roberts (R) of Kansas hasn’t said much of anything about the nuclear option and was presumed, by nearly everyone, to support the tactic like most other conservative lawmakers. He appeared on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on CNN a week ago, for example, and though the show dealt with the fight over judicial nominees, when Roberts was interviewed, there wasn’t a single question about his opinion on the anti-filibuster initiative. Presumably, Dobbs assumed he already knew the answer.

In fact, since last November’s elections, the only item I can find showing Roberts having any doubts about the nuclear option is a March 2nd report in Congressional Quarterly listing Roberts as “undecided.” It was something of an anomaly; every other report left him out when listing “on the fence” senators.

It appears, however, that Roberts has far more concerns than he’s let on.

With a showdown over judicial nominees looming, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas could be one of several pivotal Republicans to oppose stripping the Senate of its traditional power to filibuster.

Roberts expressed doubt about the “nuclear option,” which would end a long-running Democratic threat — to filibuster seven of President Bush’s nominees for the federal bench — by changing long-standing Senate rules.

“What goes around comes around,” Roberts said in an interview last week, worried that the rule change could someday come back to haunt his party.

That’s no minor observation. With a likely floor fight looming, and the margin for error for both sides down to zero, Roberts is an important new wild card in the overall vote count.

In fact, now seems as good a time as any to update the list of targeted senators. Remember, unless some unexpected compromise is reached, Republicans will need 50 votes to execute the nuclear option. Dems have 45 votes, so they’ll need six Republicans to break ranks.

* GOP Senators who will vote against the nuclear option: John McCain (Ariz.), Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Olympia Snowe (Maine)

* GOP Senators who are leaning in the Dems’ direction: Susan Collins (Maine), Arlen Specter (Pa.)

* GOP lawmakers who are undecided but seem uncomfortable with the radical nature of the nuclear option: John Warner (Va.), Pat Roberts (Kan.)

* GOP lawmakers who are undecided but aren’t saying much of anything to tip their hands: Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Gordon Smith (Ore.)

* GOP lawmakers who are often listed as “on the fence,” but who have told Frist they’re with him: Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), John Sununu (N.H.), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Chuck Lugar (Ind.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.)

* GOP lawmakers who are telling anyone who will listen that they’d like to see Bill Frist strike some kind of compromise and avoid this mess altogether: All of the above

Are there three votes somewhere outside McCain, Chafee, and Snowe? We’ll probably find out in a couple of days.

“What goes around comes around,� Roberts said in an interview last week, worried that the rule change could someday come back to haunt his party.

He’ll get on board when RoveCo explains to him that, from here on, what goes around will never come around again.

We’ve had a one-party state since 12.12.2000, it just takes longer for some folks to tumble to the fact than others.

  • I count Hagel as a “nyet”–he mentioned on “This Week” last week that 62 of Clinton’s appointees never even got a hearing. It would be awfully hypocritical of him to say that and vote to hit the button.

    Roberts’ loss would be huge–even fatal in my book. The guy tries to portray himself as an “Eisenhower Republican,” but his voting record says otherwise. Lifetime ACU rating of 87–enough said.

  • How likely is it that these “on the fence” Senators are actually not “on the fence” at all, but rather are using this issue as a negotiating tool to get the GOP to agree to various demands for their own agenda.

    In other words they make public statements that indicate they might consider voting with the Dems so that GOP leadership will come to them and offer to back something they want in exchange for their loyalty to the party?

  • About Chuck Hagel:

    He’s much closer to a “Noâ€? on the nuclear option than this post indicates. Not sure if he’s a straight-up “nyet,â€? as Darrell puts it, but he seems very very close.

    The evidence?

    How about this: He told an audience in New Hampshire two weeks ago that ending the judicial filibuster would “not be good for the country or the Senate.� Those were his words.

  • I think Lindsay Graham is fence-sitter that people have overlooked. He is a big McCain supporter and he has gone against the party before.

  • Nick –
    The Voinovich comment was a joke, yes? As in: “He’s in the ‘Voting Against’ category on Bolton”.

  • Comments are closed.