marchand chronicles

Standing Firm Is NOT Inaction

Carpe Diem: Who'll Seize The Day?

One of the criticisms of my essay on the "nuclear option" is that it suggests "inaction" (Captain's Quarters, Threshold Negative 55). Far from it. I don't want inaction, I just want reasoned, measured action.

I named my essay "Conventional Warfare" for a reason. The Democrats have dug in their heels and lined trenches. If the Republicans go over the top, they WILL be gunned down. RCP's Tom Bevan has written a post that agrees with me on that end. Need proof? Again via RCP, the most recent Quinnipiac poll has "nuclear option" supporter Rick Santorum fourteen points behind his challenger, based largely on a negative view of Santorum stemming from his positions on Social Security and — wait for it — Terri Schiavo.

Yes, the 2006 midterms are a year and a half away, but you tell me — if the GOP goes through with the "nuclear option," do you really think Santorum will gain all 14 of those points back? Or will he lose even more? A poll analyst suggests that Santorum's opponent, State Treasurer Robert Casey, Jr., really has done nothing to get headlines but has allowed Santorum's candidacy to self-destruct.

The same thing will happen, writ large, if the Republicans follow Santorum "over the top." Tom Bevan nailed it: the Republicans have already lost the PR battle over this issue. We can debate until doomsday how that happened, but the Democrats have the territorial advantage.

The solution, then, is to blockade them, and starve them out. It minimizes our disadvantages and puts the onus on them. As I wanted to address but Bevan beat me to it:

This is doubly frustrating because the math also works in the Republicans' favor. There are more red-state Democrats at risk over this issue than blue-state Republicans. Yet instead of having Senators like Ben Nelson, Ken Salazar, and the rest on the defensive, it's moderate Republicans like John Warner, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe who are getting pounded - from both sides.

Read this article in today's New York Times and you'll see that many of the Republican moderates still on the fence fully agree that Democrats are way out of line. It's not hard to see that they would be more than willing to pull the trigger on this vote if the Republican party leadership had done a better job laying the ground work and driving public opinion on the issue. The bottom line is that not enough effort was made to give these Senators the cover they need to make this vote.

Forcing the Democrats to go through with the filibuster will put them on the defensive. Instead of hoping the Republicans don't "go wobbly," the pressure would be on Democratic senators from red states up for reelection in 2006 — Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), Bill Nelson (Florida) — and some other vulnerable Democrats. Republicans can show them the horror of suffering the same fate as Tom Daschle and wait for them to fold.

This is not inaction. It's a calculated, strategic action. And, from where I sit, it's a far better alternative.

posted by Marsh @ 4:50 PM