May 29, 2005
By David Lerman
Daily Press
WASHINGTON -- Virginia Sen. John W. Warner, a classic political centrist, isn't part of the Senate's Republican leadership.
But in an extraordinary behind-the-scenes power play last week, the veteran Republican lawmaker helped broker a deal that averted - at least temporarily - a showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees.
Working with centrist allies of both political parties, Warner signed on to an agreement that blocked Republicans from using the "nuclear option" - a change in Senate rules that would have allowed judicial nominees to be confirmed on a simple majority vote. Under current rules, 60 votes are required in the 100-member Senate to cut off debate, and Republicans hold only 55 seats.
It was, by nearly all accounts, a bold stroke by moderates to reassert power in an increasingly polarized Congress. It also established 78-year-old Warner as a highly influential power broker in a fractious Senate.
Warner was only one member of the "Gang of 14" that crafted the bipartisan deal, but many senators singled out the Virginian as being particularly influential. Warner's stature, seniority and largely conservative voting record, they said, made it possible for other Republicans to join the group in defiance of their party's leadership.
"John's being there gave that group credibility because he's so well respected," said Sen. George Allen, R-Va., who opposed the deal.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., perhaps the most public Republican face in the Gang of 14, credited Warner and the Senate's most senior member - Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. - as being "vital to the process."
But Warner's role in the deal also angered his party's conservative base. Many conservative activists, who have never been fans of Warner, have lobbied hard to prevent Democrats from filibustering - or talking to death - Bush's judicial nominees.
"If he decides to run for further office, I think there would be political consequences," said Wendy Long, counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network. That's a conservative group that targeted Virginia with paid ads to put pressure on Warner.
Warner dismissed the political risk to his career and defended his actions as matters of principle. A self-described tradi- tionalist, Warner said he felt uncomfortable changing long-established rules of the Senate designed to protect the rights of the minority.
"I don't doubt there are some who are disappointed," Warner said. "I've matured to the point where I want to do what my own conscience dictates and just plow forward, and let the politics take care of themselves."
Noting his status as the second-longest-serving U.S. senator from Virginia in history, Warner said, "I guess I've done a few things right."
His legislative record undoubtedly leans conservative, but Warner has a long history of displaying a maverick streak that frustrates his party's right wing.
In 1987, he voted against the nomination of Robert Bork - a favorite of conservatives - to the Supreme Court. In 1993, he refused to endorse the GOP's candidate for lieutenant governor, home-schooling advocate Michael Farris. And in 1994, in perhaps the biggest risk to his own career, Warner fielded an independent candidate to oppose Republican Oliver North - a key player in the Iran-Contra scandal - for a U.S. Senate seat.
That move triggered a challenge two years later, when Warner had to seek his party's nomination for re-election in a bitterly fought primary, but he survived.
Such a history - and Warner's long tenure as one of Virginia's most popular politicians - has taught many conservatives to take a sober view of their state's senior senator. Even as they express irritation, many have come to recognize Warner's staying power. His occasional straying from party orthodoxy, they say, has become par for the course.
"Conservative Republicans in Virginia are seldom surprised by anything John Warner does," said Morton Blackwell, a longtime conservative GOP activist elected last year to the Republican National Committee's executive committee. "Senator Warner intends to stay in the Senate for the rest of his life, and he may achieve that."
Warner's end-run around Senate leaders to avoid a showdown on judges also exposed an awkward rift with Allen, his junior Republican colleague.
By their own admission, the two men didn't bother to consult each other on how to handle the question of judicial confirmations because they knew they disagreed.
Allen - a younger, more ideological senator than his senior partner - helped lead the fight to change Senate rules. Decrying Democratic "obstructionism," he argued that all of Bush's nominees deserve an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
Allen, considering a run for president, said confirming Bush's judges was a top issue last year as he crisscrossed the country to help Republican senators get elected.
"They got all fired up," Allen recalled of raising the issue of judges before conservative crowds. "People would cheer."
But critics dubbed the proposed rule change the "nuclear option" because of its potential to blow up Senate ritual, decorum and comity. And Warner, who displays an almost theatrical courtliness on Capitol Hill, isn't a nuclear kind of guy.
Denying the minority party the right to filibuster, a long-established Senate tradition, could have untold consequences on a body designed to work by consensus, Warner argued.
The House was designed to reflect popular will, he and centrist allies noted, but the Senate was designed to move more slowly and protect minority rights.
"What would happen to the Senate if the nuclear option were done?" Warner asked, in explaining his resistance to the move. "No one was able to answer that to my satisfaction."
To avoid such a showdown, Warner and Byrd spent a weekend rereading the Federalist Papers and seized on a passage from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 66 that stressed the need for the "advice and consent of the Senate" in appointing federal judges.
The final memorandum that sealed the deal included a provision by Warner and Byrd that called on Bush "to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration."
They also said, "Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate."
The deal, Warner acknowledged, could still unravel, particularly as pressures mount over a possible Supreme Court vacancy later this year. But the centrist Gang of 14, he said, would endure to pull the Senate back from the brink.
"This was not an easy task," Warner said. "But by so doing and putting our signatures on the line, I think there's a certain bond that exists among us."
Political consequences, if they come, won't occur anytime soon. Warner doesn't face re-election until 2008, and it's not clear whether he'll seek another term.
Regarding whether he would run again, Warner said, "We'll sit down and sort it out.
"But from now until then, I get a free pass to do my business."
|
