Blocking "up or down votes" on ideological grounds: IOIARDI (*)

(*) It's Okay If A Republican Does It

Despite their self-righteous howls about the sanctity of the "up or down vote," the GOP cheerfully, gleefully, exhuberantly blocked about six times as many nominees during the Clinton years as the Dems have blocked during Bush's presidency.

The Senate Republicans suddenly cherish the rights of the majority because, of course, they are the majority now.

All of which brings us to one Mrs. Julie Finley. Heard of her? Probably not. She's the Bush nominee to be ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Heard of it either? Probably not.

And for a while it looked like, if presidential wannabe Sen. Sam Brownback had his way, you never would hear of her. According to the Washington Post on Tuesday:

[A]s of last night [Sen. Brownback] was employing a parliamentary maneuver to block any Senate vote -- on the grounds that Mrs. Finley is pro-choice on abortion.

And what does Ms. Finley's stand on choice have to do with her prospective duties as ambassador to the OSCE?

Absolutely zip.

The Post explains:

Like many ambassadorial appointees, she has been a major Republican fundraiser, but she has also been a strong and active advocate in Washington for the expansion of NATO, the integration of Turkey into the European Union and the spread of democracy to countries of the former Soviet Union. These are issues that would be central in her new post -- and issues that Mr. Brownback also has highlighted.

[. . . ] Mrs. Finley's opinions on abortion, whatever they may be, have nothing whatsoever to do with European security and democracy, peacekeeping in Chechnya, or the enforcement of arms control treaties, the main issues of concern to the OSCE. Mr. Brownback has in the past shared Mrs. Finley's enthusiasm for expanding NATO and promoting democracy in Eastern Europe.

Like Senate Majority Leader Frist, Brownback played process games and ignored the substantive merits of a Senate action for ideological reasons--all to grandstand for the conservative Christian Right.

Brownback has since ceased his parliamentary maneuvering, allowing the Finley nomination to proceed to a vote. He's gone rather vague as to the reasons for the original hold, and for relenting a few days later. Here are two possibilities: The move got more negative publicity than he'd expected. Yeah, I know--That's unlikely in the extreme. Far, far more likely is that, having communicated his "I'm your boy" signal to the National Right to Life Committee and its ilk, the maneuver had done its work and was no longer necessary.

Brownback had no objections to Finley's nomination, as such, you see--she was just a convenient target of opportunity.

Blocking Senate votes to score points for part of your ideological base (say it with me)--it's okay if a Republican does it.