[R]eports have suggested that Southwick's confirmation was the result of political dealmaking. Roll Call reported that in return for Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) not aggressively rallying against Southwick's nomination, Republicans, led by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MI), agreed to help Democrats in negotiations with the White House over spending measures. Lott didn't dispute that account, telling Roll Call, "Good-faith efforts on one side beget good-faith efforts on the other side." A spokesman for Reid disputed the suggestion of a deal: "The fact is that Senator Reid opposed the nominee from the start."
Thoughts, assuming this report is correct:
1. I know we all hate compromises, but at least this time Lott was (1) getting something in return for supporting more spending, rather than doing it for its own sake, and (2) trading a short-term loss (on spending) for a long-term benefit (a life-tenured judgeship).
2. Reid was willing to play to the peanut gallery on the Left by playing the vilest sort of race card on Southwick (even invoking Jena, thus impliedly comparing Southwick to...a white kid who was kicked into unconsciousness by a mob of black teenagers...um, let's scratch that analogy), but at the end of the day saw nothing at all wrong in trading that away as just another bargaining chip.
3. Lott didn't feel there was any benefit to denying a deal; Reid did. That should say something, no?