Last week I talked about the conservative reaction to the deal struck between the White House and Senate Democrats over judicial nominations. The “compromise” allows 25 Bush-nominated judges to take the federal bench in exchange for a White House agreement that there will be no recess appointments for unconfirmed nominees.
Conservatives, who should have been thrilled to see more than two-dozen judges receive a green light, were upset and frustrated. It turns out they didn’t want the judges; they wanted to complain about not having the judges.
As Connie Mackey, vice president of government affairs at the Family Research Council, explained, “We don’t see the point [of the deal]. The strategy all along has been to show the obstructionist tactics of the Democrats. We’ve lost that tactic.”
Apparently, this is symptomatic of a broader conservative strategy. As my friend Eugene Oregon noted, the Washington Times expressed a nearly identical sentiment in an editorial yesterday.
Republicans need a plan to bring the party together. One way is to create an opportunity for Democrats to filibuster important legislation and appointments. Given the election, it would be savvy to make Democrats go on the record as blocking the nation’s business. Such a strategy would turn the legislative negative of unfinished bills into a campaign positive by being able to blame obstructionist Democrats for the chamber coming to a halt. It is better than more Republican infighting.
The Times, one of the leading conservative news outlets in America, is recommending that Congress give up on actual governing and instead create schemes for Democrats to oppose. Why? Because it’d be a “campaign positive.”
I’m at a loss.