Reid vs. Frist, Round 1

Harry Reid and Bill Frist have been publicly hashing it out over the proposed "nuclear option" (debates about which side originated the term notwithstanding).  This is a battle that has been brewing since the before the Schiavo matter, but the terms were clarified a bit because of the perceived overreaching in that matter, and the subsequent threats towards the judiciary.  Suddenly, guys like Ted Kennedy didn't seem to be fighting for their own lives by trying to preserve the filibuster, but for the continued existence of an independent judiciary.

Yesterday, I got an email from Harry Reid's war room.  (I'm not special or anything... a lot of us have ended up on this list).  Fact-esque has a copy of it and some thoughts over at her blog, and I won't hash over too much, but I will start with one thing that concerned me:

If Republicans break the rules Democrats will use the rule to bring to the Senate floor an agenda that meets the needs of average Americans, such as lowering gas prices, reducing the cost of health care and helping veterans.

I wrote Senator Reid's chief of staff, Ari Rabin-Havt, and told him that I felt we should be careful when the way we phrase things like this.  Is "when the Republicans break the rules, then and only then will we go forward with an agenda that will help people" really the smartest thing to say? He responded saying that he agreed we need to be careful on our language. 

The point of the email, however, was to highlight the tradition of the Senate - the majority sets the agenda - and the Democrats intention to ignore that tradition if Republicans take nuclear step.

Not long after that email, the news and the blogosphere was abuzz with word of a possible compromise being worked out between Reid and Frist, in which Republicans would not exercise their nuclear option in exchange for Democrats confirming anywhere from 2 to 4 (depending on which source you read) of Bush's most controversial nominees. 

It seemed unlikely to me, and momentarily caused me to think that Reid had caved, which also seemed unlikely to me because all the momentum is on Reid's side.

Well, today Bill Frist jumped the gun, and I'm pretty sure I know what Reid has been up to.  If I'm right, Reid is really doing a pretty masterful job.

From an ABC News article today:

Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure Senate confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid had been quietly talking with Frist about confirming at least two of Bush's blocked nominees from Michigan in exchange for withdrawing a third nominee. This would have been part of a compromise that would have the GOP back away from a showdown over changing Senate rules to prevent Democrats from using the filibuster to block Bush's nominees.

But Frist, in a rare news conference conducted on the Senate floor, said he would not accept any deal that keeps his Republican majority from confirming judicial nominees that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Frist thinks he's going to appear as standing on principal and try to win back some of the credibility that he lost trying to be the Christian Crusader in the Schiavo matter.  I think Reid has got him where he wants him.

By floating the idea of a compromise, Reid forced Frist's hand.  Frist could either, one, accept the compromise and allow 2 of Bush's nominees through, but leaving the filibuster there for the others; two, reject the compromise and risk appearing as if he's throwing away a perfectly good offer for the sake of petty partisan politics (which is what he's chosen); or three, ignore the offer and risk looking like you are on the run.

Frist chose to reject it, and now is the time for Reid and the Dems to hammer it home: "We made an offer, and the Republicans refused.  They are hellbent destroying the judiciary and denying the minority the ability to dissent.  Is this what you call a democracy?  Well, while they are threatening judges and dismantling our democracy and passing bankruptcy bills which only aid the credit card lobby, here is a list of the issues that we want to put forward to help the American people gain some relief from difficulties facing our country... difficulties that the Republicans are unwilling to do anything about because they are too busy trying to score partisan points."

There's something brilliant about what's going on.

UPDATE: I wrote this post half at work and half when I got home tonight.  After finishing the post, I saw that Kos had a few things to say which are in agreement with me:

Reid just engaged Frist in a game of chicken, and Frist blinked first.

Reid has been extremely effective in whipping up opposition to the Nuclear Option, garnering strong grass- and netroots support, editorial board support, and popular support (as the latest polls show scant appetite for ending the filibuster).

But in order to avoid looking like obstructionists, Democrats had to make efforts to "find a compromise", lest the chattering class get the vapors from such Democratic intransigence.

Had Frist accepted the offers for compromise, Bush would've gotten the majority of his judges through, and Democrats would've gotten -- who knows what. All published compromise offers didn't seem to give our side anything.

So Democrats would've faced a sea of criticism from our own side for snatching defeat out of the hands of victory. Frist and Co. would've finally gotten a procedural victory against Reid (who has run circles around them thus far). And all that good will Reid had built in the netroots over the past four months would've evaporated in one fell swoop.

It was one heck of a gamble, but the Senator from Nevada played his cards right.

Frist painted himself into a corner, having whipped up the forces of wingnuttery into a froth, he could not back down without damaging his White House aspirations for 2008. He's banking on the crazies to get him the nomination.

So Reid got the Democrats to look conciliatory, forcing Frist and his Republicans to look even more inflexible than before.

Damn the guy is good. I'm glad he's on our side.

I hate to quote the whole post, but that's exactly my point.  It was certainly risky on Reid's part, but by risking it, he played to Frist's weakness: Presidential aspirations on the backs of the Religious Right who he's been perfectly willing to agitate for his own PR purposes.  He's trying to paint himself as the obvious heir to the Bush throne with the Religious Right, and Schiavo, judges, and the filibuster are all connected by the fact that the Religious Right were the only ones driving the debate, and Frist had to oblige them.  Reid knew Frist wouldn't give in, and now he'll get the chance to make him pay.  Seriously genius.

 

Comments

[eRobin]

I'm with you. That's what I meant when I wrote over at my place that I have to consider that Harry Reid knows more about politics than I do. He bet that Frist wouldn't compromise and he was right. He was right this time. This fight has been dragging on most out of the press' eye for months. Frist can take another compromise anytime he wants. And it would have to be a better deal for him - better than the already awesome one Reid risked handing him. That's my concern.

Did you read Hesiod's post and Jeff Alworth on the same topic?

It's very cool that you wrote back to Reid's office. It never occured to me to do so but I will today because I want election reform on that Dem agenda.

[Rusty]

I read the same email, and thought the same thing about the wording.

[Dylan]

Hesiod made an interesting point, Robin... and he was probably right. It is, however, a moot point now, because Reid outmaneuvered us all...

I'm struck, after a night to think about it, by just how risky a move it was: he was betting the entire legislative session on thinking he knew what Frist would do. It turns out he was right, but if he had been wrong, there would have been calls for a new Minority leader and the Democratic agenda would be lost until the midterms.

[jo-fo]

I think that a lot of our Democratic leaders need to grow some bigger balls and step out there like Reid did on this. It takes a lot of cajones to do something like that, but when your opposition is so predictable you don't even need to hedge your bet. It's this kind of stand-up, in the face leadership that I think our party has been lacking for a while. Maybe our voices will be heard now that 'Publicans don't really have a way to back out of this one.