Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
For GOP, Deeper Fissures, Looming Power Struggle
Topic Started: May 25 2005, 07:41 AM (226 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

source

Quote:
 
For GOP, Deeper Fissures and a Looming Power Struggle

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; Page A11

The fallout from the Senate compromise that averted a showdown over judicial filibusters fell most heavily on the Republican Party yesterday, signaling intraparty warfare that is likely to shape the battle for the party's 2008 presidential nomination and further strain the unity the GOP has enjoyed under President Bush.

Monday's surprise deal left two of the party's most prominent potential 2008 candidates, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), on opposite sides of an ideological and strategic divide that is likely to widen as the party begins in earnest to hunt for a successor to Bush. Perhaps mindful of the power of social and religious conservatives, other GOP senators with presidential aspirations, including George Allen (Va.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), condemned the deal.

The compromise forged by 14 Democratic and Republican senators represented a rare, if temporary, rebuff to religious and social conservatives. Their condemnations, whether from James Dobson's Focus on the Family, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh or conservative bloggers, were quick and strong. Dobson labeled it a "complete bailout and betrayal," and Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, branded the GOP negotiators "seven dwarves" who had given Democrats the right to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

Outside analysts took a more measured view of the terms of the agreement that blocked for now the use of the "nuclear option" to bar judicial filibusters; they contended that social and religious conservatives may have done better than they are willing to acknowledge, including the likely approval of three of Bush's most controversial appellate court nominees. The agreement, they said, may look much better to the right in a month or two.

"If they think more incrementally and realistically about what can be achieved, they managed to get a lot of the people [judicial nominees] they wanted without blowing up the United States Senate and without slowing down other elements of the president's agenda," said James L. Guth, a professor of political science at Furman University.

But leading voices among social conservatives sharply disagreed. "It's a rebuff of both the president, Senator Frist and the socially conservative base of the party by a handful of senators," said Gary L. Bauer, a former presidential candidate and president of American Values. "The heart of the Republican Party is as unhappy as I can recall."

That unhappiness stems in part from the huge investment that conservative groups put into the fight to kill the use of the filibuster in judicial nominations. Much of the energy came from religious conservatives, and Frist even appeared in a telecast last month sponsored such groups that was designed to drum up support for up-or-down votes for all judicial nominees.

But Frist's inability or unwillingness to strike a deal with Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the Senate Democratic leader, empowered McCain and his allies to seize control of the debate. The body language of the two GOP senators -- McCain ebullient in announcing the deal, and Frist taut and drawn in interpreting it moments later on the Senate floor -- spoke volumes about the immediate reading of who won and who lost.

That could change as the two-page agreement is played out on the Senate floor and more of Bush's nominees win confirmation. Frist drew no direct criticism from social conservatives, and he could claim a measure of credit if Bush succeeds in placing more conservatives on the appellate courts and on the Supreme Court.

By leaving open the option for Democrats in the Gang of 14 to filibuster future nominations and for Republicans in the group to support the nuclear option, the agreement may only heighten the stakes over any Supreme Court vacancies.

McCain is at odds with the bulk of his party by challenging the religious right, as he did in his 2000 presidential campaign. His presidential aspirations depend more than ever on mobilizing and attracting independents and moderate Republicans. Others interested in running in 2008 will battle for religious and social conservatives' support.

The biggest surprise in that group was Hagel, who was quoted a month ago in the Omaha World-Herald as saying that although judicial nominees deserve a Senate vote, protection of minority rights in the Senate is important as well. "I would hope that these differences can be resolved without eroding the protection of minority rights in this institution," he said then. Yesterday, he criticized the agreement for not assuring up-or-down votes.

As Republicans squabbled loudly, Democrats, led by Reid, tried to put up a united front in support of the agreement. But with three of Bush's long-delayed nominees ticketed for approval under the compromise, cracks began to show within the Democratic ranks as well.

The Congressional Black Caucus blasted the agreement as "more of a capitulation than a compromise" for allowing those votes. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said it would encourage the White House "to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions."

Some Democrats privately fretted that others in their party had been too quick to claim victory, and even the party chairman, Howard Dean, questioned whether the compromise is good for Democrats. "We don't know if this is a victory in the long run or not," he said on CNN's "Inside Politics."

That could leave Democrats in a different posture a few months from now, depending on what happens when Bush is presented with a Supreme Court vacancy. But for now, the compromise struck on Monday night has done more to highlight the coming power struggle within the Republican Party.
| Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
We are beginning to see a fracturing in the GOP. Since the whole Bolton debate, a number of Republican representatives broke with the party to oppose him based on testimony of his former employees.

I really really hope McCain runs again. His kind of honesty and integrity is exactly what the GOP needs right now.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Well, my best friend (other than my wife ;)) is a Libertarian. He too wanted to vote for McCain, opining that their ideologies line up rather well. Me? I would vote for McCain in a heartbeat.






























Assuming his first name was 'Lucas.' ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Noah
 
We are beginning to see a fracturing in the GOP. Since the whole Bolton debate, a number of Republican representatives broke with the party to oppose him based on testimony of his former employees.

I really really hope McCain runs again. His kind of honesty and integrity is exactly what the GOP needs right now.

Noah, I will agree with everything you have said with one change. I think the fracture in the GOP began when Bush announced his budget proposal...which included a reduction in Agriculture subsidies.

The Agriculture industry is like sacred cow in some ways, and there was outrage over this across the board.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Sounds like a bunch of wishful thinking to me on the part of the opposition.

Let us remember that a few short months ago the Republican Party not only defended its majorities, but increased them nearly everywhere.

If a party is in chaos, it is the Democratic Party.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Sounds like a bunch of wishful thinking to me on the part of the opposition.

Agreed. But they are entitled to that. I too agree that the Democratic party is eroding badly. Less money = erosion of their power base.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Only time will tell if this is only wishful thinking.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Noah,

True enough. I really don't know what will occur, obviously.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Agreed. I'd hold judgement until after the 2006 elections.
| Quote | ^
 
Darthsith
Ensign
38957
May 25 2005, 02:48 PM
If a party is in chaos, it is the Democratic Party.

I wonder if they have a McCain counter part for their much needed honesty and integrity? If they do and use him the next time around and not the guy how has the “best chance” of beating the republican candidate they may very well pull them selves out of this ruff patch they are in. We can only hope can't we?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I thought Kucinich was the guy, but he couldn't get popular support.

Wellstone would definately be the guy, but he died in an unfortunate "accident".
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Darthsith
Ensign
Maybe what needs to be done is to take the loss now to insure a future win. As you said Kucinich could not get the popular support most likely because he didn’t really have what it took to win. But maybe it the Democrats take the long shoot and wind up losing they may revitalized their base come the next elections. Maybe the win at all costs mentality is only sinking them deeper into their whole, if they start assessing the cost of some of their victories and show that the issues are more important then power they will get back on the right track.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
38957
May 25 2005, 08:48 AM
Sounds like a bunch of wishful thinking to me on the part of the opposition.

Let us remember that a few short months ago the Republican Party not only defended its majorities, but increased them nearly everywhere.

If a party is in chaos, it is the Democratic Party.

Exactly. Dems were saying the same thing in 2002, just before they were embarrassed in the mid-term elections.

After all, whose fundraising is down because of their newly-elected leader? (Hint: It ain't the Republicans.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Fesarius
May 25 2005, 09:46 AM
^^^
Well, my best friend (other than my wife ;)) is a Libertarian. He too wanted to vote for McCain, opining that their ideologies line up rather well. Me? I would vote for McCain in a heartbeat.






























Assuming his first name was 'Lucas.' ;)

Do you think he would bring hang his Winchester in the oval office?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Yes, I do. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus