Santorum reads nuke polls, applies the brakes (The Hill)
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a leading advocate of the “nuclear option†to end the Democrats’ filibuster of judicial nominees, is privately arguing for a delay in the face of adverse internal party polls. Details of the polling numbers remain under wraps, but Santorum and other Senate sources concede that, while a majority of Americans oppose the filibuster, the figures show that most also accept the Democratic message that Republicans are trying to destroy the tradition of debate in the Senate.
The Republicans are keeping the “nuclear†poll numbers secret, whereas they have often in the past been keen to release internal survey results that favor the party. David Winston, head of the Winston Group, which conducts Senate GOP polls, did return phone calls seeking comment. Confirming public disquiet over the “nuclear†or “constitutional†option, Santorum said, “Our polling shows that.†But, he added, public thinking had been muddied by what he called false Democratic arguments that checks and balances were being eroded. “People see checks and balances as Democrats checking Republicans, not the legislative checking the executive or the judiciary checking the legislative,†Santorum said. Filibustering presidential nominees was not something the Founding Fathers envisioned as a tool for balancing power between the branches, he argued. In other words, Democrats have managed to convince the public of their right to check Republicans in the Senate.
Santorum’s raising of reasons that Republicans should delay the constitutional option may surprise conservative activists who count him as one of the most passionate advocates for the tactic in the Senate. “There is no doubt that Santorum was the backbone of this from the very beginning, and he continues to be,†said Manuel Miranda, head of the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters, an alliance of more than 200 conservative groups working on the judges issue.
The Republicans are right on the issue–the vast majority of Americans support the idea that the president’s nominees should get an up-or-down vote–but they’ve done a poor job of making their case. The Democrats have tradition on their side here and they’ve bolstered their position by getting the pejorative description “nuclear option” to stick.
While I disagree with Kevin Drum that the Republicans have “overreached,” he’s right that they have made numerous tactical errors and have been heavyhanded (not to mention hamfisted) in handling certain issues, notably the whole Tom Delay mess. Markos Zuniga is right, too, that Santorum’s tight re-election polls are as relevant to this as the fillibuster polls.
Ed Morrissey is disgusted with the Republicans for having “taken a significant mandate from the November 2004 election to break the unprecedented filibusters on judicial nominations and turned it into a liability.” It’s not clear, though, how much of a mandate on this issue the GOP had. While the die hards among us found it important, I’m not aware of any evidence that it was a major factor in Bush’s win over Kerry, let alone in the 435 House races or 34 Senate races in 2004. Such things are decidely inside baseball.
Paul Mirengoff hits the nail on the head:
[P]oll-based fear should not deter the Republicans in this instance. It also occurs to me that if the Republicans could make the Democrats actually filibuster Owen or Brown for an extended period, the public would conclude (a) that the Dems have had their opportunity for full debate and/or (b) that such debate, when undertaken by the Democrats, isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Right now, the Democrats are able to sell this as a fairness/balance issue. Making them actually go through with the messy business of shutting down the Senate to stop nominees that would appear reasonable to most people may well turn that around.
Steven Taylor adds that this would seem to belie the idea that interest groups dominate the agenda and Members ignore the public.
