Keep the Pressure On
Senator Gordon Smith is qualifying his position on the "nuclear option" on the filibuster. This just in from Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper. (Subscription required for everything.)
Of the 17 GOP targets for Democrats, six Senate Republicans stated last week they are behind Frist, albeit with some reservations about the potential fallout. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) called his support for Frist a "qualified yes," noting he has encouraged Frist to seek a compromise."We've got to find a way so we can both save face and keep our institution from being dysfunctional," Smith said.
So, Blue Oregonians, keep the pressure on. Call Senator Smith and encourage him to think about the importance of the filibuster. Besides, it won't be long before the Democrats are back in charge - and then he'll really want it.
Washington, DC Office, (202) 224-3753
Portland Office, (503) 326-3386
Eastern Oregon Office, (541) 278-1129
Western Oregon Office, (541) 465-6750
Southern Oregon Office, (541) 608-9102
Central Oregon Office, (541) 318-1298
|
April 18, 2005
Posted in in the news 2005. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:33 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
Where Smith finally lands on this will be extremely important- and so contacting him really can make a huge difference.
Savephil.com has a message page from which you can send him an email urging him to protect our system of checks and balances which have worked for over 200 years!
Also, for a little reality check- the Senate has confirmed 220 Bush judicial appointees, saving the filibuster for only 10 of the most extreme cases.
2:56 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
A staffer confirmed to me that Roll Call got it right--if it were held today, he'd vote Yea on the option. He hopes it won't come to that...meaning, I assume, he hopes Reid backs down.
3:03 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
This is actually one of the most potent ways to influence your politician directly. They recognize that phone calls equal motivated citizens. If a thousand BlueOregonians called Smith's office today, he would really start to squirm.
Do it.
3:17 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
Done it.
We're really good at writing action alerts. Let's all follow through, eh? There's so much at stake -- including a woman's right to choose.
3:17 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
Except that the Portland number leads to a "full" voice mail (no human answers, oddly). His DC office is closed (?), but you can leave a voicemail. Probably not a bad idea--I did.
Also of note. Gordon Smith represents the state, not just Republican candidates. If you're an Oregonian, you're his constituent. Respect his office and be polite in your advocacy. That will go a lot further than sarcasm or profanity.
3:19 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
Jeff, they must not have caller ID at the DC office--or they'd have long resorted to pretending they're not home when I call. :)
This (contacting your Congresspeople directly) is just one way of, as Jim Wallis put it last week when he visited here, "changing the wind." It's the only real way to effect social change.
3:22 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
Charlie, I think they filibustered more like 30 nominees last session. 10 have been sent back up.
3:27 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
Of course, that checks and balances stuff on "savephil" is fun to watch but a load of bull hockey.
The filibuster has nothing to do with checks and balances as enshrined in the Constitution.
The filibuster did not really emerge until the 1840s.
And let's not forget that the filibuster was used for decades to stop civil rights legislation. Currently, the occurrence of "extended debate" problems in the Senate is severe--more than 1000 "holds" (often anonymous, single member stops that can be put on any Senate action), rolling filibusters, dilatory motions, are causing serious problems in the Senate.
Democrats love the filibuster right now. We hated it in the 1990s when it was used to stop Clinton's judicial nominations and in the 1950s and 60s when it was used to stop civil rights legislation.
3:27 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
Paul, I believe it was 10 rejected, 7 sent back.
Apr 18, '05
Actually Paul, the method by which the judicial nominations were stopped during the Clinton era was by refusing to give them hearings, not fillibuster. They never got to the floor.
Apr 18, '05
Checks and balances (that encourage a bit of intertia) are a good thing. Just because they were used against civil rights doesn't mean the process is bad. It means that you should do the work to get to 60 votes.
An interesting question is: Why should Senators representing less than half of Americans be able to push their agenda on the rest of us?
For those confused, Democratic Senators are from more populous states on average, thus they represent more people, even though they're a minority in the Senate.
3:48 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
Paul sez: Democrats love the filibuster right now. We hated it in the 1990s when it was used to stop Clinton's judicial nominations and in the 1950s and 60s when it was used to stop civil rights legislation.
factual misgivings (noted above) notwithstanding, this would seem to be an excellent argument to keep the fillibuster around: it prevents a runaway Senate.
3:50 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
What is it with the constitutionality argument? Who gives a flying fig if it's a constitutional spat or not? The issue at hand is that we have two branches of government trying to hijack the third. The effort is anti-democratic because it's an effort to subvert the rules of law. No rules of law = no democracy.
What, we only debate the issues directly mentioned in the constitution? Fall not prey to that lame Limbaugh talking point. Everyone knows the score.
4:00 p.m.
Apr 18, '05
I have written and called Senator Smith regarding keeping the filibuster as is....been at it for weeks.
We need more voices..glad to see Albert introducing blueoregon to many many Kerry supporters. Nice touch Kari.
Apr 18, '05
I finally got through on the Portland number (503.326.3386). The woman I spoke with said that Senator Smith has not taken a public position on the rules change issue, though she didn't disagree when I said I understood he was leaning in favor of the rules change.
She suggested I write a letter to Senator Smith asking him to vote no and explaining why I think it's important. Also, for some reason, she said I should send it to the Portland office:
One World Trade Center 121 SW Salmon St., Suite 1250 Portland, OR 97204
I'll whip one out this afternoon. I don't imagine it would do any harm if everyone sent one.
Apr 18, '05
Another way to contact Smith is via his website.
Checks and balances are a good thing. Inertia in government is a good thing. Because these good things lead to moderation, which is a really good thing. All these good things could go away if the filibuster is removed.
And as I've said elsewhere on this site, what goes around comes around. I'm very disappointed in the shortsighted view of members of my own party on this point. They seem to think that the Republican ascendancy of the last few years is a permanent condition. They are certainly acting that way, anyhow. And what concerns me even more than the current abuses of the majority, is the inevitable backlash once the minority again regains power. Yikes.
Anyhow, here's one Republican who will be sure to give my Senator a (polite) earful. <nobr>Â ;-)</nobr>
Apr 18, '05
One other suggestion... if you use the web form to contact Senator Smith, I'd recommend using the topic "Judicial Issues".
To the extent that it'll matter at all, it might help if everyone submits messages under the same topic to demonstrate a large organized sector of his constituency.
Just a thought.
Apr 18, '05
For what it's worth, here's what I wrote to the Senator this afternoon (if there's any interest I can post any response I get here as well):
Apr 18, '05
At least we are getting a clearer picture of where Smith stands. When I called his office over a week ago I couldn't get a straight answer. I got some well rehearsed spin, although I could read between the lines and see where he might be heading.
Let's hope our calls and e-mails will persuade him to reconsider his consideration.
Apr 18, '05
Remember folks, if you write a letter (which is more effective than a phone call), send it to the Portland address. Mail to the US Capitol is still slowed by weeks to months because of anthrax scares, so it may not arrive in time.
Again, that's
Senator Gordon Smith One World Trade Center 121 SW Salmon St., Suite 1250 Portland, OR 97204
Apr 18, '05
I did this the other day, but I'll do it again.
Last time I called I talked to a staffer in the D.C. office. I kept it polite, but I couldn't help but laugh when the staffer told me the Senator thought that all nominees should get an up or down vote. I told him I understood the Senator's position, but that the Constitution doesn't say, "all nominess get an up or down vote"; and based on the Republicans conduct during the Clinton years (preventing nominees from even getting hearings) that the Senator's position was really indefensible. I'll call again, and probably send a letter too.
This is very important. The power of the Senate has usually resulted in fairly mainstream judicial nominees, for the most part. This is tendency is crucial to the long term stability of our government.
Apr 18, '05
Our dinner was interrupted by an automated phone poll for Judicial Confrirmation Network. They asked questions like "should Senate Democrats be able to block Pres. Bush's nominees?" and whether I had ever contributed to a campaign, a church, a church, a nonprofit. There were also abortion and gay marriage questions. The wording of the questions was quite slanted. I hope they also call you folks.
Apr 18, '05
I also sent an email to Senator Smith. I was not able to write him a letter, as I am currently living overseas in South Korea.
I've been reading the stories and comments on this site for a week or so. I'll stick around, because I really think it's encouraging that there is meaningful dialogue between people. Even if we do disagree on some issues, maybe on ones like this we can pull together for a common cause.
David
Apr 19, '05
Just called the eastern Oregon office. Was told that my 'message" will be passed on the the Senator. I wonder?
11:05 a.m.
Apr 19, '05
Jeff, I can't make sense of this: What is it with the constitutionality argument? Who gives a flying fig if it's a constitutional spat or not? The issue at hand is that we have two branches of government trying to hijack the third. The effort is anti-democratic because it's an effort to subvert the rules of law. No rules of law = no democracy.
No one is breaking the law here. There are no laws or "rules" regarding the filibuster, only precedent.
I can't figure out how you can claim that one and a half of our elected branches of government--the presidency and the Senate--trying to exercise their constitutional rights in advise and consent with respect to appointments to the third, unelected branch, is somehow anti-democratic.
The best arguments here are: 1) The Senate badly overrepresents small states, and allowing a 51 vote margin on SC nominees dramatically magnifies those voices. 2) The tradition of advise and consent has been violated by the Bush administration by refusing to even consult with the minority party.
But there is nothing here about checks and balances -- the majority floor vote in the Senate is all the Constitution says about checks and balances. The other traditions, like Rule 22 (filibuster), are just tradition. How about those traditions like blue slips and holds, that are incredibly undemocratic. Are we similarly supportive of those?
A really useful article on all of this: Binder and Maltzman (AJPS 2002, 190-199), "Senatorial Delay in Confirming Federal Judges, 1947-1998".
David, nice letter. That is the core point.
12:38 p.m.
Apr 19, '05
Back on November 23rd, I encouraged the Democrats to call the Republican's bluff on "going nuclear." I still think the Republican's threat to end the fillibuster for judicial nominees is a bluff designed to get the Democrats to "compromise" - i.e., give in on some or all of the nominations they are blocking. However now at least some Republcians are starting to blink, and realizing that they have painted themselves into a corner without any way of saving face if they don't follow through. They were/are just so sure that the wimpy Democrats will blink first if they just stand firm with their threat/bluff a little longer!
Democrats have nothing to gain by "compromising" with the Republicans to get them to call off their bluff. If Democrats give in, Republicans will always be able to bring up the threat of the nuclear option to extract future compromises from Democrats. If the Republicans follow through with their bluff because they have backed themselves into a corner and can't figure out any way to save face, they will come to regret it, sooner than they think.
Apr 19, '05
FYI, just found this in my inbox from the Ken Mehlman and the RNC (emphasis as original):
Pretty remarkable spin, but I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks...For the record, I am NOT a Republican because of leadership like this. I am continually offended by the half-truths and outright lies, not to mention the condescending tone, spewed forth by the RNC.
But then, I'm on John Kerry's mailing list too, and the stuff he sends out is pretty offensive as well. Not as many outright lies, of course, but just as misleading, condescending and insulting to my intelligence.
Such is the sad state of politics in the country, alas...
Apr 19, '05
I didn't catch the sponsor, but the talk radio station in Bend OR that plays el Rushbo had an add on to "call Sen. Smith" to urge him not to cave into radical left pressure, and to limit the filibuster. Actually, as I read David Wrights message above this one, it had a lot of the same verbage.
<h2>Based upon past experience, these radio adds will probably result in a few thousand messages sent to Sen. Smiths office in favor of limiting filibusters.</h2>