Frist things first

May 19, 2005

I’m not convinced that the New York Daily News is the most reliable outlet in the country, but this anecdote, if true, is of the utmost importance right now:

Some Republicans at the White House and on Capitol Hill aren’t sold that Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has the 50 senators needed to change the Senate’s rules and end filibusters on judges.

“That’s what we keep hearing: that Frist doesn’t have the votes,” said one well-informed GOP aide. “If he doesn’t have the votes, then that will force him into some sort of agreement.”

This is the biggest political test of Frist’s career and he’s quickly running out of options. This GOP aide told the Daily News that Frist may have to strike a compromise, but that’s not really an option any more. Harry Reid offered him some pretty sweet deals in the past couple of weeks and Frist turned them all down for a reason: the far-right base won’t accept anything less than total victory. It’s why Frist and Reid aren’t even negotiating anymore.

Frist would have gone “nuclear” well before now if he had the support he needs, which tells us he didn’t have the votes before and he may very well not have them now. The already-thin ice, in other words, is starting to crack.

If Frist brings the nuclear option to the floor and fails, his ability to lead is effectively over. He’ll have taken on the biggest risk for a Senate Majority Leader in recent history and, despite 55 Republican lawmakers in his caucus and the enthusiastic rabid support of the party base, Frist will have failed spectacularly. He’s already a lame-duck leader, but if the nuclear-option strategy falls apart, Frist may have to give up his leadership post.

Frist also can’t stall; the GOP base has told him in no uncertain terms that it’s now or never.

What about the possible six-by-six compromise, you ask? That, too, would be a disaster for Frist, not only because it would represent the failure of his nuclear-option strategy, but also because it would circumvent him altogether. The buzz is the deal isn’t going to happen anyway, but if it does, it’s the worst of all worlds for Frist — the filibuster rule remains in tact, nominees get left behind, and his leadership looks inept. (I’m opposed to the six-by-six deal, but the humiliation it would bring Frist makes it look a little better in my eyes.)

A lot of people forget this, but Bill Frist was, at first, a nuclear-option skeptic. Until last July, Frist didn’t think the plan would work and worried about the effect it would have on the Senate’s ability to function. Then he became Majority Leader, followed by the decision to run for president, followed by the realization that he had to keep the far-right happy. It’s been downhill for the guy ever since.

We may have seen the last chance for a compromise–Durbin offered unanimous consent for Griffith, and then for three judges from Michigan. But McConnell turned it down out of hand.

Timberrrrrrrr …

  • You know, I wonder if the stench of failure might not drive more than a few R’s into the “no” camp. If it becomes clear that Frist is going to lose by a vote or two, some of the non-fire-eaters might reason (if such a word applies) that they can get more mileage by appearing moderate than going down with the losing extremists. The upside to this, for many of them, is that if Frist loses by any tangible margin, he’s finished as leader, which opens the door to someone less driven by Presidential ambitions. I can’t imagine most R’s in the Senate are pleased by being led down one dead end after another.

  • It’s a setup, I’m convinced, orchestrated by Lott and/or McConnell to kneecap Frist.

  • “I won’t be surprised to see a successful vote for cloture here somewhere… ”

    If the Republicans can get 60 votes for some of these nominees, that’s at least a victory for Senate rules. The bar would not have been lowered to 51.
    If a nominee can get 60 votes in the Senate, he or she probably is a good bet to be a good judge.
    Note that the Supreme Court would be nearly the same if 60 votes had always been required for confirmation. Only Clarence Thomas wouldn’t be there.
    It’s worth having one archconservative on the court just to make the other justices think harder; but there’s no need for two or three. And there ought to be one far out left winger to balance, and make the seven in the middle think about when the left is correct and not flaky.

  • I heard that Hagel was falling in line today over at Kos. Does that change the vote calculus?

  • “Until last July, Frist didn’t think the plan would work and worried about the effect it would have on the Senate’s ability to function. Then he became Majority Leader, followed by the decision to run for president, followed by the realization that he had to keep the far-right happy. It’s been downhill for the guy ever since.”

    Wasn’t Frist a Majority Leader with 1600 Pennsylvania ambitions before last July?

    • Comments are closed.