Bill Frist The Loser? I Don't Think So.

As I write this, it has been less than seventy-two hours since the announcement of a deal among “moderates” in the Senate designed to prevent the exercise of the Constitutional option to end judicial filibusters. And much has already been written about who the biggest winners and losers are as the result of the deal.

But oftentimes, what seems to be true at first may not be an accurate reflection of what actually is. Indeed, given a couple of days to cool off following my initial reactions, I find that what I thought would be the implications for certain Republicans at first may not be the case at all at the end of the day.

To be sure, at this point the agreement carries more positives for the Democrats than the Republicans, and they can legitimately be said to be the winners in the “inter-party” aspect of this little episode. After all, being in the minority, there is nothing they would have been able to do to stop the rules change if they had not been able to reach an agreement with at least six Republicans. Their ability to do this very thing certainly can be recorded as a victory for them, although it is a victory that has the potential to be short-lived.

But the “inter-party” struggle is only one aspect of this episode that merits attention. There is also the “intra-party” struggle that has taken place among the Republicans – specifically, that between the moderates who were a party to this deal and the leadership, most notably Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN).

Early evaluations have chalked this up as a victory for the seven moderates, led by Senator John McCain (R-DC) who, as chief broker of the deal was supposedly able to ace Senator Frist in the early quest to become the party leader in the run-up to the 2008 GOP nomination campaign. The idea being that, by seeming to have taken Mr. Frist’s intended exercise of the Constitutional Option off the table for this congress, Mr. McCain has emasculated the Tennesseean’s leadership, effectively replacing him as the driver of the Senate agenda through 2006.

But there are a couple of things that should give one pause before making such an evaluation. First and foremost is the fact that the willingness of the Democrats to – grudgingly – come to the negotiating table at all is a tribute to Senator Frist, not Senator McCain.

It is the attitude of Washington careerists like Senator McCain (in Washington since 1983 and the Senate since 1987, and showing no signs of wanting to leave anytime soon) – who place “senate tradition” above actually doing the work of the people – that has emboldened the minority party to abuse long-standing – but not constitutionally mandated – Senate procedures to thwart the will of the majority with no fear of consequences.

If there were no threat to end the misuse of filibusters, the minority Democrats would have never agreed to allow votes on any of the nominees in question. For all their bloviating about how they would use the proposed rules changes to their advantage whenever they regained a majority, when push came to shove, their lack of confidence in winning a majority at the ballot box was exposed, their bluff was called, and they were forced to cut some kind of a deal. Rather than embracing the change as an issue to use in a campaign and a tool to use when they were in charge, they did what they had to do to avoid said change. And it wasn’t because of the actions of the Washingtonians in the Senate.

As long as the Senate was under the leadership of the likes of Senator McCain and Trent Lott (R-DC, in Washington since 1973 and the Senate since 1989, and showing no signs of wanting to leave anytime soon), the Constitutional Option, while always present, was never feared by the Democrats because they knew a good Washingtonian like Mr. Lott would never exercise it. And for a weapon to be a deterrent, there actually has to be some reasonable expectation that it might be used.

It wasn’t until a relative outsider like Mr. Frist (R-TN, in Washington and the Senate since 1995 and planning to return to Tennessee in 2007) showed up and clearly demonstrated a willingness to “rock the boat” in order to actually get the people’s work done that we saw the Democrats willing to offer to allow a vote on any one of these nominees, much less three. In other words, Senator McCain would have no deal to crow about, were it not for the resolve demonstrated by Senator Frist and his fellow party leaders like Mitch McConnell and Rick Santorum. Resolve that, from all indications, remains as firm now as ever to break the judicial impasses that remain.

In this deal, the Democrats have been forced to make what are major concessions to their way of thinking. And while seven Republicans have made a major concession of their own, it is important to note that Bill Frist is not one of those seven, and that he has already declared that, the deal not being sanctioned by the Republican leadership, the forcing of a vote on the Constitutional Option remains on the table. So just how is it that he has been emasculated? By the possibility that he might actually lose a vote on the issue? Think again.

When – not if – the Democrats next decide to obstruct one of the President’s judicial nominees, Mr. Frist will be able to demonstrate consistency as he pulls the Option back out for a vote – the untruths that Harry Reid is declaring that the Option is a dead issue notwithstanding. The seven moderates, on the other hand, will be in an awkward position – one that will leave them being open to Democrat criticism for “breaking their word” if they vote for the option, or being on record as voting in opposition to their base if they vote against it. In view of the fact that a majority of the country, including their constituents, voted to allow George Bush to set the direction of the judiciary, this will not be the most pleasant place for them to be.

Senator McCain has said repeatedly that, in cutting this deal, his interest was in the good of the Senate, and not in his presidential aspirations. If only his interest in doing the will and work of the people was as great as his interest in keeping things comfortable for him and his fellow Washingtonians, he might not find himself relying on the dependability of the opposition party to protect his political future.

Bill Frist is the loser? Not by a long shot.

Senator Reid Opts To Fight

After Harry Reid went out of his way to call President Bush “a loser” earlier this week, everyone suspected that, rather than a simple poor choice of words, the sentiment expressed how the Senate Minority Leader truly felt about Mr. Bush. Now the Senator has confirmed this by his own mouth.

As noted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Senator Reid was questioned about how the comment would affect his ability to work with Republicans. His response was to say, “I tell people how I feel about things. I don’t try to hide how I feel . . . I think this administration has done a very, very bad job for this nation and the world.”

Those comments should be the signal for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to pull the trigger on the Constitutional Option for judicial nominees, as well as any other methods by which he can use the Republicans’ majority status to advantage.

Given the opportunity to temper his earlier remarks, Senator Reid opted to attack the President even more. By abandoning any and all conciliatory tones, he has de facto declared that there will be no compromising on the Democrats’ part with the administration or Republicans in general. If the comity that so many in the minority claim to long for is being thrown out, then it is time for the Republicans to go ahead and start throwing around the weight they enjoy as the majority party in Washington.

But it should be understood that this is not just about slapping back after being slapped. The fact is that whichever party is in the majority, be it Republicans, Democrats, Greens, or Libertarians, enjoys the majority because the people of the United States have put it in that position. Those who sit in positions of power in Washington are there to do the people’s business. If the people have shown a preference for the Republican agenda through the electoral process, as they have done for six straight elections where the Congress is concerned, then the Republicans should feel free to pursue that agenda.

Of course, a regard for the rights of the minority party and its supporters, as well as a general sense of good manners, demands at least an attempt to govern in such a way as to provide maximum satisfaction for all who are willing to work together. If the minority party is unwilling to work in good faith with the majority party, a regard for the choice of the sovereign people demands that the majority pursue the agenda it was elected to pursue.

For some time now, Democrats have screamed that, if the Republicans use their majority to force their agenda over the objections of the minority, they will do the same when they are in the majority. The response to this is simple: Fine, then. Go out and win a majority in an election, and you will be free to do so.

One would think/hope that, in view of their reduced power as the minority party, the Democrats would go out of their way to avoid direct confrontations with the majority Republicans, and take their electoral defeats as a signal to be more willing to work and compromise with Republicans – within the Constitutional framework. They had that chance, and Senator Reid’s comments demonstrate that they’d rather opt for confrontation. So be it. Let the majority commence with the confronting.

Thoughts Upon Visiting The Constitution

Three weeks ago, my wife and I had the opportunity to travel to Washington, DC for a day. While there, we made it a point to visit the National Archives, where the original copies of the “Charters of Freedom” – the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution – are housed. We had both been to see these grand old documents before, but this time, as I gazed down into the glass case containing the Constitution, a thought struck me that never had previously.

It occurred to me as I looked upon the Constitution that I was looking at pieces of paper. The Constitution is an inanimate object, with no life in and of itself. It has no power to compel anyone to give heed to its words. I was reminded that the only thing that gives that document any power at all is the willingness of the people of this nation to live and abide by it and its principles – even when doing so is inconvenient for a portion of them.

For over two centuries, our nation has survived, due largely to the fact that the people and their leaders have been willing to play by the rules. If doing so meant that some didn’t get their way because they were in the minority, then those people recognized and accepted that they simply needed to get out, work hard, win elections, and gain a majority – all the while playing by the established rules.

In recent times, however, this commitment to abiding by the established rules has been thrown into doubt. Attempts have been made to change election rules after elections were already conducted, because some were upset that their side didn’t win. Ongoing attempts are being made to subvert our democratic institutions by elevating the one non-democratic branch of our government over the other two. And even within the democratic/political branches of the government, an attempt is being made by a minority in one-half of one branch to undermine the constitutional authority given to another branch. All this, because the outcome of playing by the established rules – the Constitution – has not produced the results that some wanted.

Our Constitutional Republic was framed in such a way that there could never be a tyranny imposed by the majority that would compromise the rights of the minority. And if the Founders didn’t intend a tyranny imposed by the majority, they certainly didn’t intend for there to be a tyranny imposed by the minority to deny the rights and privileges of the majority.

The problems being dealt with by the American leadership in Washington are problems that go to the very heart of the Republic and spirit of the Constitution. They call for men and women of character and principle to be elevated to positions where they can deal effectively with these problems. If the people of the United States would see their Republic long endure, they must be willing to pursue their goals and objectives within the framework provided by the agreed-upon rules. And they should require the same of the leaders they elect to work on their behalf. If we fail in this regard, then the Constitution will effectively be rendered a powerless relic, and the rule of law that regards all men as equals will give way to the rule of men – something that generations of Americans before us were willing to resist to the point of death.