Michael Crowley of The New Republic has a new hatchet piece on John Kerry. Crowley’s reasoning (and the reasoning of several of his sources) is of the standard ‘inside the beltway’ variety. For that very reason, it deserves to be looked at in depth.

Moments before Monday’s vote on whether to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito, John Kerry was speaking to a near-empty Senate chamber. In his typical stentorian fashion, Kerry was arguing for a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee, an effort the Massachusetts senator had single-handedly initiated a few days earlier to the open chagrin of fellow Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. “What could possibly be more important than this?” asked Kerry, who stood alone amid a sea of empty desks. But Kerry’s plea for relevancy didn’t cause much of a stir until his Massachusetts colleague and filibuster partner, Ted Kennedy, rose to unleash a bellowing anti-Alito stemwinder…The commotion caused a crew of usually blase reporters to scurry from their workstations and into the Senate press balcony to watch.

Near-empty= Kerry was irrelevent.
Typical stentorian fashion= Kerry is a blowhard
What could be more important than this= I love the sound of my own voice.
Alone amid a sea of empty desks= Kerry was irrelevent.
And the coup de grace? Kennedy gave a great speech people actually wanted to listen to.

From the introduction it is already clear that Crowley’s mission is to criticize Kerry for initiating a fight over the filibuster. But why?

In substantive terms, the filibuster vote was a blowout: Only 25 of the 41 Democrats needed to block a confirmation vote sided with Kerry, and many of them did so grudgingly. In political terms, it was even worse. Kerry’s last-minute stand spoon-fed reporters a story line of Democratic division and infighting. What’s more, Democrats complained that this Gallipoli charge had handed Republicans an easy victory on the eve of the State of the Union–and had drowned out their own competing message.

And Crowley has some interesting sources in support of his assertions.

In a closed-door meeting of Senate Democrats last Wednesday, Kerry and Kennedy made a vigorous plea for a filibuster. But they were challenged by Harry Reid and by no less a Bush nominee-basher than Chuck Schumer of New York, who, as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is responsible for overseeing the party’s 2006 Senate races. Schumer understood, as did Reid and many other Democrats, that the Alito nomination had already put vulnerable Democratic incumbents and candidates from red states in an awkward position–pulled between pro-Bush voters and the demands of liberal interest groups, activists, and bloggers. Forcing those Democrats to choose sides on yet another vote would only heighten their agony. Even Barbara Mikulski, a Kennedy-style paleoliberal, argued that Democrats should worry more about electoral realities than about taking bold stands for their own sake.

That is the fairest representation I’ve seen of the kind of mindset we are up against.

The most recent Survey USA poll shows that Bush is above 50% approval in only 8 states: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

Here is the breakdown of the Bush approval numbers in the Vichy Dem states (Senators up for reelection are bolded):

1. Akaka: Hawaii- 43% 52%
2. Inouye: Hawaii- 43% 52%
3. Cantwell: Washington- 35% 62%
4. Rockefeller: W. Virginia- 46% 51%
5. Byrd: W. Virginia- 46% 51%
6. Bingaman: New Mexico- 42% 56%
7. Lieberman: Connecticut- 38% 59%
8. Nelson: Florida- 42% 55%
9. Nelson: Nebraska- 55% 41%
10. Baucus: Montana- 49% 48%
11. T. Johnson: S. Dakota- 47% 50%
12. Dorgan: N. Dakota- 50% 46%
13. B. Lincoln: Arkansas- 38% 59%
14. Salazar: Colorado- 43% 55%
15. Conrad: N. Dakota- 50% 46%
16. Landrieu: Louisiana- 48% 49%
17. Pryor: Arkansas- 38% 59%
18. Carper: Delaware- 32% 64%
19. Kohl: Wisconsin- 44% 53%

So, let’s be honest about something. The main argument against the Kerry filibuster effort is that it jeopardized the chances of reelection for some of our red-state senators. But Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota are the only two anti-filibuster Democrats that live in currently pro-Bush states that are facing reelection this year. Most of the rest of these senators could make an argument that opposing Bush on Alito would help their bid for reelection.

Certainly Cantwell and Carper could make that case, with Bush polling in the low-to-middle thirties.

But, Crowley ignores this and plows on:

Kerry also forced some Democrats into highly awkward positions. Reid, for instance, initially groused about Kerry’s move on the Senate floor, making the apt point that there had been “adequate time for people to debate” Alito. But, once Kerry cast the die, Reid (and Schumer) were forced to support the filibuster for fear of enraging liberals. Republicans taunted Reid for flip-flopping. Meanwhile, every other Democrat considering a 2008 White House run–Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold–voted with Kerry, even though none had planned to force a filibuster themselves. After the filibuster fell short, the White House issued a triumphal statement boasting of a “strong, bipartisan majority” vote for Alito. Some Democrats found that especially embittering, given that the final vote on his confirmation was much closer: 58-42, one of the narrowest confirmation margins of any Supreme Court justice. Kerry spokesman David Wade argues that the filibuster “helped strengthen the number of votes against final confirmation.” But, although Democrats showed remarkable unity on the final Alito vote (only four members defected), that solidarity was overshadowed by the filibuster flap. “democrats split over filibuster on alito,” declared the front page of the January 27 Washington Post. Kerry “handed President Bush a big win on the eve of the State of the Union,” says one veteran Senate Democratic aide. Moreover, Democrats were irritated that Kerry’s move had sucked up so much press attention before Bush’s speech. “The whole Democratic strategy was to go into the State of the Union framing it around ethics and corruption,” says the irritated Democratic Senate strategist. “We were doing the Republicans’ job by thrusting [Alito] into the spotlight rather than ethics.”

Whether Kerry was being opportunistic or not, (and Crowley never mentions that Kerry promised us all during his campaign that he would filibuster judges like Alito), he didn’t swoon at non-existent vulnerabilities for his colleagues.

Here are Ben Nelson and Kent Conrad’s Survey USA in-state approval numbers:

Ben Nelson 67% 24%
Kent Conrad 67% 27%

Washington insiders decided that these numbers were threatening and that it would be unfair to a few supposedly vulnerable Senators to force them to hold firm on the filibuster. It’s bullshit. Filibustering Alito might have hurt Nelson and Conrad, but they are popular senators who could probably have weathered the storm.

The rest of the Vichy Dems have no excuse whatsoever, except that their leadership didn’t pressure them to filibuster.

So what made liberals think fighting Alito was a net loser politically? And what made them think that defeating Alito was not worth a short-term political loss?

We have a long way to go before we can put enough new blood in DC that they won’t think like losers.