Frisk Fry...?

The compromise on the filibuster for judicial nominees in the Senate has had its share of publicity. And many of the actors involved made their feelings on the issue public. However, I doubt that all the members of the senate truthfully disclosed their opinion. So, for one, lets take a look at Senator Frisk from Tennessee, who is also the majority leader in the Senate.

As the majority leader, Mr. Frisk had a lot at stake in this issue, but did neither advance nor prevent a compromise. He also hinted that he would prefer a vote on the filibuster, and as such he would have preferred the nuclear option. But a careful reconsideration of the facts shows different view than the one advocated by Mr. Frisk.

First, Mr. Frisk would have to bear most of the Democrats' rage against the Republican leadership if the filibuster would have been scraped. The Democrats would make sure that Mr. Frisk is well known throughout the country - but with a bad aftertaste, because his actions changed the rules and traditions of the senate and brought ideologues to judicial benches. As a consequence, Mr. Frisk would appear to be a right-wing, ideologically driven senator to large parts of the population. Mr. Frisk also needs a working relationship with is fellow Democratic senators, which is hard to maintain if you take away their (minority) rights.

Then there are the moderate Republican senators, and they don't really like to change the rules of the senate. A certain amount of pressure would thus be necessary to convince those senators to vote in favor of doing away with the filibuster for judicial nominees. Of course, they would like to have something in return. What? Here are some examples: Moderate candidates for the Supreme Court, no vote on gay marriage and no change in abortion laws. In the end a vote on the filibuster would cost Mr. Frisk in the long run, because several issues could become non-issues.

Thirdly, there are the Republican senators running for re-election in 2006. They might support a vote on the filibuster, but Senators from several states might feel the heat from supporting Mr. Frisk on the filibuster, especially in the Northeast and the West. As a consequence, they would expect especially strong support in their re-election campaign from Mr. Frisk. That means time on the Senate floor on high profile issues (such as homeland security etc.) and a lot of dough for their campaign fonds, which at least in part Mr. Frist would have to collect. Take Pennsylvania as an example. Senator Santorum is up for re-election in 2006 and is already running behind his challenger. And it would be hard to explain why he supported Mr. Frisk on this issue, especially since it is unclear how his fellow Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, would have voted. All that in a state that has consistently elected moderates in the last five years.

All those issues appear minor and are expected to occur in normal political discourse. As such, Mr. Frisk's advocated views on the change in the senate rules appear to be what is expected from the Senate Majority Leader in such circumstances. But there are some other facts that also bear heavily on the issue: Mr. Frisk would like to run for President in 2008. And in this position as a presidential candidate his views on changing the senate rules appear suspicious. Mr. Frisk would have a lot to loose if the senate rules were changed:

1. Democrats would make sure that Mr. Frisk is known as right-wing ideologue with no respect for minority rights. That makes Mr. Frisk unelectable in large parts of the country, hurting his presidential bid enormously.
2. Moderate Senators would be less likely to fully support Mr, Frisk's bid for president if he forced them to vote for the rule change in the senate. Those Senators are usually from moderate states (Maine, Rhode Island, Arizona) and would need to fight for their reputation in their home states. That of course is bad news for Mr. Frisk's presidential campaign, since those states tend to tip elections. A lack of clear support from the senators from such states would dramatically reduce Mr. Frisks chances of getting elected (at least in those states).
3. If the filibuster rule change had passed Mr. Frisk would be required to support Republican Senators up for re-election in 2006 to a greater extend than he has to do now. This of course leaves more time for his campaign for president and more of the money he collects can go towards his presidential bid.
4. It is unclear how a vote on the filibuster would end. A failure to get the rule change through would reflect badly on the Republican leadership in the senate, especially Mr. Frisk as the Majority Leader. This of course would damage Mr. Frisks standing in the party and effectively end all presidential aspirations he might have.

The point illustrated is this: Nobody benefits as much from the compromise as Mr. Frisk. In fact, the compromise is a godsend for him. It does not hamper his presidential aspirations while ensuring that his standing in the Republican party remains unchallenged. Why then Mr. Frisk's indication that he would have preferred a vote? Well, there is President Bush, who wanted his judicial nominees confirmed, and whose support is essential for Mr. Frisk's election campaign. And there is also the right wing of the Republican party and their supporters (who, incidentally are whining about the compromise), and Mr. Frisk for sure would like to have their support for his presidential bid. Therefore he had to bend the truth a bit and can't really say that the compromise is an excellent resolution to the situation from his point of view.

In fact, those bendings of the truth prove that he is truly presidential material, as lying to the public seems to be one of the core requirements for successful politicians those days.