Did Sen. Specter issue an ultimatum to Sen. Frist today?

From "The Next Hurrah"

Back to Specter: A Moderate Ultimatum?

<snip>

My personal nuclear option obsession, at this point, is Arlen Specter. He's one of the moderates we'll need if we're going to get the votes to retain the filibuster. And he gave one heck of a confusing speech today (thanks to Brian Hopkins at DemBloggers.com for the clip--and definitely check out their site for highlights of many of the best speeches). In the clip at the link, he seems to be simultaneously calling on Frist to take a public whip count of the Senators. And threatening that "12 Senators will take over the Senate" if he doesn't. Here are some excerpts from the speech (transcription errors are my own):

I have urged the majority leader Bill Frist to do a whip count among Republicans. … So you know how the vote will turn out. … If the whip count were to be conducted, we might know in advance what the result would be. … So much of what we're engaged in today is really a matter of saving face.

Specter goes on:

What I think needs to be done is the issue ought to be returned to the Senate. It ought to be returned to the 100 Senators of this body. If the leaders don't release their members to vote their conscience, … then a small group of Senators will take over the Senate.

To be honest, I'm not sure if this is an ultimatum or not; I encourage you all to check out the link and let me know what you think. Ostensibly, Specter is calling for a whip count on Owen's nomination. But that only makes sense if Specter honestly believes she wouldn't get 50 votes to pass, which I have a difficult time believing.

When I first heard this speech, though, and the more general intent I think Specter was trying to get across, was the challenge, "give us a whip count of the votes to abolish the filibuster."

<snip>

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/05/back_to_specter.html#more

At least not after one viewing.

Mr. Specter seemed to be telling the leadership of both parties that if they could not resolve their differences then the 12 member bi-partisan group would in effect decide for them, that there was a palatable deal on the table that they would accept.

I would imagine that he realizes that while this "panel of 12" has the power to end this stalemate it would cause great difficulty for that dozen within their own respective parties if they choose to make this deal without their party leaderships approval, which they do not have.

Thus, his speech was sending the message that the moderates are sick of the partisan bickering and will end it themselves if needs be.

This could be a bluff of course. If Specter et al buck Frist's wishes and make a deal they would suffer very real consequences for that action. Likewise Lieberman, Salazar, Landrieu, and the other 3 on the Democrats side. Perhaps they are trying merely to force Frist and Reid to make a deal but do NOT have the gumption to actually carry through on their threat. Specter's decision to speak of this openly on the floor is an indication that perhaps it is just that, a bluff. When dealing from real power you do not need to publicly embarass your parties leadership, you just tell them quietly what you will do. Everyone saves face that way.

Time will tell, as it always does. For my money, I expect a deal. I don't think I WANT one, but I do expect one.

But I would like to add that Reid is not the guy with the power to make the deal -- Frist is. (Although this "gang of twelve" potentially has the power to swing it*, I sure wouldn't place any bets on them at this point.)

And Reid can't afford to be "seen" trying to make any deal that gets turned down. So it's up to Frist to (publicly -- and irrevocably) accept the deal first. (It isn't much of a standoff when only one guy has a gun -- not that you implied otherwise.)

Then I don't see Reid turning the deal down -- he won't have the votes to do otherwise.

And the filibuster thing is as much about the power of a small group of Republican Senators (those who aren't always (more or less) a "given" neocon vote) as it is about the power of the "minority".

It these Senators can get a little unity and use it to leverage their positions, they can play a key role in the Senate. (And, yeah, it helps them if they have some Dems on their side -- but I hate the concept of "moderate" Dems allying themselves with those neocon appeasers, so I am not going there.)

Of course, to do so would bring down the neocons' wrath. But then, the neocons respect power (and only respect power) -- and this little group could have plenty of that... If they have the stones to use it.

(Oh, and when doing your vote counts, remember that Senators can avoid voting in a number of ways. For some, this might be a smart move.)

*: like this:
44 Dems + 1 Inde + 6 Reps = 51 to preserve the filibuster as a rule (or beat any candidate in an up-down vote).
55 Reps + 6 Dems = 61 to override any specific filibuster.

that the dems had better allow the simple majority or Frist et al will seize control of the senate. It's either let go of the 60 vote requirement or let go of your senate seat.

"If the leaders don't release their members to vote their conscience, … then a small group of Senators will take over the Senate."

I don't know the guy and if this is a threat, or simply a statement that they'll do it. They'll really do it.

This is like the innocent bystander saying "He's got the hostages, and he's gonna start shooting them. I know he'll do it. He's done it before."

I think he's trying to convince the fence-sitters.