I don't know--and I don't think anyone knows--whether this compromise is a good or bad thing. Hell, we don't even know what the result of Owen's and Brown's votes will be; if some Republicans have been convinced to oppose them, then it will feel more like a win than it does today.
But I think this compromise can be turned into a win, by pushing the moderate 14 to oppose Bolton's nomination on the terms it is being advanced perhaps as early as Wednesday.
This compromise will be a win for the country and for Democrats if the moderate block that has formed becomes a viable block. You've got several of the moderates who cause Democrats headaches anyway and who are leaning toward supporting Bolton (Lieberman, Landrieu. Nelson). And you've got two of the best parliamentarians in the Senate--Byrd and McCain. Add in the Republicans who have worked with the Dems, and you've got a real, viable center. This center is large enough and skilled enough to be able to moderate the more radical urges of the fundementalist right.
Normally, I wouldn't dream that this block would oppose Bolton. McCain, for example, has vocally supported Bolton. Because of his geopolitical beliefs, Lieberman is probably more likely to support Bolton than a number of the moderate Republicans.
But if Frist brings Bolton's nomination to the floor on Wednesday, it will not be a question of whether Bolton should be approved. It will be a question of whether Bolton should be approved without the Senate having exercised its oversight and with clear evidence that Bolton lied under oath.
As Steve Clemons has made clear, Lugar never got the materials he requested from the White House and the State Department. Lugar and Biden never received the NSA intercept information; they have not even received a briefing from Warner and Levin, who presumably have been briefed. Thus, as it stands, the Bolton nomination invokes the same principles at issue in preserving the filibuster--the role of the Senate as a check on the power of the President. And in this case, it is more than a question of the minority checking the power of the majority. We know Voinovich will vote against Bolton (and perhaps Murkowski and Chafee, particularly since Chafee didn't have to vote against Frist on the filibuster). Here, it is a question of whether the Senate can exercise the advise and consent called for in the Constitution.
And, at the same time, it's a question of the authority of the Senate. There is ample evidence that Bolton lied under oath to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, specifically on the question of whether he tried to get Westerman fired. And Joe Lieberman, one of the likely Democratic defecters on a Bolton vote, has historically come out against officials who lie under oath--at least Presidents who lie under oath about blow jobs. Lieberman probably needs some constituent calls to remind him of his stance against lying. I, for one, would hope that he is as serious about lying about our nation's security as he is about blow jobs. And even Norm Coleman has been vocal, recently, about the seriousness of Senate testimony:
Mr Coleman said he didn't think Mr Galloway had been a "credible witness". If it was found he had lied under oath, there would be "consequences", he said.
If these Senators have seen fit to break with extraordinary party discipline to preserve the power of the Senate, then they ought to do the same to underscore the seriousness of lying during testimony to the Senate.
At this point, this compromise might only forestall the inevitable nuclear explosion. Or, it might be the rejeuvenation of a moderate block--which could only be good for this country and even the Democratic party (although it will ruin the discipline we've had of late).If the 14 Senators involved in the compromise, plus Specter and Murkowksi and Hagel, receive calls emphasizing the continuity of the issues surrounding the filibuster and those relating to the Bolton nomination, perhaps we might defeat Bolton's nomination--or, at the very least, force the White House to pay heed to the Senate's role in nominations.
Before the compromise, Clemons was beginning to believe we had a chance of defeating Bolton if we lost on the nuclear option. Me, I think that given the terms of the compromise on the nuclear option, we might have the grounds for a victory on Bolton too. If we can manage that--or at the least get all these moderates begin to think of themselves as a powerful, moderating force acting as a check on the power of the imperial President--then I think this compromise could be a huge win for the country.
I think this is a loss, but if you think the confidence game works, then I think it's a huge victory. Viva democracy!
Posted by: praktike | May 23, 2005 at 21:27
lieberman's heard from quite a number of constituents.
Posted by: DemFromCT | May 23, 2005 at 21:41
Wait, here's an idea. The Dems' new theme can be that this was a victory for moderation itself, and thereby wrap themselves in the mantle of moderation and present the entire House, the WH, and the Frobson crowd as extremists.
Posted by: praktike | May 23, 2005 at 21:41
praktike
I don't think we've got to pit ourselves as the moderates (and, listening to Boxer as I speak, I know it wouldn't work).
I think we only need to appeal to the principle of constitutionality. Balance of powers.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 23, 2005 at 21:44
Boxer has a very public hold on the Bolton nomination and, according to Steve Clemons, one or more Senators has a private hold. If the mods have agreed that there would be no more attempts to strip minority prerogatives, does this mean there has to be a cloture vote or discharge petition or something like that to advance Bolton to the floor? In other words, is there some kind of test vote like that in which our new-found moderate friends could just in effect ask for more time to resolve issues, or make it plain they won't vote to advance the vote until more issues are resolved? I really don't undestand the arcana of Senmate procedure, but I seem to recall reading that something has to happen to overcome the holds.
Posted by: Mimikatz | May 23, 2005 at 22:07
I think the hold is a threat to filibuster. So to bring Bolton to the floor would be a direct challenge on Frist's part (and he--and the rest of the GOP--might see it as a way for Frist to save face). Which is why if he WERE to bring it to the floor, you could encourage the 14 to oppose based on principle of Senate privilege, not on opposition to Bolton (it would give the many moderates who don't want Bolton cover to oppose him).
On the other hand, Graham seems to be saying that Bolton is now a slam-dunk. So his nomination may have been part of the deal, too. Certainly Holy Joe would like to see him approved.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 23, 2005 at 22:12
Thanks. Makes sense. So there might have to be a cloture vote, but it would pass, unless others feel they should get the information, or otherwise force Frist to slow down. Then we will see the vote.
Posted by: Mimikatz | May 23, 2005 at 22:15
I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me it's wishful thinking of the most naive sort to think Brown is going to go down on her up-or-down vote.
Posted by: Trapper John | May 23, 2005 at 22:39
Boxer has demanded three categories of documents before this thing goes forward. If the indication is that the R's intend to fast-track it in spite of her, she might do well to narrow her request to just the NSA intercepts to avoid the standard GOP talking point that the Dems are just fishing.
If we keep the news focused on the intercepts for a few days, even Joe and Mary from Peoria will start to find it mighty sinister that Bolton was spying on US citizens and no one will admit what was in those intercepts. Previously, I think the Dems were disinclined to make it just about the intercepts because they might turn out to be a dud, but the stonewalling has reached such absurd levels that there simply has to be something juicy in there.
Posted by: Steve | May 24, 2005 at 00:56
Take the holds off, take up the Bolton comfirmation in the full Senate. Extended debate, but no filibuster. Bring out the dirty laundry, call out the stonewallers, read out the history of intel "fixed around the policy".
Double-dog-dare the Republican leadership to win an up-or-down vote. Dare the Mod's to show the Rad's who is inthe driver's seat.
And get that on the record before the agreed judicial nominations come to a vote.
Posted by: RonK, Seattle | May 24, 2005 at 01:08
If Brown goe down this will be a huge win. as I call it it's a win. The republicans have now acknowledged the
judicial filibuster a valid senatorial tactic, which means we can use
it. Their left complaining that their judges are or aren't
extraordinary, which is is a stylistic issue, not a substantive one.
Should we filibuster another Owen or Pryor if they come along-- by all
means! That's the point. Now we have means and for the Republicans to
threaten them again is simply bad faith, ordinary Americans won't
agree on whether a particular judge warrants extraordinary
circumstances or not, but they can agree on what bad faith is.
Posted by: frank | May 24, 2005 at 01:13
RonK, I like the way you think. If I ever run for anything, will you run my campaign??
Although I should warn you, it'll be for the European Parliament from somewhere in Ireland. It'll look a lot like Seattle. Only without the skiable snow. Of course, this year, that wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
Posted by: emptywheel | May 24, 2005 at 09:59
emptywheel -- Why not? I'm a Potato Fest veteran from way back.
Posted by: RonK, Seattle | May 24, 2005 at 12:52