Trust in Harry Reid

Harry Reid has threatened to grind the legislative process to a halt if the Republicans invoke the "nuclear option" on judicial filibusters. Republicans have tried to scare the Democrats into thinking that doing so will make them look even more like obstructionists over an obscure point of parliamentary procedure. But look what his threat has produced (from The Hill):

Worried that their agenda will come to a screeching halt, business leaders are urging Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) not to exercise a bold parliamentary tactic known as the "nuclear option" on judicial nominees.

Industry lobbyists and association heads so far have avoided taking a public role as the debate over stalled judicial nominations escalates. Instead, they are relying on one-on-one conversations with Senate leaders, comments in meetings on other subjects, and staff contacts. But, according to multiple sources on K Street, the employer community has concluded that, whatever its merits, the nuclear option is not worth the price of imperiling the GOP's legislative agenda.

Reid's threat looks serious. Serious enough to cause the otherwise uninterested business community to get involved in this fight. Business lobbyists couldn't give a crap about the culture war, just so long as it doesn't impact the bottom line.

Reid is playing one side of the Republican coalition against the other. Point to Harry if it works.

Keeping your mouth shut

I want to piggyback on a Gadflyer post by Joshua Holland on rumors of a possible Democratic plan for Social Security because Joshua brings up a point that I think is vitally important for Democrats to understand.

I caught hell for saying the Dems should come up with a counter-non-proposal a couple of months ago, and it certainly pains me to be on the same page as Al From and Bruce Reed on any subject.

But my take is that if we're going to end up with a stalemate anyway--which is the best we can do with this administration, let's face it--why not get our values into the debate? Why not shed some light on the disparities that are growing out of control under our current economic policies?

My concern, though, is that we don't have the communications infrastructure or message discipline to do it right and opening up to a discussion will just blow the Dems' rare unity on the issue. We'll see.

Joshua is talking specifically about Social Security, but the same concern applies in the case of Terri Shiavo. I agreed, for the most part, with the criticism of some that Democrats didn't offer enough opposition to the Right-To-Dictate-How-You-Live-Your-Life policies that lead to Tom DeLay's intervention in the Shiavo case. While the situation has turned out pretty well for the Democrats, relying on the Republicans to fuck up is not a viable long-term political strategy. Democrats need to be able to offer an alternative other than "we aren't like the Republicans".

But therein is the problem that Joshua highlights: Democrats just don't have the "communications infrastructure" or the "message discipline" to make a good case for a Democratic alternative. When they do oppose Republican initiatives, they either come off looking just like obstructionists or their justification for their opposition is all over the map. Democrats are unskilled when it comes to coordinating their message.

The old maxim holds true in this case: better to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and confirm it. Thus, while I would have preferred that the Democrats had a coordinated response to the Shiavo mess, the reality is that they didn't. So the most viable political course for them was to just step back from the mess and let the Republicans own it.

I happen to think that Social Security is an issue that Democrats can present a coordinate message on because it is the core of the party. The unity Democrats have shown so far is not simply a matter of opposition to Bush's policies. They are unified because this is an issue at the core of the Democratic value system. Democrats can express their values on this issue, so I am not as concerned as Joshua that they won't be able to keep the momentum on their side if they start to make proposals (though I think that it would be best to at least wait until Bush's bamboozlepalooza tour concludes.)

But on the wider range of issues like the "Culture of Life" and the "War on Terror", Democrats need to be more cautious. Until they can get back in touch with their core values and coordinate their message on these issues it is better to simply let the Republicans own the issues for now. But not for to long. Training is needed now so we can take them back soon (preferably we can be beta testing ideas on how to do it by the 2006 election).

DeLay opposes the separation of powers. What about Bush?

Tom DeLay, in his efforts to distract attention away from his own troubles, is declaring war on the judiciary:

[DeLay] said the House already passed a bill now waiting in the Senate that would allow federal review of state cases in instances such as Schiavo's. Also, he said the House Judiciary Committee has announced hearings on the "definition of good behavior" for judges.

The founding fathers were very explicit in the need for an independent judiciary. An independent judiciary means that, sometimes, it will do things that the other two branches of government don't like. Any attempt to paint judicial disagreement as "out of control" just because it runs counter to the will of the legislature or the executive is nothing more than an assault on judicial independence and thus an assault on our constitutional form of government.

We already know that DeLay thinks judges should kowtow to his point of view. Does Bush side with DeLay in this effort? That's what Democrats should be asking the President. They shouldn't waste a lot of time going after DeLay directly. They should force Bush to take sides.

50 states means 50 states

Chris Bowers gives Democrats a gentle reminder that a "50 state strategy" means more than just going to the deepest red states. It also means that we shouldn't take the deepest blue states for granted either.

In 2000, Gore defeated Bush in the official popular vote by a margin of 543,816 votes. In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry in the official popular vote by a margin of 3,012,497 votes. This swing of 3,556,313 votes was not just found in swing states and red states. In fact, nearly one-third of it, 1,162,593 votes, came from states that Gore won in 2000 (I count Florida in that total). Further, 23.2% of that swing, or 827,941 votes, came from the twelve states where Bush received less than 43% of the vote in 2000: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI and VT. In only two of those twelve states, DC and VT, did Kerry actually win by a greater margin of votes than did Gore. (source)

Established crops need water to.

Ending the Independent Judiciary

Interesting post by Atrios on the reaction of right-wing Republicans to their set backs in the Shiavo case:

I guess I always sort of believed that the attacks on the judiciary by wingnuttia was simply a ploy to intimidate liberal judges until they could finish stacking the courts with their own. But, lately it seems that either this isn't true or that many of them have forgotten that this was the plan. It seems that they actually want to undermine the judicial branch completely, which I find rather weird.

I think we are seeing the culmination of a period that started with the publication of Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gommorah". Up till then the right-wing program had been to take back the judiciary from liberal/activist judges by filling seats with conservative jurists trained by the Federalist Society. But Bork's book marked a change in this program. In it he put forward the proposition that it wasn't just liberal/activist judges that were the problem but the very idea of an independent judiciary. Why did he say this? Because even conservative judges were starting to rule against right-wing causes.

The Shiavo case is just the latest, most extreme example of this. Even Republican nominated judges ruled against the Schindlers and a judge nominated by Bush The First openly blasted the Republicans in Congress AND THE PRESIDENT for overstepping their bounds.

The most extreme elements of the right-wing are now convinced that the judicial branch is rotten to the core and the only way to fix it is to completely alter its foundation. If even fellow Republicans can be corrupted by an "independent judiciary" then that independence must be destroyed.

That is not the program that their fellow conservatives signed on to. It will be interesting if Republican unity can withstand this kind of philosophical disagreement.