Don't get it? Read this.
Of course, it's also possible that Daschle did give Bush an assurance and is now just backpedaling like crazy.
But, hey, same difference.
In his press conference today Daschle seemed pretty unhappy with the White House . . .
I would hope that the administration would not make it a habit of quoting me. And if they do, I would hope that we (sic) would get it right.
He later said that the quote in the Times was "not my message to the president yesterday."
Now, having said that, Daschle said that what he did say both privately and publicly was that "we will not filibuster any nomination."
Now, obviously if the Dems are not going to filibuster any nomination then that really does amount to a guarantee that Ashcroft gets confirmed, since no one thinks 51 senators are going to vote against him. So, if Daschle is serious about this, his statement against a filibuster is tantamount to an assurance.
But how locked in is Daschle to opposing a filibuster?
What it means is that I will discourage Democratic filibusters, but it doesn't mean that any one of my colleagues may not still make the effort. It's not my expectation that there will be one. I have indicated I will oppose one if one were to occur. But again, I would reiterate, that's a matter left to each of my colleagues.
So what the hell is actually going on here? My assumption is that Daschle told Bush he wouldn't lead a filibuster against Ashcroft -- which is tantamount to an assurance, since only a filibuster would defeat him. Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer and Karen Hughes (and maybe even Bush if they let him into the planning session) figured they'd interpret Daschle's statement broadly and try to nudge him a bit or play him in the press to push things along.
That made Daschle, to put it mildly, look real bad in the eyes of his caucus and just about everyone else, and he flipped.
The real story? This was amateurish ball by the Bush crew. And it'll hurt them.
You know, William of Ockham . . . As in Ockham's Razor? What? You don't know what Ockham's Razor is?!?! Geeeeezz!!! Okay, okay, don't worry, I'll hook you up.
William of Ockham was a 14th Century scholastic philosopher most remembered as the originator of what came to be known as Ockham's Razor. The Razor is a logical principle that states, "Plurality should not be posited without necessity."
And what the hell does that mean? Basically it means that when a question needs answering, the simplest explanation that covers all the data is the preferable one. Albert Einstein had a more aphoristic way of stating this principle when talking about scientific hypotheses. "Everything should be as simple as possible," he said, "but not simpler." (Smart guy that Einstein!)
Anyway I think Ockham's Razor rocks and I use it all the time to find clarity through the muck of political obfuscation. Ockham's Razor helped Galileo demonstrate that his simple heliocentric model of the solar system was better than the weird-ass Ptolemaic system that the Middle Ages had inherited from Antiquity. And today you yourself can use Ockham's Razor to show that Evan Bayh is voting against John Ashcroft and Russ Feingold may vote for because Evan Bayh wants to run for president and Russ Feingold doesn't. (Get that last one?)
Now you are probably asking yourself: Where the hell am I going with this William of Ockham crap?
Bear with me!
Let's go back to our original question. What do Senator Zell Miller and William of Ockham have in common?
Answer? Not a damn thing. Because even with the clarifying magic of Ockham's Razor there's nothing that can explain why the new Georgia Senator is practically falling over himself to carry water for George W. Bush.
Last week Miller was the first Senate Democrat to officially announce he'd be voting to confirm John Ashcroft. That at least was understandable on political grounds. In a state like Georgia, you get points for standing up to liberal, Washington-based interest groups. But yesterday Miller announced he was cosponsoring George W.'s megalithic tax cut with Phil Gramm.
Even a lot of Republicans are telling Bush that that just ain't gonna happen. Most people didn't even think Miller wanted to run for another term in the Senate. But if he does, he won't be up again 'till 2004. Bush's tax cut isn't even all that popular in Georgia. So it's hard to figure why Miller needs to back it to cover his right flank. And certainly he doesn't need to cosponsor it.
So why is he doing it?
That's what I mean: No one knows! I checked with some conservative Southern Dems today and some other folks from Georgia and even they can't figure out what Miller's up to. I couldn't find anyone to defend Miller's course. And it's not even like Miller was all that conservative during his two terms as governor of Georgia. By Southern standards he was pretty progressive.
The only thing I could come up with was this: When Miller was appointed to serve out the term of the late Paul Coverdell, a Republican, he kept on some of Coverdell's staff. (Miller and Coverdell were actually close friends.) In particular, he kept on Coverdell's senior policy advisor, Alex Albert. In December, after Miller had won election in his own right, he appointed Albert his chief of staff. Coverdell was very tight with Phil Gramm and pretty much all the rest of more partisan Republicans.
Maybe Albert's just got Miller's ear. But it's hard to Zell.
But then I looked a little closer. There don't appear to be any new ethical guidelines. Bush just told his crew "to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct.''
Why hasn't anyone pointed this out?
Basically Bush got the ball rolling with a gratuitous, but contentless, slap at the outgoing administration.
Imagine that.
This Washington Memo adapted from Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points
