I heard Graham speaking about the MoU IMMEDIATELY after it was announced. He was very, very aware that his conservative supporters would be vocal in their opposition to his taking part in the gang. He EXPECTED the phone lines and fax machines to be burning up with their opposition.
Nevertheless, he did it because HE BELIEVED it was the RIGHT thing to do, and that the Senate would operate more smoothly this session if the nuke did not have to be resorted to.
His explaining NOW is not something being done only in retrospect: he was well aware that his conservative supporters would strongly question his judgement. He asked that they watch, wait and see if that judgement was good or bad. Thus far, the results have been good and no filibuster has been attempt by the Senate on judicial nominations.
Agree or disagree with his decision in this case, he followed through on what he believed to be right and for the good of the country. I commend any politician who does this, and who refuses to be governed by polls. We don't elect them to blindly follow OUR orders, but to do what THEY believe to be right. That is why integrity is the single most important quality for an elected official, and why I was so opposed to the 'Toon.
(Other FReepers have told me that DeWine was similarly immediate with his response after the MoU, but I can't personally vouch for him.) If you take a look at the way these two are rated by almost any conservative organization, on nearly every issue, you'll find they almost invariably top the list of good Senators. These two are definitely not RINOs.
Much like Ron Paul, who often breaks with the "R" leadership and whose judgement I similarly find questionable at times, I applaud this type of personal responsibility for their voting. This type of principled independence has to be applauded (unlike the continual grandstanding that McCain does just to get the accolades of the Old Media) and our support should not waiver when they, who are in the middle of the stewpot, choose to do something because they believe they can see better through the murkiness than those of us who are not in the middle of the situation.
I reiterate: I personally will vouch that the "explaining done since" by Graham was immediate, well before the publicity accompanying the MoU, and not in response to the outcry of the conservative base.
Despite some self-congratulating conservative talking heads who contend it was their pressure that made him come around, he made that statement far in advance of any pressure they ever brought to bear. He simply believed this to be the "right" thing to do, and had the guts to buck against his "base" in order to do what he believed to be right.
The reason for that is Senate leadership has deliberately avoided the confrontation.
The confrontation could not be avoided with Bolton, and when Bolton was filibustered (on May 26, after the MOU), Frist's reaction was first to call it a filibuster, and move for reconsideration of the vote. On reconsideration, where cloture also failed to pass, Frist moved the Senate back into legislative session without so much as a peep.
The GOP - "Talk is Cheap" party.
The nomination of Myers to Circut Court has been on the Senate's executive calendar since March. No filibuster has been attempted - gotta give you that point, but I hold the gang of 14 partly responsible for this gross failure of the GOP-lead Senate.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, needless to say, I am very disappointed with where we sit today. We have had an interesting week, a very challenging week, starting the week on one clear direction and then sidetracked a little bit to what I thought was not an unreasonable feeling in this body that we were going to be working together and that we were going to address the important issues to America.
John Bolton, the very first issue to which we turned, we got what to me looks like a filibuster. It certainly sounds like a filibuster, looking at the vote today, it quacks like a filibuster, and I am afraid, shortly after we thought we had things working together in this body again, we have another filibuster, this time on another nomination--not a judicial nomination but another nomination--the nomination of John Bolton.
It does disappoint me. We had an opportunity to finish and complete this week with a very good spirit. We are going to come back to this issue. As has been said by Senator Biden, as I have said, we are going to revisit it, but I think what America has just seen is an engagement of another period of obstruction by the other side of the aisle, and it looks like we have, once again, another filibuster.
109th Congress - Page S5998 - May 26, 2005
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) made the following statement today after the Senate denied the cloture motion on the nomination of John Bolton as United States Ambassador to the United Nations:"Earlier today the Democratic Leader gave a speech denouncing the `crossfire of partisan sniping' in Congress and pressed for comity and cooperation. But tonight, after the Democrats have launched into yet another filibuster of a presidential nomination - this time on John Bolton to serve as UN Ambassador - those words seem empty and hollow.
"Some 72 hours after hailing an agreement that sought to end partisan filibusters, the Democrats have launched yet another partisan filibuster.
"Actions speak volumes, and so does inaction. Given the chance to advance the cause of comity in the Senate, the Democrats have chosen partisan confrontation over cooperation. And rather than working to advance America's agenda and act by voting on the floor, the Democrats keep stepping on the brake.
"This is a critical time for the United States and for the world. Because of the President's vision and commitment, democracy is on the march around the globe. And with sensible reform, the United Nations can and should be vital in advancing these developments. But we need to get a UN ambassador in place.
"The cause of peace and international cooperation should not be held hostage to partisan sniping. I would urge my colleagues to end this partisan filibuster of John Bolton."
The general reasons given for getting on with the vote was the importance of the having US representation in the UN. That there are issues the UN should be addressing, and that the US has an important role and input into how the UN will address those issues. The position has been unfilled for over 200 days.
Frist says that Dodd and Biden, or "the other side," is unreasonably denying an up or down vote. That the goalposts keep moving.
ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2005
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. on Monday the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 103, John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations; I further ask consent that the time until 6 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and at 6 p.m. the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote be agreed to, the motion to reconsider then be agreed to, and the Senate then proceed to a vote on cloture on the Bolton nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so ordered.
On June 20, the motion to reconsider passed via unanimous consent.
Then the cloture motion failed 54-38.
Following the affirmation of rejection of cloture, Frist said:
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to legislative session.Without objection and with no further comment, that is what the Senate did.
He was. But note that outrage with the gang of 14 was also immediate.
DeWine discusses the agreement in a speech from the floor of the Senate on June 9, 2005. Generally affirming that the nuclear option is still on the table, and that what constitutes "extraordinary" has been circumscribed by at least the votes on Pryor, Brown and Owen.
Click here -> 109th Congress - Action of June 9, 2005
Navigate to -> 51 . FILIBUSTER AGREEMENT -- (Senate - June 09, 2005)
An interesting snippet from DeWine's comments ...
Now, the article goes on to say--again, Dan Balz's article in the Washington Post--Senator Mark Pryor, [a Democrat and] another member of the group [of 14], concurred, saying that while he hopes the nuclear option is gone for the duration of the 109th Congress, circumstances could bring it back.
Quoting Senator Pryor:
I really think Senator DeWine and Senator Graham have it right.