Harry Reid sparks a dramatic Senate standoff

Master of the rules
Reid was within his rights in using Senate Rule 21 to force a closed session (it takes only two members of the Senate to make that happen).

Reid had proven once again for any student of politics that he who masters the rules can be master of the substance.

The Democratic leader did not give Frist any notice that he’d use the secret session strategy.

All Senate business is conducted by the two party leaders telling each other ahead of time what they will do.

Only very rarely does one side spring a parliamentary surprise on the other.

And — speaking of intelligence — if the Republicans had been overhearing some of the chatter among Democratic strategists since the Libby indictment last Friday, they would have realized that Democrats were inevitably going to try to re-focus the public and news media attention on the issue of intelligence leading to the Iraq war.

Fittingly, Reid sprang his gambit on the Republican just minutes after a grim-looking Vice President Cheney had walked out of the Capitol after meeting with Senate Republicans.

Long-term effects?
A senior Republican Senate aide said the Reid maneuver would poison the waters more deeply.

This aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, tried to peer into the minds of Democrats to discern their motives: “First, they don’t like that (special prosecutor Patrick) Fitzgerald ended his investigation and that was all it was. Second, (Supreme Court nominee Samuel) Alito is up and who knows where the votes are on his (Reid’s) side? Third, there’s a deficit reduction bill on the Senate floor. They (the Democrats) are not in a position of strength.”

But this aide said, “This has longer-term repercussions. The Democrats no longer have any standing to complain about the ‘nuclear option,’” that is, the proposed rule change that would eliminate the use of filibuster to block votes on judicial nominees.

One of the questions looming over the Senate is whether Reid will launch a filibuster of the Alito nomination and whether he can muster the 41 votes to sustain it.

How did Tuesday’s sudden squall compare to the worst of congressional feuding of the past several years?

The partisan acrimony was more bitter and more emotional during the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998 and 1999 than it is now.

Ironically in light of the current debate over Iraq, it was on Dec. 16, 1998 — the day Clinton ordered air strikes on Saddam Hussein  — that Congress hit a low point. At that point, Rep. Jerry Solomon, R- N.Y. said, "Never underestimate a desperate president.... What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed?"

The Republicans did not believe that Clinton was launching the air strikes for genuine military purposes. There was nothing that he or anyone could say to convince them otherwise.

California Democrat Rep. Brad Sherman replied to Solomon by saying, "Never underestimate a desperate partisan whose lust for the president's blood causes him to make statements which unintentionally give aid and comfort to the enemy."

The relentless questioning of each other’s motives is reminiscent of the atmosphere today.

But on the Extreme Bitterness scale, 1998 was worse than 2005.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

McCain praises VP choice Palin's 'tenacity' Roe v. Wade makes campaign comeback Palin faces ethics investigations in Alaska Brownstein: Obama should turn page on '92 playbook Palin is McCain's boldest gamble Obama embarks on 67-day sprint to election Obama blasts Bush’s ‘failed presidency’ Obama's convention speech   Edwards to emerge from seclusion for speech NYT: Spectacle, history in Denver Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: