When President Bush nominated General Michael Hayden for the position of Director of Central Intelligence he threw down a gauntlet to the Democrats. He dared the Democrats to do battle on this nomination. He dared the Democrats to vote against Hayden and he dared the Democrats to hold up the nomination. He dared the Democrats to leave vacant the CIA Director’s position while the United States is engaged in wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Predictably, the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee saw the gauntlet, turned tail, and fled.
With the notable exception of Senators Feingold, Wyden and Bayh, the remaining Democrats on the Committee voted to send Hayden’s nomination to the floor. By voting for the nomination the 4 Democratic Senators have fallen into the political trap set for them by the Administration. The Administration has put the Democrats in a vise. If Democrats vote against the nomination, the Administration can claim that the Democrats are obstructionist and weak on national security. If the Democrats vote for the nomination, the Administration is inoculated against charges that it overstepped its authority by conducting warrant-less surveillance. A vote for Hayden is in effect an acceptance of the Administration’s position on the NSA spying. Either way the Democrats vote they will be beat upon relentlessly in the run up to the November elections.
Democrats have rightly decided that blocking Hayden’s nomination will damage them politically going into the November elections. However, voting for the architect of the NSA spying program is an even worse option. A vote for Hayden, in addition to giving the Administration a green light on the NSA spying, will also alienate the Democratic base – and the base is crucial in the November elections where turnout will likely determine the outcome of many races. A vote for Hayden will damage the Democrats just like John Kerry’s Iraq votes damaged him in the 2004 Presidential elections. Here the Administration has figured out that they can have their cake and eat it too – they get the nominee through and they damage the Democrats politically.
I propose a third option for the Democrats. When the nomination comes up for a vote on the Senate floor, the Democrats should neither try to block it nor vote against the nomination. Instead the Democrats should abstain. Abstaining on the nomination vote blunts the Administration’s logic and outflanks them politically. The Democrats cannot be seen as obstructionists when they do not hold up the nomination. The Democrats cannot be seen as weak on national security when they do not vote against the nominee. The Bush Administration will also fail in their gambit to inoculate themselves from charges that the NSA spying is illegal. The Democrats can say that they stood on principle and could not vote for a nominee who has a questionable record on protecting American civil liberties, and on the other hand, the Democrats can say that they could not vote against the President’s nominee for the crucial position of Director of Central Intelligence in a time of war.
When the Bush Administration picked General Hayden, no doubt they believed they had a horse on which they could win multiple political points ahead of the elections. They counted on the Democrats to cower at the prospect of a nomination fight. They counted on the Democrats to lose the game. Instead of capitulating on the playing field laid out by Karl Rove and his friends the Democrats need instead to move the playing field. It’s a simple strategy yet it holds the promise of success.
You are right on this one, Mash. It makes sense to abstain on the upcoming vote. However, I do not have faith in the Democratic Party to stand up to the Bush administration. That’s the biggest reason why I re-registered as a Non-Partisan voter in California. Barbara Boxer will always get my vote. Dianne Feinstein? 😮
I just hope you’re wrong and the Democrats will listen to your suggestion. It’s a brilliant move if they have the courage to attempt it.
Mash, I agree, and thanks for making a clear, plainly spoken, and persuasive case. Abstaining is the lesser of three evils. Why, oh Why doe the Democratic leadership let themselves be painted into a corner like this?
Robbie and Auny Ism, I hope the Dem leadership has already considered this idea and is giving it serious thought. It seems to me that “yes” and “no” votes are lose-lose.
We’ll find out in the next 2 days, I suppose. :-ss
I disagree. One of the strong points of this administration has been “you are either with us or against us” line of attack. They will use abstain just as potently against democrats for being weak kneed.
Secondly, the democrats have every reason to believe they can force the president to propose another nominee. They should get on the plank and express their reservation, mobilise the american people to see their point of view. This will be a great start to their ’06 campaign as well.
They should propose a few possibilities that trump Hayden in every area of concern.
Democrats have a great chance to fight. They should pick it up to engage the american public.
Just want to add that this battle has a great many points
1. Expansion of Presidential powers over the NSA domestic spying program.
2. The Illegality of it
3. The violation of civil liberties.
4. The idea of military leadership in the CIA.
I think they can contest the republicans on all these issues by taking this nomination battle.
They have all the prominent Democrats against NSA and they also have republicans that have come together on some of the issues. They should hold their words against them when they vote with the president.
the flip-flop repugs.
Sadly the Dems are strolling after a freight train that passed them weeks ago. The organizational ability of the current dem leadership is lacking in tactical vision. They won’t be able to coalece into coherence in time to block this nominee. The Truthiness is plain to see.
I heard of an apt bumpersticker “I never thought I’d miss Nixon”
Contacting Senators helps provide a semblance of backbone.
:)>-
bharat, I think it is unlikely that any Republican would break ranks with the President and vote against this nomination. There is no upside for them in voting against the nomination.
In the larger scheme of things, you will have a hard time convincing the public that the place to take the stand is on the nomination for a CIA director. I don’t think most of the public cares.
An “abstain” vote would be hard to portray as weak-kneed. “Abstain” usually signals disapproval on principle but not obstructionist. And I think that is the key for a winning Democratic argument.
But, if they do not abstain, most of the Dems will vote for Hayden because they do not want to be seen as weak. And that will kill the civil liberties debate for good. And that is very bad for America.
Well, they fell for it, and they voted to get the super-gook in.~X(
me, hook line and sinker (78-15). b-(
I haven’t figured out who the 7 Senators are that did not cast a vote yet. It will be interesting to find out. :-&
Ok, Washington Post has the roll call.
Pingback: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying » Karl Rove Gets His Headline