Dems' strategy: 'Random acts of disorganization'

By Byron York - 02/02/05 08:00 PM ET

Remember Bill Pryor? Priscilla Owen? Janice Rogers Brown?

Sure you do. They’re just some of President Bush’s nominees for the federal courts of appeals, last seen being filibustered to death by Senate Democrats.

Soon, they’ll be back. They’ll all be formally renominated, and the fight over their appointments will resume.

But not tomorrow, or even the next day.

At the moment, there are a few logistical problems. Their original nominations have been holed up in the Senate so long that they are now having to undergo new FBI background checks before their names can be resubmitted.

And once the president renominates the filibustered judges, they’ll have to go through the Senate Judiciary Committee again. While that won’t mean new hearings — at least hopefully it won’t mean new hearings — it will mean that the nominees will have to be put on the committee agenda for a vote, which can be routinely delayed by Democrats.

And then, after they are finally approved by the committee — on party-line votes, of course — it will be up to Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to decide which nomination will be brought to the floor first.

There’s been a lot of debate in Republican circles over who that first nominee should be. There was some talk about bringing up someone who was delayed by Democrats the last time around, but not filibustered.

Terence Boyle, a nominee for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, is one such candidate. The problem is, as Republicans see it, he might be confirmed.

“That’s not the best strategy,” one GOP aide says. “There could be pressure on [Minority Leader Sen. Harry] Reid [D-Nev.] not to expand the filibusters, and then Reid might say, ‘OK give him an up-or-down vote’ — and that might unwittingly contribute to Democrats being able to say, ‘See? We’re not unreasonable.’”

Better to bring up one of the nominees who has already been filibustered, and force Democrats to take a stand. Which they will do. And then, as Frist has promised, Republicans will do something — the nuclear option? something else? — to try to bring an end to the stalemate.

It’s going to happen, sooner or later.

“Whether D-Day is in February or in June is less consequential than the fact that Frist continues to make clear that we are headed for a resolution of this matter,” one well-connected Republican says.

Of course, if Democrats do decide to resume their filibusters — and fight to the death for them — it will be the most consistent, coherent thing they’ve done lately.

In recent weeks, Republicans have been watching their opponents, trying to figure out what, besides filibusters, they are up to.

GOP thinkers have been squinting, scratching their heads, looking for clues. There’s got to be some sort of logical plan behind all this, they say.

There has to be some master plan that called for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) to rail against the failures in Iraq just days before the widely hailed elections there.

There has to be some master plan that called for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to throw in her lot with a rather misbegotten — to say it kindly — protest of the presidential election results.

And there has to be some master plan that called for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to risk her 100 percent approval record from NARAL Pro-Choice America by suggesting that Democrats broaden their approach to abortion.

But what is the plan?

“Random acts of disorganization,” one Democratic strategist says.

Says another: “I don’t think any of this is centralized or directed by any strategic group that has decided this is the way the Democratic Party should go. I think this is an out party that is going to take a while to figure out what its definition is.”

he best anyone can come up with right now is that Democrats are groping toward a strategy.

They kind of think they want to be former Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), when he led the opposition. And they’re kind of sure they don’t want to be former Rep. Bob Michel (R-Ill.), when he led the opposition.

“Michel basically said, ‘Let’s walk across the aisle and see what we can get done,’” the first Democratic strategist says. “Gingrich said, ‘Let’s sit over here and throw some bombs.’
“The Gingrich model is the model that succeeded.”
The strategist describes today’s Democrats who want to work with President Bush, at least on some issues, as modern-day Bob Michels.

Which brings the story back to judges.

Would Michel, were he Sen. Bob Michel, ever filibuster an appeals-court nominee?

No way.

Would Newt Gingrich?
Probably not. But if he did, he would have a real, clearly articulated reason for doing it — and a clear alternative to what the other party proposed.

When Democrats figure that out, then — and only then — will they be a truly effective opposition.