Senate moderates forming power center
Deal on nominees could spur change
WASHINGTON -- With Democratic and Republican leaders locked in a fierce battle over judges, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers has begun to form a new power center in the Senate, with implications that could extend far beyond the current debate.
The group of about 15 senators has been quietly forging a compromise even as their more partisan colleagues bludgeon each other daily on the Senate floor. They comprise at least six members of each party, the current margin of power in the Senate, and thus could decide any vote that falls along party lines.
Close Senate observers say the coalition's work could shift power from the majority and minority leaders and revitalize the political middle, with moderates who have found themselves out of the mainstream of their own parties enjoying heightened influence on major legislation.
If they are able to work productively together on other issues, their influence could expand, with the docket including such contentious issues as Social Security, stem cell research, reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and John Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations.
''Any time you have a middle that is willing to vote with either side -- that will look at cross pressures as well as partisan pressures -- you have power there," said Mark Hurwitz, a political science professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo. ''It says a lot about what the Senate is going through, with its increased polarization, that this group has formed."
The Senate has been locked all year in a battle of wills between majority leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, and minority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. Frist has been pushing a conservative agenda spearheaded largely by the White House and House of Representatives, while Reid pressures his fellow Democrats to present a unified opposition that Republicans call obstructionist.
The fight reached a new level of partisanship last week, as Frist moved to ban filibusters of judicial nominees, a process by which 40 senators can block a Senate vote, something Democrats describe as a key aspect of the system of checks and balances. Reid has vowed to retaliate by slowing Senate business to a crawl if the ban passes, probably killing a pending energy bill and a bid to create a nationwide trust fund for asbestos victims, among other legislation.
The extent of partisan bitterness was evident on the floor: During 25 hours of debate last week, members of the two parties took turns swiping at each other. Reid and other Democrats likened Republicans to ''Star Wars" villains, and the third-ranking Republican senator, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, compared Democrats to Hitler, a comment he later called a mistake.
But behind the scenes, in private meetings and informal talks that have gone on for weeks, a different group of senators from both parties has been hashing out language for an agreement that would avoid a climactic vote on judges. The tenor of the meetings -- hopeful, businesslike, respectful -- marked a sharp contrast with what was happening on the floor.
The mere existence of the meetings has aroused hope for a new era in the Senate, with a revitalized center as well as Democrats and Republicans who are willing to ignore partisan directives and interest-group pressures when they feel it is warranted. The moderate senators involved -- largely Republicans from the North and Democrats from the South, each out of step with their own parties to some degree -- want to bring back across-the-aisle cooperation.
''We really need to restore the comity in the Senate," said Senator Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican who is among the lawmakers searching for a compromise. ''If we get an agreement, we can really begin to restore that."
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, warned on the Senate floor Friday that if a clash is not avoided, the Senate will suffer irreparable harm and both parties will bear some blame.
''This whole controversy has escalated so far that neither side is willing to back down," said Specter, a 25-year Senate veteran. ''The dominant force in this chamber, the dominant power, is party-line voting."
On Friday, Frist filed a motion to cut off debate, setting up a vote tomorrow that would move the Senate toward a clash. That means the would-be peacemakers are racing against the clock to come to a solution, with their efforts opposed by Frist and receiving only tacit encouragement from Reid. The moderates' power stems from the fact that their colleagues are locked in partisan positions: The moderates could impose a filibuster compromise whether or not Frist or Reid supports it.
The group that is searching for a compromise -- some of them stayed in touch by telephone over the weekend and the whole group is scheduled to meet face-to-face again tonight -- represents a diverse collection of lawmakers.
The Democrats include the longest-serving senator, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, and one of the newest, freshman Ken Salazar of Colorado. They are joined by Democratic centrists, such as Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Those on the Republican side include such moderates as Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island and Susan M. Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, as well as independent-minded conservatives, such as John W. Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina.
While the diversity of political viewpoints represents a source of the group's strength, it could also limit its impact on future issues. The so-called centrists have jumped at the opportunity to negotiate a compromise to the filibuster issue, but it is not yet clear whether the same group could work cooperatively on a future issue, said Darrell West, a political science professor at Brown University.
''If they can remain united, they would be a powerful force," West said. ''But the problem is, there's almost as much division within that group as outside that group. And the bigger they get, the more divided they get."
Still, the negotiations could have quick impact on the way that Bush and future presidents choose judges to nominate. A provision was added to the agreement late last week calling for the Senate Judiciary Committee to set up a new process in which judges, lawyers, and academics would put together a pool of potential candidates for the president to consider for judgeships.
The president would not be bound to choose a nominee from that pool. But his choices would be less likely to arouse other controversy, because politicians were not involved in clearing them, Byrd said.
''Get it out of the hands of the politicians; that's what I'm seeking," Byrd said.
Unlike in the House, where the majority can move bills through at a fast clip, the Senate is designed as a more deliberative body that gives more power to individual members and determined blocs who are in the minority. In that environment, moderates in each party have always been important, and they enjoyed influence early in Bush's first term, when the Senate was divided 50-50.
But Republicans now control 55 Senate seats, and as Bush's agenda has rolled through, there have been few opportunities for moderate Democrats and Republicans to work together. That has begun to change with the historic confrontation over judges, and moderates will have more opportunities to work together on such issues as Bolton's nomination and Social Security, said Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College.
''If this works -- and I'm not sure it will -- it will embolden people to find a new way of doing business," Wolfe said.
Senators involved in working on the compromise say it is too soon to look ahead to what other issues they can join forces on. But in a debate with implications for such lofty principles as the separation of powers as well as checks and balances, some are optimistic that they can work together now and in the future.
''Whether we can [reach a compromise] or not, I don't know. But we're trying," Landrieu said. ''Democracies work best by consensus."
Rick Klein can be reached at rklein@globe.com. 