Christie Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey and a former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, uses the Washington Post‘s letters page to patiently explain to those of us who believe that all of the President’s judicial nominees should receive up or down votes why we’re too dumb to realize what’s in our best political interests. Which, thank the heavens that Christie’s ideological proxies in the US Senate were there to step up and save us from ourselves, bless their pragmatic li’l hearts:
It’s risky to predict what current events will become historical turning points, but I’m willing to take a chance on this one. Years from now, students and analysts of American political life will point to May 23, 2005, as the day “radical moderates” took a stand and began to recapture the sensible center of U.S. politics. The 14 Republican and Democratic senators who came together to avert the detonation of the “nuclear option” over judicial nominations are owed a much greater debt of gratitude than many people yet realize.
By uniting in defense of America’s historical commitment to consensus on issues of great national importance, they proved that moderates possess political muscle and are not afraid to use it judiciously and effectively. As a result, President Bush’s judicial nominees will get the up-or-down votes they deserve, and the Senate can turn its focus from procedural matters back to the important challenges facing our country.
Perhaps Ms. Whitman has been so busy patting herself on the back for her blindingly selfless “radical moderation” that she’s yet to realize that some of the President’s nominees are in fact not likely to receive an up or down vote—that the Democrats are planning to filibuster at least a couple of Bush’s judicial choices—and that the only way for Republicans to avert capitulation to intentional Democratic obstructionism (and, in the case of Bill Frist, to avoid complete political ruin) is to put the constitutional option back on the table. Right back where we started.
Predictably, those whom I call “social fundamentalists”—the vocal minority who would purge from the Republican Party those who don’t meet their narrow ideological litmus tests on a handful of social issues—have gone to Defcon 2, just short of a nuclear launch, in their reactions.
Gary L. Bauer, president of American Values, called the compromise a “sellout”; the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, accused the seven Republicans of lacking “backbone” and “fortitude”; and James C. Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, spoke of his “disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment.” Outraged talk radio hosts are vowing to help defeat the seven GOP senators in their next primaries.
…Uh huh. And predictably, those who lack the backbone and fortitude to stick to their guns against a minority power play cynically designed to brand highly qualified judicial nominees as “extremists” are precisely those who will then write letters to The Washington Post attempting to dismiss their critics as a fringe nest of hard-right social conservatives. But Bauer, Sheldon, and Dobson don’t represent me (though we do find common ground on the issue of this filibuster compromise), and the poll numbers simply do not bear out Ms. Whitman’s narrative—specifically, that representatives of the great political center, who express the real will of the American people, were able to cut through partisan bickering to reach a necessary and republic-saving compromise. Instead, many Americans—not simply social conservatives—saw the “compromise” for what it was: an attempt by a coalition of self-styled moderates to fashion the Senate in their own image, with the Republicans in that coalition effectively subverting the will of voters who gave the GOP majority control of the Senate precisely as a way to combat the obstructionism that won out, for the time being, by dint of any compromise short of one the requires up or down votes for all judicial nominees.
History one day will reflect that the high-water mark of the “social conservative” movement in this country came two months ago with the Terri Schiavo case, when a vocal and organized minority persuaded Congress to intervene. Most Americans did not support that intrusion. History also will record that the tide began to turn just eight weeks later, as radical moderates flexed their political muscles to return the sensible center in American politics to its rightful place.
Well, as a critic of the federal government’s intrusion into the Schiavo matter—and as one who actually predicted that social conservatives’ involvement in the case would hurt Bush’s ability to push through his judicial nominations—I’d like now to suggest that all this muscle-flexing from “radical moderates” that Ms. Whitman is crowing about is simply a calculated (and in some cases, cynical) gamble on the part of Senate centrists to wrest political control away from Senate conservatives and form their own obstructionist voting block with hopes of furthering an agenda designed to appeal to that great swathe of centrist voters.
Where they have miscalculated, though, is in their belief that being “centrist” is synonomous with being willing to compromise principles for the sake of appearing above the partisan fray.
****
update: Both Bill and Commissar are concerned about attacks on moderates. In fact, by Commissar’s standards, my post—in that it goes after “the Gang of 14”—is “easy” and “requires no thought, and no depth”; however, I might just as easily point out that playing the fearless maverick unafraid of lecturing a partisan choir can itself be construed as a calculated affectation (and in fact, my post makes just that argument); but certainly not in all cases. I suppose the best remedy for structural sloppiness is to remain committed to addressing specific instances of a perceived offense whenever possible. Be sure to read Patterico’s responses in the Commissar’s comments section.
update 2: Decision ‘08 chimes in.
****
update 3: Jack Grant adds his name to those who believe you should “think seriously about what [The Commissar] has to say.”
Or maybe I should just stick to sex jokes…
Good post. Personally, I had no idea that the American public as a whole disliked the compromise.
Nope. I love the serious posts. I gotta say, I think all four of you have good points. I’ve noticed a lot of what the Commissar is saying around the ‘sphere, but I don’t really think it applies to this compromise as much as it would to a Schiavo-type situation. There are a ton of social conservatives who don’t care any more about this compromise than Bill does. There are also a lot of moderates like me that are pretty disgusted with it.
It is amazing really. You post a blank space and get over a hundred comments, but then you post something like this which details the travesty that happened over the filibuster “deal” (by the way, how is this a “deal” for the Republicans? They got SCREWED. Period. And they are the ones in the majority? Does anyone believe the democrats would have let this happen had they been in the majority?) and the self-congratulatory response from the self apponted conservative moderates, and you get nothing.
“PLEASE SAVE US JOHN MCCAIN!!!”
I get hives thinking about a McCain presidency.
Anyways, more dick jokes Jeff. And how.
/OT
Instapundit drank the kool-aid. he’s cat blogging
/OT
Nice post, Jeff. I don’t think I’m the only reader here who appreciates the 80s jokes and the political commentary. That is, who appreciates the oeuvre of both Andrew McCarthy and Andrew McCarthy.
The Commissar isn’t just saying that your view is “easy” and requires “no thought.” He is actually questioning your (and my) patriotism, just because we oppose the filibuster capitulation.
I feel like John Kerry . . .
Funny, I thought May 23, 2005 was the day that seven Republican senators ignored the will of the people and decided that they knew better than the common riff-raff that voted them into office. You put garbage in, you get garbage out. It’s time to put the garbage on the curb.
So the Commisar thinks that opposing this non-fillibuster deal is “playing to the galleries”, and says “People who oppose any compromise, who hold out for their inflexible partisan position at all costs, hurt the country.” Is he trying to claim these judges would not be approved if put to a floor vote ? Then who is it, exactly, who is holding the “inflexible partisan position” ? The minority Democrats’ inflexible partisan position is somehow superior to the majority Republicans’ inflexible partisan position ?
Sorry to be late to the party, but I’ve been trying to find a blog where Patterico hasn’t yet left a comment that I “questioned his patriotism.”
He missed this one:
http://www.writewingconspiracy.com/
Joe,
Then who is it, exactly, who is holding the “inflexible partisan position†? Those who continue to oppose the compromise, even though, it has the MAJORITY of the Senate behind it, that’s who.
Jeff,
My affectation? You found me out. Yup. You see I have a secret plan to appeal to the millions and millionsof “Conservative but secular and concerned” Republicans who are just waiting to rip Hewitt a new one. Traffic stratosphere, here I come!!!
I have a whole line of T-shirts and everything. The first one says in big, bold, capital letters:
“PATTERICO IS UNPATRIOTIC!”
This whole blog war stuff is just soooooo 2004 …
Commissar–
I’m not saying you are affecting that stance. Just that it makes just as much sense to point out that your post can be construed that way (that’s what I believe McCain, et al were up to) as it does for you to point out how others’ posts can be construed as pandering to the base.
Robin —
I wrote this post before I read Bill or Commissar or Patterico’s posts. I added those links for balance and to flesh out the discussion, not to begin a blog war.
Commissar,
I think it’s four blogs. This one, mine, yours, and (since you linked him in your post) Bill Ardolino.
You seem to be mocking me for having pointed out that you claimed that people who oppose the “compromise” are unpatriotic.
Are you saying you *didn’t* make that claim???
Also: I have no interest in a blog war. I *like* the Commissar.
I just think that, in this case, he has said something I consider outrageous, and I am taking issue with it.
No “war.”
“Those who continue to oppose the compromise, even though, it has the MAJORITY of the Senate behind it, that’s who.”
Nonsense, Commissar. As this plays out, your much-vaunted moderate Republicans will see exactly what the Democrats are behind – and it isn’t this or any other compromise. Hasn’t the continuing obstruction over Bolton clued you in ?
I do think it’s interesting that Jeff is a critic of the federal government’s Schiavo law, yet is a staunch critic of the filibuster capitulation. You probably won’t find too many people who hold both views. That would seem to further contradict the “all critics of the deal are panderers” schtick.
(Btw, Jeff, while I respect your position on the Schiavo matter, I have my own bone to pick with you on that. A certain blogger whom I won’t name wrote a post saying, in essence, that the people who felt that Schiavo should have a chance to live felt that way because they were retarded, ergo sympathetic to Schiavo because of their similarity to her in mental ability. You commented: “Nice post.” Ugh.)
I did? Do you have a link? Because my position on Schiavo was always that most of those who came down on the other side were quite sincere in their convictions.
I’ll e-mail it to you. I don’t want to give the cretin any more publicity. Also, I *have* been in a blog war with him over the Schiavo issue, and I don’t really want to start it up again.
Really? On what planet does 14% constitute a “majority?”
Jeff,
I e-mailed it to you. My memory was a little inaccurate—you said “Good post” not “Nice post,” and the guy said he didn’t mean to paint with too broad a brush—but I had it basically right.
Anyway, never mind that. The real point is not a comment you made on a Schiavo-related post. It’s your lack of patriotism!
Ah, that. I read that post as a reply to a flame war the author was in with certain commenters at Ace’s site, not as an attack on you or those others mentioned. In fact, that’s where I found the link, I believe—in Ace’s comments.
Read as a sarcastic retort to some of the things people were saying about the author on that other site, the response was quite well done.
Whitman. Didn’t she used to be somebody? Is there any reason I should care about her opinion? It’s not like she’s in danger of being elected anything soon. Or ever.
Well, the guy is a cretin who has also been in a flame war with me, but whatever.
Wasn’t aware. But I think I’m just going to let my writings on the Schiavo case speak for themselves with respect to how I characterized my opponents.
That’s fine. I just remember being put off by the guy’s post, and then doubly annoyed to see that you were supporting him. It makes a little more sense now.
You should be aware that the guy is a cretin, but I’ll let you make up your own mind on that. If you ever find yourself on the opposite side of any issue he feels strongly about, you’ll see what I mean in short order.
I disagree with you on Schiavo, but I respect your opinion. Enough about that here.
Commissar,
I finally followed that link above. Pretty odd thing to do, really—going on a random site and picking a random post to call me unpatriotic on? What’s the deal with that? I get that it’s a joke, but why use some other guy’s blog as a prop for the joke?
Apparently, the other guy didn’t appreciate being used as a prop, either. Methinks the Commissar (or whoever is claiming to be him) is a born-again troll.
Jeff, I’ll spill over my comments from my blog to here, as well. Having read your post, let me say that I don’t agree with Whitman’s interpretation of May 23rd, and I say that as someone who liked the deal. I didn’t like it because I’m a ‘radical moderate’, whatever the hell that is (I consider myself a solid conservative, thank you very much), but for purely selfish reasons, such as the way the Republicans have been losing the PR war lately and my wish to avoid another 1998 mid-term fiasco by giving too much ammo to those who would label us ‘extremists’.
I would never question the integrity of those who think the deal was a stinker; am a bit tired of having mine questioned, though, whether directly or as a compromise supporter.
Jeff, having disrespected the original Rollerball on your movie lists, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously at this point?
Had the James Caan role gone to someone who would’ve done it justice—like, say, David Cassidy or Kyle Rote Jr.—maybe I’d give it some respect.
All’s I know is, if they every remake the thing, I hope they get Chris Klein and LL Cool J. Because that would be a movie..
Why Jeff, this makes it sound like the Dems are… I dunno… insincere or something. I mean, just because they filibustered Bolton scant days after they agreed, in exchange for Republicans to sit bound and gagged, to think reeeally, reeeally hard before obstructing the President’s mandate… Are you sure you don’t need some of that campus sensitivity training or something?
Turing = science, as in Getting a comely Say Anything girl to appear here each week is obviously not an exact science.
Excellent post, Jeff.
Ah, and Krempasky already linked it.
Jeff, Patterico,
Patterico *whom I like* definitely muddied the waters here.
If you feel that my ‘questioning patriotism’ was over-the-top, so be it.
But you both wholly missed the object of my ‘over-the-top’ vitriol. It was not those who disagree with me on this one issue, but those who predictably and regularly play the Party Enforcer role. Since you both defy the Party Line on various issues, you’re not included.
Now, you still might want to object to my ‘over-the-top’ rhetoric on general principles, but it was directed at the consistently Party Fatihful, which you both took pains to define yourselves out of.
Commie my friend,
*I’m* muddying the waters? I don’t think so.
If that’s what you meant to say, great. It’s not what you said. What you said was this:
“Anyone with an ounce of patriotism” should know what position to take “on this issue.”
I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but you questioned the patriotism of *anyone* who didn’t agree with you on this one specific issue. I’m reacting to what you *said*—and it was ridiculous. If you meant something different, say so—but don’t accuse *me* of muddying the waters.
Patterico,
As excerpted there, you got me.
Anyone who reads the whole post (and/or my follow-up post) can determine if the context affects the meaning or not.
Off topic, and I hate to interrupt the bitch fight already in progress, but I gots a question: where the fuck is the “Say Anything” girl?
Who’s that?
That must not show up on the RSS feed I get of Jeff’s blog.
Time to fix the RSS feed.
The “Say Anything” girl? She was the comely lass that tickled many a young lads fancy on these fine pages. In short, a blog ad that was heavy on the T&A factor.
Me (Fred)? Just some asshole who enjoys occasionally chiming in on Jeff’s site.
Incidentally, now that you’ve made eye contact with me, Patterico, here’s my two cents on this kerfuffle: You’ve got Der Kommisar by the short hairs on the facts, but he’s clearly looking for a way out that saves some face and you should allow him that. Why? I don’t know. I think its in the “Art of War” that you should or something.
I meant the Say Anything girl.
Hey, I love the Commissar. If he is saying that his post, read in context, is supposed to mean something different from what the excerpt I quote above says, that’s good enough for me.
Is that good enough? A virtual handshake and we’re done. I don’t like feuds.
fair enough
Teentop links directory, link exchange, add url, add link
Pablo suggested I post this again:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
From: Jeff Goldstein: Arguing “On Point” — With Threats of Violence.
Thanks to Pablo for the suggestion. It’s a good one. Sorta makes it clear who wrote this post.