Tom Paine.com

Nuclear Opposition

Ralph G. Neas

April 04, 2005

If the nuclear option is a bandwagon, prominent Republicans of all stripes are jumping off it, rather than on. Despite support for this radical departure from Senate protocol by extremists like Vice President Cheney and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, moderate—and not-so-moderate—GOPers are backing away.

Ralph G. Neas is president of  People For the American Way, which recently launched a  campaign to save the filibuster

The right wing is going for broke over something called the “nuclear option” —a parliamentary dirty trick that would eviscerate the Senate filibuster and clear the way for even the most extreme nominees to the Supreme Court. They always knew they had their work cut out for them in convincing moderate Republicans to support such a power grab, but lately even conservatives have been leaping off the “nuclear” bandwagon.

The Filibuster: Good For Iraq But Not America?

It all started in February, when Johnny Isakson, a conservative Republican and Georgia’s new senator, delivered remarks (transcript and video) on the Senate floor about the nature of democracy and his recent trip to Iraq. While speaking with a Kurdish leader, Isakson asked whether he feared the majority Shiites would trample the rights of the minority Kurds.

The Kurd responded that his people have a secret weapon: “He said one word: ‘filibuster.’ Then he proceeded to describe their study of American democracy and our Republic.” Isakson continued, “If there were ever a reason for optimism about…the people of Iraq and their stability and security, it is one of their minority leaders proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority.” But overrunning the minority at home—whose ability to filibuster is the only remaining check on President Bush’s prerogatives—is exactly what Republican leaders hope to do.

Isakson’s comments would seem to contradict the use of the “nuclear option” to forbid the Democratic minority’s highly selective use of the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of 10 radical judicial nominees. By speaking from the heart instead of Bush-issued talking points, Isakson put proponents of the “nuclear option” on the spot. As one poster to right-wing blog Free Republic said, “My first thought was, ‘Newbie, you need to learn what buzzwords to avoid when speaking.’”

Isakson was no doubt taken to the woodshed over his candid remarks, because later that day, his office issued a release implausibly denying any relationship between his praise for the filibuster and opposition to the “nuclear option.” But the two go hand in hand, and the damage was done.

Opposition in Unexpected Places

In mid-March, the case for the “nuclear option” sustained multiple blows from the right as prominent conservatives unapologetically expressed their opposition. Conservative columnist George Will, who has opposed the idea in the past columns, forcefully reiterated his opposition in his Washington Post column and at a panel discussion cosponsored by the ultraconservative Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.

More significantly,former Republican senators Jim McClure and Malcolm Wallop—conservatives who represented Idaho and Wyoming respectively—systemically shredded the “nuclear option” to pieces in a remarkable op-ed in that bastion of conservatism, the Wall Street Journal .

McClure and Wallop warned that Frist’s strategy is “capable of blowing out the foundations of the Senate itself” and includes elements that are “against history and common sense.” They went on to undermine the various schemes that Frist and his allies have concocted as potential means to the end of nuking the filibuster and clearing the way to the Supreme Court for Bush’s radical judicial nominees.

Their recommended course of action is something that one might dub the “democratic option”—in other words, both sides would continue operating within the rules. Bush and his allies would continue to exercise political pressure and legitimate parliamentary tactics to get his nominees confirmed, and Democrats and their allies would continue using the same means to attempt to block nominees they deem reprehensible.

The “Nuclear” Constituency

Bush’s first-term judicial confirmation rate was the highest in recent history. With even fewer Democrats in the Senate and every expectation of continued confirmation success under the current, legitimate Senate rules, why would Bush and Frist detonate the “nuclear option”?

It’s certainly not something most Republicans are clamoring for, as Senate Republican Whip Mitch McConnell has reportedly acknowledged in private. But it’s the top priority for religious right leaders like James Dobson and Pat Robertson who are demanding payback for Bush’s re-election in the form of radical judicial nominees. They are intent on overturning the legal precedents that underpin progressive governance and society.

What Bush is paying back, Frist needs to pay forward. He is desperately courting their backing for his presidential run. As another poster to Free Republic put it, “Frist’s ambitions + opportunity = nuke option = conservative court for years to come.”

But in catering to the religious right, Bush and Frist have lost sight of the rest of America. It’s not just Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans balking at the “nuclear option” anymore.  It’s lifelong, principled conservatives like Will, McClure, Wallop and—probably in his heart of hearts—Isakson. If Bush and Frist keep pushing, the fissures will only widen.