Infinite Monkeys

I hadn't posted on this topic in advance of its outcome. I'm not terribly worked up about it, despite the schizoid script mangling I squeezed into the comments of an earlier post here. But I wanted to respond to David's assertion "that preserving the filibuster is the more classically conservative move."

I was immediately reminded of something The Corner's Rich Lowry wrote in the wake of the recent compromise: "All the energy spent on this and Republicans still didn't manage to codify what has been the practice for the last 200 years or so?Lowry also referenced a response to Bainbridge's conception of the more conservative at Bench Memos. Similarly, The Washington Times' Donald Lambro wrote a column pre-compromise that seems accurate up until the last sentence.

Bradley is wrong to just suggest that "slowing" change is what is suggested by being conservative. That plays into the trap that all conservatives stand for is a reactionary posture to the inevitable changes liberals want. The Senate was meant as a check on popular passions--it saves us from ridiculous notions like a Constitutional amendment to protect flag burning, for example. A lot of that spirit was lost when the Constitution was changed to allow direct election of Senators. The filibuster is one of the tools that helps us keep a steadier course--not resistance to change, just resistance to wildly throwing the rudder to one side and then the other.

You know that Monkey David is out of ammo when he resorts to the ad hominem attack of calling me "Bradley."

shudder

I'm sure Bradford realizes that I was referring to Gerard V. Bradley, who wrote the Bench Memos piece.

How fortuitous. Nice save, Dave.

This "compromise" solves nothing. It assumes liberalists are capable first of maintaining a properly informed conscience, and second that they will no longer treat each issue as it's own and live in a world of moral absolutes -- that's just silly.

They'll still apply faux-filibuster whenever they feel like it.

Filibustering is great. Why won't anyone point out they're NOT ACTUALLY BEEN FILIBUSTERING?????

I am reminding of song from ok. when it comes to this kind of deal,the title of the song is called""all or nothing at all"" so to say then is preserving the sancity of the senate, is really insulting our intell. so the half of loaf is better none,is truly a misleading statement on their part, and don't forget we have long memory and we forget who stabb us in the back.

I don't think "we" have as long a memory as you think. It's going to be over a year before mid-term elections, to which nobody pays attention anyway. Those that do will vote the way they always have: for whichever major party they imagine is better. Those in "the middle" will vote for whoever promises the biggest slab of pork. But will a REAL Republican die-hard, the kind that contributes to the party, volunteers for election-time work, and (for example) gets all steamed up about the compromise ACTUALLY vote for someone else? I think not. At BEST, they'll stay home, but more than likely they'll hold their nose and vote for their party anyway, because they still fear the other party will be worse.

Zzzzzzzz.......

Okay, all my friendly snarkiness aside, I want to clarify a thing or two about a thing or two. First, and less importantly, I don't know if David and I were both taking the same points away from the Bradley piece. Perhaps I set myself up by not rounding up several of the salient posts that I had been reading this morning, instead linking to the one wordiest.

Second, I want to have another crack at the issue by calling to the stand one Mark R. Levin.

Bradford?

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me, James-not-Jimbo? Well, I'm the only Brad here. Who ... do you think you're talking to? Oh, yeah? Ok.

Don't feel bad James. I think that Bradford once had a butler named "James." It's not always easy for him to relate to the inferior classes.

Allow me to echo Gregg here: This whole issue might be a little more interesting if the Democrats had actually been filibustering. Frist has had a perfectly good opportunity to call the Democrats' bluff by letting them stand there and read the friggin' phone book for day upon day upon day, just to keep a judicial nominee from getting a vote.

"Shutting down the government" (oh, how I wish it had actually been true) was politically disastrous for Newt and the Republicans. If the Democrats had to stand there and ACTUALLY filibuster a nominee (and the Republicans should have started with the most moderate of their nominees) in front of cameras and the public, the Repubs could have made serious political hay of the situation.

But that gets back to my original point: It should come as no surprise to anyone that the GOP is spineless. Actually taking a stand on something they consider important, and facing the spotlight on the issue, is simply unthinkable to most of them.

Oh, in the interest of giving a little "equal time" to a conservative Republican who actually thinks this was a pretty good deal, I direct you to James Taranto's current "Best of the Web Today" column. Take a look at yesterday's, too. I think he makes a pretty good argument that the practical politics of the matter really DO amount to at least a modest Republican victory.

Hold on a second there, Chad (the Elder). Am I having my name ridiculed and cast as snobbish by a guy whose full name is likely Chadwick? What a Fancy Lad.

Ahem. For your blue-blooded information Lord Bradford, there is no wick in my name. Just Chad baby.