Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers


Friday, January 18, 2008
Utter And Complete Nonsense: Revising The History Of The Gang of 14
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:36 AM
Thus, in the end, the Gang of 14's compromise paved the way for the confirmation of some of the finest conservative judges in recent history: John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and others.


This is the conclusion of a Weekly Standard article by Adam White and Kevin White, titled "Misjudging McCain," which is an extended defense of the Gang of 14's mutiny against the Senate Republican Caucus and the Administration in the spring of 2005.  Try as the authors might to rewrite history, the essential fact is that judicial filibusters are extra-constitutional, and the Republicans ran on such a platform in the 2004 Senate elections and scored huge wins and secured a 55 seat majority in part because of a reaction against the Democrats refusal to accord up-or-down votes to nominees who emerged from the Judiciary Committee.  Thousands and thousands of Republican activists who care about originalist judges had contributed to and worked for candidates like John Thune, Richard Burr, Johnny Isakson, Mel Martinez and David Vitter who all took over Democratic seats, and had engineered the majority that included at least 50 votes to support a ruling from the chair (Vice President Cheney) that filibusters of judicial nominees were out of order under the rules of the Senate.

Then John McCain organized a back-room deal with six other Republicans to undermine the Bush-Frist strategy of returning the Senate to its old rules.  The fig leaf was the confirmation of Judges Brown Owens, and Pryor and a promise not to filibuster judicial nominees through the end of the session absent extraordinary circumstances, which were undefined.  Other fine judges were thrown under the bus.  And the extra-Constitutional schism with hundreds of years of practice was not repaired.

The damage to the GOP was instant and immense.  Not only were fine judges sacrificed to John McCain's ego, many in the base simply tuned out the GOP from that moment forward.  Why work that hard and invest that much in a party that cannot deliver on its pledges even when gifted with 55 seats?   Why fight for a majority that would not fight?  Ohio's Mike DeWine, an otherwise reliable conservative, never recovered with the Buckeye State's GOP base and lost his seat in 2006.  Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee was also turned out, though the party's bill of grievances against Chafee was much longer than just the Gang of 14. 

There were other stumbles along the way to the loss of six seats in the fall of 2006, but the McCain Gang's coup in the Spring of 2005 started the slide.  And for what?  White and White argue that we should be grateful for the successful confirmations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito and Judges Brown, Pryor and Owens.

But those fine jurists all would have been confirmed had the filibuster been ended anyway, and many more besides.  

It is simply silly to argue that the McCain deal got the GOP anything it wouldn't have gotten anyway.  Had the Democrats attempted to filibuster Roberts or Alito it would have been broken and along the way the Dems would have been revealed as scurrilous.  (Some Dems like John Kerry wanted a filibuster but the party's wiser heads prevailed knowing the end result.) If Harry Reid had tried to tie up the Senate in a time of war as he threatened, again the ensuing confrontation would have been very useful light on the Dems tactics and agenda. 

In short, had the Senate GOP been willing to use its majority, it would still have its majority.  By demonstrating its essential impotence to battle for the right goals and the right powers, the Senate GOP majority lost an enormous amount of credibility, and they never regained it.  The patient and careful rebuilding undertaken by Senator McConnell and his team is restoring the credibility of the GOP, and that project depends on the GOP being willing to fight for what it believes in, and that begins with judges committed to the Constitution.

Thanks to John McCain, the GOP lost the chance to confront the Democrats over their hyper-partisan destruction of precedent.  They lost many fine nominees as well.  And the confirmation machinery didn't even improve for the rest of the session.  Numerous judges were left dangling at the end of 2006 when the Gang of 14 "deal" expired, and most of them like Peter Keisler, nominated to the second most important court in the country, the D.C. Circuit, are hostage still to the Democrats. 

The Gang of 14 got the GOP nothing.  It cost the party much.  It cost many fine people their seats on the bench and a lot of their dignity.

And the seven senators led by John McCain betrayed promises made by the GOP as a whole, and undermined the widespread originalist understanding of the Constitution in the bargain.

I am glad White and White have chosen this moment to remind Republicans across the country about John McCain's Gang of 14.  There's a reason why Senator McCain never brings it up when asked to discuss his qualifications for the presidency.  It is on the list with the votes against the Bush tax cuts, the McCain-Kennedy immigration "reform," McCain-Feingold, ANWR and many other things.

The Gang of 14 is short hand for why John McCain should not be the nominee of the GOP.



View in ascending order View in descending order
fatherinoklahoma writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 8:50 PM
If McCain gets the nomination,
I'll sit out the general election. McCain panders to the liberal media. I don't see any difference between McCain and Hillary.

McCain has given us McCain-Feingold restricting free speech, McCain-Kennedy providing amnesty to all illegal immigrants, McCain-Lieberman imposing a global warming tax on American companies), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards support of trial lawyers, McCain opposition to Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the McCain Gang of 14 preventing the confirmation of judicial nominees.

If that is the best we can elect, we might as well elect a democrat and let them take credit for the results of the liberal policies that would come from McCain.

Republicans are going to have a much easier time fighting a liberal Hillary than they would a liberal McCain.
MJS writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 2:25 PM
Rewriting History
I vividly remember the exact moment that spring that I learned about the deal brokered by the Gang of 14. It was one of those "Where were you when JFK was shot?" moments to me, for a number of reasons, none of which are terribly important to this post.

Point being, I think some of us forget a few things as the lens of time blurs our memory and increases our myopia. Let's step back and consider:

1. Judges were a big issue in '04 election, and loomed large on the GOP radar that spring. The War, Taxes, Judges: that is what Bush and the GOP rallied around and won on. We were informed, united, and ready to rumble.

2. Nearly all of the filibustered candidates were supremely qualified and would have withstood any barrage from the MSM and Democratic establishment. With a little help from the influence of the newly triumphalist, post-Rathergate blogosphere, talk radio, and Fox News, America would have seen these nominees -- and the Democratic opposition to them -- for what it was: a blatant usurping of Executive authority and infringement on the Separation of Powers.

3. Go back and read McCain's quotes at the time. He wasn't simply trying to broker a compromise. He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by catering to the most ignorant and biased of the MSM. He needlessly and mortally divided a still inchoate but clearly coalescing Republican, not just conservative, majority of Senators AND citizens on the subject of judicial philosophy. He displayed his ignorance of the law, of his constituents, of the Constitution, of America. Had he done this on principle, it would at least be somewhat understandable, though no less sad for a twenty-plus year member of the supposed most esteemed legislative body in the world's history. But he did it for no other reason than love of the limelight. Seriously, do you think he is on Sunday morning news shows two out of every three weeks because he is uncomfortable being seen as a media hog?

MJS writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 2:23 PM
Rewriting History (Cont. 2)
.....For me, it the Miers debacle that began my serious Concerns. The Miers debacle was the first true injury to the recently victorious, yet constantly under attack, conservative alliance from '04. That debacle was a direct result of a gun-shy group of "moderate" Senate Republicans who lacked the backbone or desire to fulfill their promise to their national electorate and local constituencies. Those seven Republican Senators were led and prodded and pushed and pulled and eventually unified under the protective umbrella wielded by the "Maverick" Senator from Arizona. He damaged much by this act, among many others, and he has seemingly enjoyed doing so all the while. I'll vote for him if I must come November 4th, but please, let's not paper over one of the most disgusting displays of political self-aggrandizement Caesar made himself Emperor.
MJS writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 2:22 PM
Rewriting History (Cont.)
(Continued from above...)

4. The scars from this battle not yet healed, even after the nomination and masterful performance of John Robert's, a wary and weary President Bush tried the stealth nomination of Harriet Miers. Yes, we did eventually get Alito, thank heavens. But, the Miers debacle was a DIRECT result of the risk-averse atmoshphere brought on by the G14 compromise.

5. The Miers nomination was the first fracture in the '04 GOP coalition. We had been confident, assured, unified, directed. With her nomination, President Bush's three-legged stool basis for reelection was severely weakened. Gone was our confidence in his ability to handle judicial nominations, at a time when -- although the one other stool leg, low taxes, was reaping major economic dividends -- another leg, the Iraq War, was facing immense pressure, some media fabricated, some reality-based. Following on the heels of a valiant, but misguided, attempt to reform Social Secuirty, and followed by the Dubai ports debacle and heightened concerns with immigration, the competency and conservative bona fides of George Bush were put in question for even his most ardent supporters.

For me, .......
Jim writes: Saturday, January, 19, 2008 1:52 PM
Voice of Reason said:
"The only Republican that I could vote for out of your entire crop of candidates is John McCain. This is coming from a recovered Republican who saw the light after voting for Reagan and Pappy Bush twice and who has since never voted Republican again due to the influence of the religous right and the intolerance of the party."

So, VoR doesn't consider himself a Republican. I resubmit my earlier question... why should conservatives care who a liberal would or wouldn't vote for?

Jim C
Jim writes: Saturday, January, 19, 2008 1:49 PM
VoR
Your comment pretty much tells me that you are a liberal. When you say that McCain is the only one you could vote for out of YOUR current crop of candidates... It tells me that you don't consider yourself a Republican. So, why should conservatives on a conservative blog give a care who you would or wouldn't vote for out of a crop of supposedly conservative candidates?

Oh, and by the way, I don't consider McCain a conservative. Maybe a moderate, but not a conservative.

Jim C
BrianR writes: Saturday, January, 19, 2008 10:40 AM
Yeah, McCain can go pound sand
I second the comments that call McCain for what he is: a megalomaniacal loose cannon who sees himself as Emperor, not President.

I wish there were a word stronger than "loathe" to describe my feelings about the guy. If there's a way to betray conservatism, you can be sure that McCain will find it in his never-ending quest for self-aggrandizement.

Dawnsblood writes: Saturday, January, 19, 2008 10:12 AM
McCain
You all can keep McCain. His support for the Incumbent Protection Act and Amnesty ended his chances among real conservatives but pleace VOR and the rest of you Mobys, feel free to post your bogus arguments.
pat writes: Saturday, January, 19, 2008 9:57 AM
Hughie - You are one many 'Interested"
Mark Levin - Another American Hero.

I listened to that radio shill - find one media outlet not tethered to a corporate or political self-interest NOT threatened by McCain.

Do you worry that skunks and pigs don’t like your aftershave?

If Rush, Hannity, Skelator, Milkey, Olberboy, Scarborough, Maher, Rosie and the jug-eared midget Perot hate McCain, He’s gotta be my guy!

http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-mccain-remarks- from-forrestal.html

NeoConScum writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 9:03 PM
Thaale..."Weekly Standard" A 'Leftist
Rag'?? Thaale, you need some meds, some bedrest followed by a long convalesence in a sunny-quiet-shady place. Whew! Hurricane Katrina Vanden Heuvel would chortle her little commie knickers off.
Danbar writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 7:20 PM
A Vote For McCain Is A Vote For Change
That's right; it will begin the shift of the Republican Party from conservative beliefs and policy to moderate nannyism. It will also begin a change in the political system in the US, from a two party system to a three or even four party system.

I believe that there are many like myself who will look and work for some other party that will attract true conservative candidates in the future. If the party majority wants social liberalism as its standard, so be it but I won't stick around long.
Mc_Tex writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 3:45 PM
Rogue
Then leave the Party for it is not yours to determine who can be a member. We have always believed in having a big tent. Ronald Reagan despised people like you and would say the same to your face. Now how can you actually think that you are a good Republican when your attitude made Reagan sick?

Furthermore, I am more of a classical liberal (aka conservative) than you could ever be and am sick of you half-brain know-it-all holier-than-thous telling me who is and isn't a conservative when it is, half of the time, you and your ilk that is thinking and acting like the sophist lefties. You want an example? How about Sen. Kyl's immigration and border security bill.
Joe writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 3:29 PM
Reality
There is a strange monkey named Hugh
Who likes to throw, at his opponents, poo
Hugh harbors the conviction
That if Romney wins the election
Monkey Hugh would be king of the zoo.
pat writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 2:41 PM
Hughie, Let it Go! Let Big John Know!
Hughie,

Don't hold back.

Here, read what a real writer has to say about.

http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-mccain-chicagos -best-writer-since.html

Buck, Up, Hughie - John McCain may only serve two terms.
Old Whig writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 2:36 PM
One Positive Thing
The only thing positive that the Gang of 14 accomplished was to give this country a taste of what life would be like if we had a three-party system.

McCain is no conservative. Anyone who thinks otherwise is redefining the term.
Rogue writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 1:32 PM
DLTDHYOTWO VoR
We don't need fair-weather RINOs in the party. And take McCain to the Dems with you.
VoiceOfReason writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 1:18 PM
Keep it up Hugh
The only Republican that I could vote for out of your entire crop of candidates is John McCain. This is coming from a recovered Republican who saw the light after voting for Reagan and Pappy Bush twice and who has since never voted Republican again due to the influence of the religous right and the intolerance of the party.

However, John McCain would get my vote if Hillary is the nominee. If you "movement conservatives" (which is a euphismism for institutional party elites) manage to bury McCain, I will go another two decades before I consider voting for a Republican again. You are so hell bent on retaining your power and influence, you have elected to ignore what is best for this country. If you and the tactics you have employed over the past several months are representative of what a Romney presidency will bring for the country, then it will ensure that we will only exacerbate the political polarization we are currently experiencing and assure us that nothing will ever get accomplished in Washington. It is sadly ironic that the one major act of bi-partisanship that took place over the course of the entire Bush presidency can be spun by power-thirsty and desperate elitist like yourself as an indicator of what is wrong in politics.
Virginia Patriot writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 1:17 PM
No Amnesty Candidates

We must elect someone who will not try to shove "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", amnesty, down our throats. We tried that once in 1986 and it failed miserably. We now have 10 times the number of illegal aliens. We will either elect a President who will uphold the laws or one who will change them to accomodate the illegal aliens. If we do the latter, we are voluntarily committing national suicide.

ttstage writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 1:09 PM
McCain?
What is with all this thread passion on McCain? Isn't one moral relativist such as Clinton or Obama as good as any other?
poyman writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 1:03 PM
Sorry, My computer skips, had to repost
Sarah, Joe, McTex, IMWITHMcCAIN, and Biggsy
Please do me a favor and continue to get out quickly with your comments on these articles.... It helps me to understand what position Real Conservatives should or should not be taking....If the article portrays an issue that you don't support it tells me that it is probably truthful and that I should definitely support it, and, if it is something that you DO support then I should definitely NOT support it....

You guys are like the MSM.

I have tested it out on about 5 different topics that one or all of you have commented on and found the opposite of your opinion to be "right on" everytime.... It's good to have "bell-weathers."

If, by some miracle, your idol McCain gets the nomination, he will lose worse than Dole did as a large percentage of Real Conservatives from the party will either be no shows at the election booths or they will be voting Democratic (like I will be for the first time in 55 years)... It's called "BRAND PROTECTION".... Then, we can at least have a Real Republican represent us in 2012 when we run against Hillary after her first 4 year term.
poyman writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 12:49 PM
Sarah, Joe, McTex, IMWITHMcCAIN, BRIGGSY
Please do me a favor and continue to get out uickly with your comments on these articles.... It helps me to understand what position Real Conservatives should or should not be taking....If the article portrays an iss ue that you don't support it tells me that it is probably truthful and that I should definitely support it, and, if it is something that you DO support then I should definitely NOT support it....

I have tested it out on ab 5 different topics that one or all of you have commented on and found the opposite of your opinion to be right everytime.... It's good t have bell weathers.

If, my some miracle, your idol McCain gets the nomination, he will lose worse than Do did as a large percentage of Real Conservatives from the party will either be no shows at the election sites or they will be voting Democratic (like I will be for the first time in 55 years)... It called "BRAND PROTECTION".... Then, we can at least have a Real Republican represent us in 2012.
PaladinQB writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 12:37 PM
Give me a break
We all know that Hugh won't let the truth get in his way where McCain is concerned, but this is just ridiculous:

"Ohio's Mike DeWine, an otherwise reliable conservative, never recovered with the Buckeye State's GOP base and lost his seat in 2006."

I am from Ohio, and I am here to tell you that the Gang of 14 issue paled in comparison with things like:

1. A scandal-plagued Ohio GOP
2. A hideously unpopular, lame-duck governor
3. The general headwinds against the GOP nationwide

Also, I suppose that if you consider Mitt Romney a reliable conservative, then, yes, Mike DeWine is a reliable conservative too. But, he was pretty consistently moderate as compared with the rest of the Republican caucus.
TJ writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 11:19 AM
McCain
One man's maverick is another man's saboteur. Sabotage through subterfuge: Gang of 14.
Joe C. writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 10:57 AM
Both scenarios may be true...
Both scenarios may be true - no one will ever know; but the constant in both is that it proves to what length McCain and his ilk would have gone to undercut The Constitution and their party in order to remain in the good graces of the Media.
IMWITHMCCAIN writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 10:42 AM
Hugh Is A Joke
Come on those are awesome judges. This is just another post by Hugh Hewitt - a man so transparent with his love for Romney that will write and do anything to take down Mitt's competition.

Go McCain!!
Sarah writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 10:28 AM
Hugh, with the senate positioned
to get a democratic majority and the congress getting close to 2/3rds democratic, you will be thankful that the gang of 14 was put in place. Your anti-McCain rheteric is becoming soooo annoying. Get over the notion that Mitt will be in the whitehouse and move on to supporting other viable republican candidates. FYI, do you really believe that lobbysts are offering Mitt free advice without expecting any favors when he is president? Is this more like a Nixon republican move or a Reagan republican? As we found out in Michigan last week, the question "who's your daddy?" is very important to Mitt and considering his dad worked for Nixon...its easy to connect dots to his half-truth statements that pop up during every campaign stop. FYI - did he really never see those ads. stating "amnesty"? that incompetent staff running his ads. using words that Mitt would never use to distort McCain's position! your guy is a lying republican and the designer suits and harvard JD/MBA credentials aren't fooling anyone.
Joe writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 10:23 AM
You attack a real conservative
In the course of 25 years in Congress, the Arizona Senator has taken his share of positions that seem quirky, annoying, even illogical. With no effort at all, I could list a half dozen issues on which I disagree with his stand.

Nevertheless, after a quarter century in the House and Senate in which he’s voted the conservative position some 83% of the time, it’s idiotic to label him a “liberal” or a “moderate” or, heaven forbid, a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Unlike Rudy Giuliani, he’s never supported a Democrat in any campaign (though he did help his friend, Joe Lieberman, when he ran as an Independent in 2006). And McCain’s enthusiastic campaigning for President Bush in 2000 and particularly in 2004, played important roles in securing GOP victory.

In this context, McCain’s leadership towers over the misguided and mean-spirited media mob that questions his conservative credentials. In terms of stature and straight-talk, the Senator from Arizona will be remembered as a hero, patriot and legislative leader long after everyone’s forgotten about some shrill radio shouter.

Whether or not he wins in South Carolina on Saturday, and whether or not he goes on to claim the nomination, McCain’s already earned his place in history. Yes, he’s earned respect for his conservatism but, even more than that, for his courage.

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/d7d27fe0-c7d1-4727 -9f59-f26d8a3ab833
Joe writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 10:21 AM
Medved and Tom Coburn on McCain
“Since I came to Congress in 1995,” Tom Coburn declared, “I have met one true reformer- John McCain. He has the unique blend of character, guts, and experience needed to transform Washington from the inside out. He is beholden to no special interest. He is guided by strong conservative principles, and committed to doing what he believes is right without concern for political consequence.

“John McCain has never been afraid to take the road less traveled, and he has fought wasteful spending at every turn along the way. He’s saved taxpayers untold billions, and he has rightfully earned the reputation as the Senate’s number one fiscal hawk. I trust that as president, John McCain will veto any pork-barrel bill that crosses his desk, and will make the authors famous.”

At this point in his announcement, Senator Coburn turned to an issue of profound concern to most conservatives – but of special interest to him, as an obstetrician who has personally delivered more than 4,000 babies.

“When it comes to ensuring the sanctity of human life,” the good doctor declared, “you will find no one stronger on the issue than Senator McCain. For twenty-four years, John McCain has been an unwavering voice in Congress for the rights of the unborn.”

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog
Joe writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 10:20 AM
McCain saved the party
It was guys like Delay that betrayed the party.

The GOP however would rather destroy its chances to win and put Hillary in the White House. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass_18j an18,0,1760416.column You all are starting to go nuts on this. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/01/0 8/will_the_gop_contenders_break_their_suicide_pact
Mc_Tex writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 10:16 AM
Hugh dont be ignorant
Hugh misses the whole point. The Dems called it the nuclear option. That meant for them it was like having Republicans declaring nuclear war. Can you imagine if by miracle Frist could have gotten all of those north-eastern Republicans to vote for that rule change how the Dems and their MSM would have accused us of fascism, destroying the Constitution and all the other propaganda crap you can imagine plus they would have, in unison, opposed every Republican bill, not just the judges, to come before them in the future. The media, just like they have done with WMDs and Mission Accomplished and Plame-gate would have spun it to the Dems advantage. Hugh are you really this ignorant about the power of the liberal MSM. Do you really not understand how hard they work to promote Democrat talking points?

But you can now thank McCain for getting 7 democrats to act like reasonable pragmatists WHICH allowed for the approval of truly great judges like "John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and others."

Thank him Hugh! Thank McCain for those great conservative judges. If you are not a sophist and are truly a conservative analyst then you will thank McCain.

You should then apologize to McCain after you thank you.
Rogue writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 10:04 AM
McCain betrayed the party
with the Gang of 14. I'll never support him for anything except "Former Senator and twice-failed presidential candidate". A caller to Rush's show put my opinion of McCain into words perfectly. Paraphrased: "If it comes down to Hillary/Obama vs McCain, I won't vote, let Hillary win and let the Democrats get the blame for destroying the country."
Thaale writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 9:50 AM
The Weekly Standard is a leftist rag
It’s no wonder they love McCain. Everyone knows that the Standard wants Hillary to win and they’re working for McCain because they know he’ll be the easiest one for her to face.

Hugh, even now with the GOP majority in the Senate a thing of the past, can you not see that we’re better off with the 51-member Democrat Senate contingent not having the effective power of a supermajority that they would now have if McCain hadn’t helped keep the GOP from setting a very dumb precedent?

You talk about McCain “mutinying” against the party like a mob boss talks about his nephew going outside the family. McCain and his fellow Senators are part of the Republican caucus themselves; they’re not its subjects. They’re not serfs beholden to the infallible Bill Frist. They’re allowed – even required – to make decisions for themselves and their states and not think solely of party politics.

“Then John McCain organized a back-room deal with six other Republicans to undermine the Bush-Frist strategy...”

Wow, you really missed the entire story, didn’t you? It’s not the Gang of 7, it’s the Gang of 14. It wasn’t seven Republicans suddenly going off the rails for no reason. It was seven Republicans giving up a little in exchange for seven Democrats giving up a lot.

If you don’t think the net effect was good for the GOP (and for the country as a whole, far more importantly), I suggest you go back and look at the leftist reaction to the seven Democrats who joined McCain. There is no feeling on their side that the Gang of 14 episode was a coup for the Dems. On the contrary, the loony left was in their usual state of obscene hysteria over what they saw as a big win for our side.
NHliberty writes: Friday, January, 18, 2008 9:29 AM
Hold on
Hugh, uou missed a key point in their piece. Adam and Kevin White contend that Frist would *not* have managed to keep the majority he needed to kill judicial filibusters.

Basically, read the whole thing. This was treated as though that small quote is the crux of the argument, but it isn't.

"Given the presence of only fifty-five Republicans in the Senate (and the tie-breaking vice president), Frist could afford to lose no more than five votes--and it quickly became apparent that Frist would lose at least six. Roll Call reported that Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe opposed the option, and that Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham, and Arlen Specter were possible if not likely defectors as well. The Washington Post reported that Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, and John Warner expressed substantial misgivings about the scheme. And, of course, there was the threat of other surprise defections, just as George Voinovich surprised everyone by suddenly opposing the John Bolton nomination later that year."

"Thus, McCain, who also opposed the nuclear option, was hardly alone in his stance; nor was he the deciding vote on the subject. Simply put, for Frist to succeed would have required the political equivalent of drawing to an inside straight in poker: all of the cards needed to fall in place. Multiple GOP senators with a history of bucking the leadership and administration would have had to fall in line, and no surprise defections could have occured."

"Conservative activists hoped for success then--and too many still believe that success was a given--but such hopes were utter fantasy. In 2005, the odds were so decisively stacked against Frist that even he and the Bush White House reportedly asked Graham and DeWine to broker a compromise."

Again, read the whole thing.
Sign Up to Post Your Comments Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.
 


Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 3 Minutes 39 Seconds Ago
Last updated 9 Minutes 42 Seconds Ago
Last updated 12 Minutes 56 Seconds Ago
Last updated 17 Minutes 23 Seconds Ago
Last updated 17 Minutes 46 Seconds Ago
 

Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs

Blog Search



Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Townhall Blogs
Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Columns Columns
Your Townhall Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 November 2009
 October 2009
 September 2009
 August 2009
 July 2009
 June 2009
 May 2009
 April 2009
 March 2009
 February 2009
 January 2009
 December 2008
 November 2008
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
 June 2008
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

Mike
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By Col Bat Guano
NOTW
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By mike
Yep
 Re: And the Countdown Continues
  By Riders on the Storm
Muncky Man
 Re: ACORN and "Journalistic Standards"
  By Tazzmax
..Anyone Remember The Job Israel Did On
 Re: And the Countdown Continues
  By NeoConScum
JPK 8:36 PM
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Bob Munck
Europistan
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Col Bat Guano
AGW is nothing more than a
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By Riders on the Storm
Dreadnaught 5:30
 Re: And the Countdown Continues
  By Tea Party
Seadog 5:24
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Tea Party
Any Brit who fought in WW2 is an old
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Lonny
Vamp
 Re: Shocker: Palin #1
  By Riders on the Storm
Food stamps for drugs.
 Re: NYT: Being On Food Stamps No Longer Carries A Stigma
  By sloandog
A very good friend of ours,
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By Riders on the Storm
Right axe
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By sloandog
Mike
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By NOTW
For some of us it still is a stigma
 Re: NYT: Being On Food Stamps No Longer Carries A Stigma
  By Riders on the Storm
Molotov
 Re: Only Global Warming Critics Can Save Climategate Scientists
  By JPK
You Know Things Are Bad
 Re: 'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII
  By JPK
Plan B
 Re: And the Countdown Continues
  By FinalRac

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall


Blog Roll Blog Roll