The Filibuster Deal--part II

Here is my view on the motivations and the costs each of the Democratic Senators who signed the filibuster deal if a judicial nominee filibuster comes to pass, as will likely happen with a Supreme Court nominee.

Robert Byrd (WV) Byrd is an enigma. As a self-styled preservator of Senate traditions (at least when it suits him), Byrd may have been motivated solely by the desire to maintain the nature of the Senate's traditions. However, it is far more likely that Byrd, who is facing a tough re-election campaign in 2006, seeks to show his constituents that he is still relevant as a democratic leader in the Senate. his age, vitality and effectiveness will be called into questions, and in a state that has voted for Bush in two successive elections, Byrd cannot afford to be seen as tied too closely to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the liberal Democratic establishment. If he survives a Democratic primary fight, Byrd will likely face Shelley Moore Capito, a relatively young, moderate Republican with a famous name in West Virginia politics since her father was governor. Byrd needed this deal to maintain his stature in West Virginia, if not the nation. In the end though, I don't think Byrd will vote to end a filibuster, it just does not seem to fit his character.

Daniel Inouye (HI) Inouye has the least to gain politically from this deal since he is not up for re-election until 2010 and given his advanced age, he may not have another election in him. His motivations in the deal may be philosophical, in that he hopes to avoid a blistering fight that would destroy the chamber. His vote to end a filibuster is probably not in doubt, he would not cross Democratic lines.

Mary Landrieu (LA) Landrieu is in a tough spot. She is one of very few Democratic Senators from the South. Louisiana, furthermore, has been wracked by close statewide elections, including her own and a very tight Governor's race in the past several years. But the state is trending Republican and she can't afford to alienate anyone. Her role in the deal means that she can claim victory for Democrats in the state and her base, but her vote is up for grabs because she cannot afford to be viewed as an obstructionist on an up-or-down vote on a judicial nominee. Landrieu is up for re-election the Presidential election year of 2008 and her Senate seat is sure to draw a solid GOP candidate.

Joseph Lieberman (CT) The elder statesman of the Senate and a national leader despite his dismal performance in 2004 for the White House, Lieberman has much to gain in stature by being a centrist and by supporting an up-or-down vote. I also believe that, as a bit of a moral arbiter in the sense of fairness, Lieberman in unlikely to deny a nominee a floor vote on purely partisan grounds. He may filibuster or support a filibuster if he believes a nominee to be unqualified for the job, but I find it very unlikely that partisanship will motivate Lieberman. His vote is in play.

Ben Nelson (NE) Like Byrd, Nelson is up for re-election in 2006 and hailing from one of the best Bush supporting states and being a Democrat makes Nelson an endangered species in Nebraska. Nelson needed this deal to show that he is a reasonable man, looking for solutions to tough problems. But the fact of the matter remains, going against Bush too many times in the eyes of Cornhuskers will likely cost him his seat. His vote, more than any other Democrat, is vulnerable to pick-up by the GOP, his constituents will not brook obstructionism.

Mark Pryor (AR) Pryor is an interesting player in this game. A freshman Senator, he may have been using this deal to raise his stature in the Senate. But Arkansas is also trending Republican and has a pretty conservative streak. The state's voters may very well support conservative nominees. Pryor may also want to see the bench filled, because as a former attorney general, he understands the role of the bench in the system and how vacancies impact the system. Pryor may want to see the bench filled and his vote on ending a filibuster is doubtful for the Democrats.

Ken Salazar (CO) Like Pryor, Salazar is a freshmen who is also a former attorney general. Additonally, Colorado is an interesting mix of politics and Salazar may be looking to build support back home among conservatives who voted against him last year. For many of the same reasons, it is likely that Salazar could be a target of the GOP to vote for cloture on any future filibusters.

Of these seven Senators, only Inouye is a sure vote for the Democrats. Byrd is a little less sure and depending on politics back home, he may acutally vote to end a filibuster. The remaining five are clearly vulnerable to pick up by the GOP for one reason or another. These are not the only Senators who could be vulnerable to being peeled off by the GOP to support an up-or-down vote on a judicial nominee. Max Baucus (MT), Evan Bayh (IN), Tim Johnson (SD) and Blanche Lincoln (AR) are also possibilities. In short, the Democrats will have to work hard to maintain party discipline on any future judicial filibuster.