Another bill on Iraq dies in the Senate: this time Webb's bill on limiting the duration of deployments for service members in Iraq. The reason the bill failed, as have all the other Iraq bills, despite the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and the country overwhelmingly wants them to pass, is that they were filibustered.
There was a time in this country when the concept of the filibuster was roundly decried as anti-democratic. It was a dim and misty and faraway time. 2004.
Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.
"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a "formula for tyranny by the minority."
Yes, it's legislation and not appointments that are now being filibustered, but that's a minor distinction in the face of rhetoric like "the tyranny of the minority." That's especially the case when the Senate political minority is an American political minority: "7 in 10 Americans say they favor a policy to remove most U.S. troops from Iraq by April of next year.... The July 6-8, 2007, poll finds 62% of Americans saying the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq; 36% say it was not a mistake. This is the first time Gallup has shown opposition to the war exceeding the 60% level."*
What's amusing is not so much the GOP hypocrisy, which long ago lost its capacity to shock or surprise. It's the rather odd fact that the filibustering is getting scanty media attention (as Kevin Drum observes) -- particularly in contrast to the siren-blaring obsession with the "nuclear option" (teh scary!) back in the day.
Even more annoying though is the position not taken on the GOP's use of the filibuster by that mysterious, often unnamed, and supremely useless class, the Democratic Strategists. Take this bit of nonsense from the 2004 WaPo story I linked to above: **
Democrats, however, face several constraints. Democratic strategists said that some of the party's senators from states Bush carried in the presidential election could be reluctant to support a filibuster for fear of being portrayed as obstructionist -- a tactic the GOP used successfully in congressional elections this year and in 2002.
Ought I to assume that these same Brilliant Strategists are now planning to nail certain GOP Senatorial hides to the wall in 2008 using this Deadly and Foolproof Obstructionist-Accusing Filibuster-Related Tactic?
Don't answer that.
______________________________
* I know, the Gallup poll does say that "Americans may disagree with Democratic attempts to vote on a new Iraq policy this week: a majority say Congress should hold off on developing a new policy until General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, reports on the progress of the surge in September." But that's a irrelevant to Webb's bill, of course. Also, that is a 55% view, lower than the number for whether the war was a mistake from the start (62), and much lower than this number: "71% of Americans in favor of a proposal to remove almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 2008."
** That WaPo story is also retrospectively hilarious in its treatment of Alberto Gonzalez. Dig this photo and caption:
White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales was in line
for a Supreme Court appointment before President Bush nominated him to
be attorney general. He is likely to be considered in the future, but
the first choice will be someone whom conservatives will embrace,
administration officials said.
(Jason Reed -- Reuters)
Supreme Court material, you bet.