Did Bill Frist Dodge A Bullet?

This morning a profoundly disquieting story surfaced in Roll Call:

[The deal] would commit to opposing the so-called nuclear option to end judicial filibusters... In exchange, the six Senate Democrats would pledge to allow votes on four of the seven circuit court nominees who were already filibustered in the 108th Congress and have been renominated. Perhaps more importantly, the six Democrats would pledge to vote for cloture to end filibuster attempts on all other judicial nominees named by President Bush, including Supreme Court picks, except in "extreme circumstances," according to a senior aide familiar with the discussions.

The "deal" itself is utterly unacceptable. It's basically a warmed-over version of the travesty put forth by Minority Leader "Dirty Harry" Reid last week. It would give the Democrats what they most want - retaining the judicial filibuster - in exchange for a handful of the President's appellate court nominees. They would get the strategic prize, and we would be left with comparative tactical crumbs. In practice, we would get only those four judges and the Democrats would filibuster everything else, especially the President's two upcoming SCOTUS picks. Nobody with half a brain could reasonably expect anything else given the DisLoyal Opposition's promiscuous penchant for distorting the definition of the epithet "extreme" to grotesque proportions.

But that's not the truly disquieting part. What is is how, and by whom, this scheme was hatched.

GOP Senator Trent Lott has been itching for a way to get back into the political limelight ever since his injudicious comments at a birthday party for the late Strom Thurmond cost him the job of majority leader. Senator Ben Nelson is a Democrat from Nebraska who is desperate to assert his independence from the Democratic Party whose nominee only won 33% of the vote in his state, Nebraska, in 2004. Now, together these two guys, these two senators have found common cause in promoting a way to avert the imminent confrontation over judicial filibusters....

There may be some bad blood between Lott and President Bush over two things: base closures. There's some base closures in Mississippi, and Lott said as recently as April that he would exact his revenge somewhere, and let's not forget that Lott was not happy when the White House basically joined the ranks of people condemning him for his, quote, unquote, "injudicious" statement about Strom Thurmond. So it's payback time all over the place, and it's just maddening to watch it....

This is an AP story from April the 8th: "Trent Lott, Mississippi, staunch supporter of military facilities in his state, said that he's not done trying to halt this year's planned closure of domestic bases even though President Bush thwarted his latest attempt. Lott said, 'I have options on unrelated issues. Everything in the United States Senate relates to everything else...'"...What would you call this, a veiled threat? "I have options on unrelated issues?" That's April 8th. Here we are on May 9th and all of a sudden Lott is the Republican architect of a deal with Ben Nelson that essentially gives Dingy Harry the deal he wanted two weeks ago when it comes to these judges. [my emphasis]

I'm calling this "Trent Lott's revenge." You remember how the Mississippi Pachyderm toyed in the immediate aftermath of his ouster from the leadership with the idea of quitting and letting the then-Democrat governor of his state to appoint his replacement, which would have robbed the GOP of the two-seat majority it had just regained in the 2002 mid-terms. But he didn't, ostensibly as an act of halo-polishing, but doubtless to cause even more trouble for the President down the line. And he certainly picked his spot well; blindside his successor as Majority Leader with a "deal" ("sellout" would be a more accurate description) like this one and Lott would not only have destroyed Frist's remaining leadership credibility but his presidential ambitions as well, not to mention the GOP's chances of holding onto the majority in the Senate in 2006 at the very least, since taking back the confirmation process from the left-wing extremists holding it hostage is a litmus test issue with the Republican base. And, of course, the President would essentially have his constitutionally-mandated appointment power stripped from him and reallocated to the Senate minority.

But look how quickly Lott backpedaled after his whiz-bang "deal" was announced today:

Press statement from Susan Irby, communications director for Senator Lott: “For some time now, Senator Lott and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska have been trying to see if there is common ground that could forge a resolution on both sides of the judicial nominations issue. But Senator Lott has not agreed to this deal reported today. In fact, he did not even speak with Senator Nelson last week or this weekend. He has not changed his contention that all judicial nominees should have an up or down vote on the Senate floor.” [my emphasis]

And doubtless followed that up with a hearty, "Oh, what a good boy am I!"

I'll tell you what I think happened: I think somebody got wind of this "deal" and leaked it to Roll Call before Lott and Nelson were ready to spring it. I think they were going to gather the six votes on each side of the aisle, undermining Frist's counter-efforts in the process, and when Frist called for the rule change, he would have lost embarrassingly, and then Lott and Nelson would have swooped in to pick up the pieces and offer their alternative as a "grand compromise in the spirit of Senate tradition and bipartisan comity," blah, blah, blah. The GOP, at least on the Senate side, implodes, Frist is ruined, Lott gets his pound of retaliatory flesh and then some, and Senator "Mr. Rogers' evil twin" becomes Majority Leader in everything but name.

But somebody blew the whistle on the Biloxi Backstabber (hey, I needed the alliteration, okay...?), and his ploy was foiled.

All of which underscores how imperative it is that Fristy get this rule change done as soon as humanly possible, before his dithering can spawn further schemes one of which, sooner or later, will succeed.

I said it before, and I'll keep saying it: Git 'er done, Senator Frist. The career you save just might be your own.

[HT: Blogs for Bush]

5/10 MORNING UPDATES: According to Powerline, the blessedly recovered Tony Snow has done an exclusive interview with Trent Lott wherein he seems to indicate that he lost this round, but he's still out to get Bill Frist. Money quote IMHO:

[I] won't accept criticism from Republicans for working with Democratic senators because they're the same ones who threw me overboard. I'm free. I don't have to work with them anymore.

Also, Ed Morrissey suggests that it may not be such a hot idea for Senator Frist to go with Priscilla Owen's nomination first instead of Janet Rogers Brown:

Owen may make a better choice than Janice Rogers Brown on paper, although I think that Brown makes a better choice given her life story and the nature of the attacks made on her by the Democratic caucus. However, I predict that the Democrats, once confronted by Owen, will refuse to filibuster her and give themselves more time to swing some Republican Senators to their side for a later vote on the Byrd option. Thanks to the long delay, the Democrats were able to shake a few loose this time around, and time could play on their side again. They wouldn't dare skip a filibuster on Brown now that they've spent so much time and hot air insulting her. If the Democrats refuse to filibuster Owen, then all of this momentum will dissipate harmlessly and Frist will have to rebuild it for the next nominee.

I hadn't thought of it quite that way before, but the Cap'n makes a lot of sense with this argument. I've said that from a strategic standpoint the Dems have to avert the Byrd option at all costs. If that means letting a few of these filibustered appellate court appointments through the blockade, that ought to be a price well worth paying.

Of course, the caveat is that it presumes two things - prudence and self-restraint - that Senate Democrats haven't exhibited in recent memory. They've stuffed the Owen pick longer than any other, and while their bile has been aimed more at Judge Brown of late, they haven't exactly relented on sliming Judge Owen. There's every reason to think the Donk base will demand that they continue to block her despite the broad majority support she enjoys, which appears to be what Fristy is counting on.

Still, I'd have to agree with Morrissey on this one. The big picture objective is breaking the confirmation filibuster, and with majority support for that so precarious, Senator Frist has no business taking any chances whatsoever.

He's playing Russian roulette with at least two loaded pistols. Unless he stops tempting fate, as it were, sooner or later that luck is going to run out.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Byron York over at NRO has "inside GOP sources" that are essentially saying that the majority is, in exchange for breaking the filibuster, willing to capitulate on most, or all, of Bush's appellate and SCOTUS appointments without it.

Based on conversations with three well-connected Republicans — call them Republicans A, B, and C — it appears that the solution might lie in a combination of the two offers. Frist's 100-hour proposal is a substantial deal. While it would end filibusters, it would mean that Democrats could still effectively block some nominees. "Senate floor time is very precious," says Republican A. "If you have a lot of guaranteed debate time, then effectively leadership will not be able to bring forward every nominee if the minority insists on going through every procedure that is there. If [Democrats] said, 'We want 100 hours on all of them,'" then realistically all of them would not come up."

There's not a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory that Republicans haven't thought of. And if there is, count on them discovering it.