My local paper has joined the ranks of those nearly orgasmic over the filibuster deal, and are embarrasingly effusive in their praise for John Warner:
About the preferred headline of the day - "The Center Holds" - we'll see.
What is certain is that U.S. Sen. John Warner has again demonstrated the finer arts and loyalties that constitute statesmanship. But maybe he couldn't help himself. Warner has been putting his country first for so long that it may be impossible to break the habit.
In this instance, it was a matter of standing up for workable government - as opposed to chaotic, dysfunctional, polarized government.
Warner helped get seven Republicans into a compromise with seven Democrats to overcome a stalemate over federal judge confirmations. It was a victory for reasonableness, for keeping things going and not allowing the Senate to become institutionally unglued....
Pragmatism is a good and necessary thing.
Which is precisely what the 78-year-old Warner understands. He's been around. He's fought in shooting wars and political wars. And he knows that in either case, fundamental disputes never really end, but get played out on different battlefields, in different arenas, with different strategies and personalities.
What's vital, then, is to preserve the institutional structures of American government - i.e. the U.S. Senate - that permit perilous divisions to be examined, debated and sorted out. The alternative to the processes of representative government, it's often overlooked, is duking it out in the streets.
...
[The Senate] honors and respects its entire membership, allows all to participate, encourages debate (even to the extremes) and does not forget that who's in the minority today may well be in the majority tomorrow.
It is that distinction - comity among its members and the suppression of partisanship - that makes the Senate so essential to running the Republic.
And it was the threat of losing that distinction that mobilized John Warner, the gentleman from Virginia who has become so valuable to his nation.
I'm truly trying to understand how it is that my local paper, a liberal rag if ever there was one, can see this compromise as such a great thing.
Neither can I understand why this is such a great victory for moderates when liberals are so happy about it.
"The essence is clear. A majority of this body does not want to break its rules. Break its traditions and those rules and traditions will be preserved." - Ted Kennedy (Not a moderate)
"Wonderful"... "Big victory" for Democrats - Barbara Boxer (Not a moderate)
"Very pleased" - Tom Harkin (Not a moderate)
"a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans." - Harry Reid (Not a moderate).
“I hope the White House will heed this message from the Senate and consult with us in a meaningful way on judicial nominations, If the White House will consult with us on important vacancies we can make significant progress, and I hope we can achieve that.” - Pat Leahy (Not a moderate)
Do these people sound upset by the compromise? Of course they don't, and the media's attempt to portray this whole thing as moderates defeating extremists is a joke... a very bad joke.
Comments