The new tone in government Bush promised while campaigning in 2000 never really materialized, and there are culprits on both sides of the aisle to blame for that, but when the history of the early 21st Century in American politics is written, in particular the chapter titled “The Nail in the Coffin of Civility.” let it be noted the GOP started it.
Shattering precedent, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist campaigned for the defeat of his Democratic counterpart on Saturday, depicting Sen. Tom Daschle as a polarizing figure at home and an obstructionist thwarting President Bush’s agenda in Congress.
This seems to be the first time the Senate leader of one party actively campaigned against his counterpart.
“We haven’t found anything in our files” that is comparable, said Don Ritchie of the Senate historian’s office. The only thing close occurred a century ago, he said, when the leader of one wing of the Republican party campaigned to defeat the leader of the other.
Dashcle took the high road in response:
In public, Daschle has not betrayed a hint of resentment at the GOP leader’s decision to campaign against him. “He’s welcome, and I only hope he will make it a substantial as well as political trip,” Daschle told reporters when word of the trip surfaced.
Of course, I’m sure the VRWC talking points defending this unprecedent attack were distributed well ahead of time, so the only question I’m interested in is what new twisted logic the GOP will come up with to justify their moaning about how the Democrats retaliate.
Edward_,
Politics are a rough and tumble contest.
And Daschle is polarizing at home and obstructing Bush’s agenda in Congress. It’s not as if Frist is lying or smearing here. His comments are well within the (loose) bounds of politcal discourse.
Ask yourself, if Daschle were campaigning against Frist, would you be outraged, or pleased that your team is playing to win?
Mike,
I have always admired the way Senators have tried to stay as statemanly as possible. The idea that one body of the government was dedicated to civility (at least as much as was possible while being effective) gave me not only a sense of pride, but also an ideal to strive for (no b.s., each time I get too partisan in my bickering I remind myself of the way good Senators behave, and strive to match that degree of diplomacy and good manners).
Frist needn’t have gone himself, regardless of how strongly he believes Daschle is bad for the nation. It sets a tasteless precedent.
If Daschle had done this, I’d be equally disappointed.
“I have always admired the way Senators have tried to stay as statemanly as possible.”
Hate to burst your bubble, but… actually, no, I think that I’ll leave you this one. I wouldn’t mind believing it myself. 🙂
I have always admired the way Senators have tried to stay as statemanly as possible.
Perhaps you’re right. To me they’ve always seemed like 100 (mostly) men who all believe they’d make a better president than whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time.
Whatever one’s level of cynicism, I think it’s worth mourning the passing of yet another tradition of pseudo-civility. As much as I know that both sides would be happy to spend the better part of each day hurling rotten fruit at their counterparts across the aisle, I’m nevertheless glad that we haven’t reached that point yet and distressed at each step that brings us closer to it.
“Whatever one’s level of cynicism, I think it’s worth mourning the passing of yet another tradition of pseudo-civility.”
(Sigh) Truth.
Disappointing yet not surprising. The thing that made me laugh though was thinking that Home Values-R-US wasn’t spending time with his son who was just arrested 48 hours ago. Typical.
Actually, I think the pseudo-civility is dangerous. It tends to obscure the fact that politicians are immature megalomaniacs. Best let them show their true form.
It sets a tasteless precedent
Edward, you mean like the fillibustering of judicial nominees?
my numbers may be slightly off but didn’t the Dems block 4 judicial Bush nominees and Repubs blocked 141 Clinton nominees? and if the Dems didn’t filibuster, those numbers would be 141 to Zero? Do you think if those numbers were reversed that the Repubs wouldn’t have filibustered their heads off?
Edward, what you wrote was supreme nonsense. Daschle did a few unprecedented things himself, like filibuster circuit court nominees, not to mention behave like a tyrant after the Jeffords defection. Of course Frist would campaign against Daschle. This Politics 101 fer Chrissakes. BTW, if you can find the awful tone that Bush specifically set, lemme know, but you should know that neither the Senate nor House signed onto it.
And not that it has any impact on the ethics of it all, but Daschle losing (assuming the seat is made up in some other contest) would probably be a net positive for the Dems.
Edward, you seem to becoming… well, shrill.
In the past, I’ve valued your posts, but lately, your postings seem to be how evil the Republicans are. Civil discourse does not start with our elected representitives – it starts with those that elect them.
so the only question I’m interested in is what new twisted logic the GOP will come up with to justify their moaning about how the Democrats retaliate.
Judging by this thread to date, they’re not coming up with new twisted logic: they’re recycling old whining about Democrats filibustering four judical nominees, which is obviously worse than changing the rules to enable Republicans to block 141 judical nominees… then changing them back to prevent the Democrats being able to do the same thing when a Republican President’s in the White House.
It’s old twisted logic. When Republicans do it, it’s perfectly fine: when Democrats do it, it’s eeeeeeevil.
Bird Dog and Bains,
Please see Jesurgislac’s post. It sums up my feelings about both your comments perfectly.
Timmy, you above all people I’m disappointed to see suggesting two wrongs make a right.
Why don’t the Republicans posting here simply admit this is an unseemly, unfortunate choice by Frist?
I’ve seen Jes’ post, and the numbers misrepresent the reality. Daschle sent comity packing years ago. If Frist wants to campaign for a Republican to replace a sitting Senate Democrat, more power to him. None deserves it more than Daschle.
Then you have no problem with Frist being the first? The precedent doesn’t bother you Bird Dog? The loss of that particular tradition?
I don’t see the problem at all. We have had sitting Presidents of either parties actively campaign for senators of their own party and against senators of the other party for at least decades. If the President can do it why the hell couldn’t Senators do it? It isn’t like Senators are nearly as important.
I’ve seen Jes’ post, and the numbers misrepresent the reality.
How?
Precedents are strange things – they apply to all. Senate Democrats set a precedent when they filibustered Federal Judicial nominations and personally attacked the nominees. They are further setting precedents by the vitrolic and arguably slanderous attacks on Prez Bush. Yet you maintain that civility officially died with this latest bit of hardball politicing by Frist?
So when did it start, this nastiness, and bending of the rules, and character assination? 1980 was the first election I could legally participate in, and I seem to recall some rather uncivil behavior. I’m sure it started long before then and it wont stop until you and I start holding our own party members responsible rather than just pointing fingers across the isle.
Senate Democrats set a precedent when they filibustered Federal Judicial nominations and personally attacked the nominees.
Abe Fortas?
They are further setting precedents by the vitrolic and arguably slanderous attacks on Prez Bush.
Geeze, uh… Andrew Jackson? Aaron Burr?
There are very few things that qualify as “unprecedented” in American politics without some severe qualifications. One thing we all have to come terms with about history: much like your significant other, it’s been around the block far more times than you realize.
Oh, and I forgot the obvious one:
They are further setting precedents by the vitrolic and arguably slanderous attacks on Prez Bush.
Perhaps you remember a certain former president named Bill Clinton?
I’ve seen Jes’ post, and the numbers misrepresent the reality.
I think what Bird Dog is trying to say, Edward, is that just because the facts are as they are, doesn’t mean that “reality” has to correspond to the facts.
You know. Sort of Bush & Co’s attitude to facts. Throw them out if they don’t suit and declare “reality” to be something else.
You’ll note that I did say uncivil behaviors have been going on long before I can remember. Additionally you emphasis exactly what I rail against. So Bush deserves it because of what Clinton recieved… and Clinton deserved it because of what Reagan recieved… and so on and so on.
It appears that two wrongs not making right only applies when when the other side perpetrates the second wrong…
And Edward, speaking of talking points, I hear NPR this a.m. basically repeating your lead.
I hear NPR this a.m. basically repeating your lead.
those bastards…I never receive any royalty checks from them…
I agree that there’s a long history of tit for tat, and certainly the Dems are not innocent here…I’m simply bemoaning the choice to break this particualr precedent, as there are so few civility precedents left to break, and this will undoubtedly lead to retaliation and we’ll see how “just” that strikes the GOP…
It’s a shame that the party with the WH and both the House and Senate can’t set a higher standard (regardless of history). Anyone who can’t see that is far too partisan.