It sounds like this comes down to, if Frist had the votes

[Quixote1818]

Some say he had the votes some say he did not. I am interested in each side saying why they think he did have the votes or why they think he didn't.

If he didn't have the votes we fucked up.

If he did then this was the best deal we could have come up with. Just my opinion.

So did he or did he not have the votes and why do you believe this?

[WilliamPitt]

1. I think people who say he didn't have the votes

are making a large assumption. No one knew for sure where a lot of these Senators were going to fall. Besides, Frist had the power to revoke chairmanships or other plums from any GOP Senators who seemed like they might leave the reservation.

I think, if it had come down to it, Frist would have done what was necessary to get the votes he needed. Anyone who definitively says otherwise is pretending their assumptions are facts for the sake of argument.

[mzmolly]

3. I think Graham was especially key.

He said he changed his vote after hearing from angry constituents.

[On the Road]

2. Frist Sounded Awfully Upset

for someone who didn't have the votes. Jus' sayin.

[onenote]

4. frist wanted a vote

that's what his fundie backers wanted. If he won...they'd be overjoyed. If he lost, Frist and the fundies could use that result to rally their base in the 2006 elections arguing that they need to get to 60 to stop the obstructionist Dems. Not having a vote is the one result that Frist didn't want, so its not surprising he's unhappy. He's getting lambasted by his fundie friends.

onenote

[WilliamPitt]

5. Yup

http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=77

[tavalon]

17. Frist had to sound upset

and he had to sound like this was done behind his back (he's the majority leader - yeah, right, he didn't know) because he still nurses the idea that his wacky fundie base is going to get him into the WH. If he seemed in any way ok with this, the fundies would stake him and throw him in the fire.

Theater, IMHO.

[elperromagico]

6. There are a few possibilities, as far as I can see.

1. Frist knew (or was pretty damned certain) that he had the necessary votes to invoke the nuclear option. The Gang of 14 snatched it out from under him.

2. Frist didn't have the votes and the Gang of 14 saved him from an embarrassing defeat on a straight vote. Of course, he would have to seem annoyed in order to keep his conservative base on his side.

3. Frist just didn't know how many votes he had.

Last night, before I fully understood the nature of this compromise (and the people who created it), I leaned toward #2.

Now, I'm not so sure.

I could be absolutely wrong, of course. I often am on these matters.

[Strawman]

7. Here's why I think he would have had the votes

Yesterday Raw Story reported the Dems had 49 votes to oppose the nuclear option. They needed 6 Republicans. We know they had McCain, Snowe, and Chafee. They also had one other, my guess is that was either Warner or Collins. So they needed two more to get to 51.

In play:

Graham: "once sued the Senate because of the Democratic judicial filibuster." (http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/051905/rules.html) if push comes to shove, I think he votes for the nuclear option.

Specter was going to vote in favor of the nuclear option. (http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/052405/specter.html). There's an interesting picture of him on Yahoo news speaking with about a million "Up or Down Vote" posters around him.

Collins: The most iffy. She was speculated to be leaning toward a yes vote but was considered a possible no later on. She may have been #49. If her and Warner both voted no, we'd still lose a 50-50 tie when Cheney voted to break it.

DeWine: He has already emphasized that he reserves the right to change his mind and vote for the nuclear option. I can't remember where I saw that, but my best guess is that he would have voted for it.

Warner: Stronger possibility that he was #49. If push came to shove, opponents expected him to be on their side.

Hagel: Wasn't even on the compromise deal. Repubs weren't lobbying him at the end, they were trying to stop the compromise by pressuring Graham.

Gordon Smith: Ditto.

Ultimately it's speculative until more info leaks out, but I get the feeling that they feel like their ultimate victory was snatched away from them at the last minute for good reason.

[Gothmog]

8. Bush and Rove would have made this vote a vote on beng lame duck

Frist would have gotten the votes in my opinion. We have too far to go. Frist, Bush and Rove would have made this vote a referendum on whether Bush was a lame duck. That argument has worked on Bolton with some senators. It would have been close but I think that we would have lost.

[damntexdem]

9. It can be argued that even if he had the votes, ...

it would have been better to fight it out.

[housewolf]

10. We didn't have the votes and would have lost

Here's how it looks to me

We had 45 votes so we needed 6 from the repubs. They were only going to come from the moderates, who were the 'repub gang of 7."

Of those 7, DeWine and Grahams both stated on tv last night that they were prepared to vote FOR the nuclear option. The didn't like it, they didn't want it to happen, they worked their hearts our in order for it not to happen but - bottom line - had the vote been called, they would have voted for it.

That left 5 repub moderates. We needed 6.

We would have lost.

[GOTV]

12. You have to believe...

... that DeWine and Graham were not just saying that for cover.

If what they said was truly what they believed then there is at least 2 Senators that don't think this compromise is good for the Dems since they had it within their power to make or break the nuclear option between them and they chose compromise.

They think the compromise is better than voting for the nuclear option - and they think the compromise is better than voting against the nuclear option.

And the rabid right is still, predictably, calling for their heads.

So the compromise must really be double plus good... for them.

[housewolf]

13. "Cover" from whom???

I believe they were telling the truth. I believe that what they did was good for Senate and good for the country and that's why they did it.

[GOTV]

18. Cover from the rabid right which will be coming after them...

... of course.

They say they support the nuclear option but they work on a compromise to prevent it. So, I don't know if they're for it or against it.

[BillZBubb]

11. Why was it the best deal?

What is wrong with making the Repugs actually vote to steal power for all to see? We could then use those votes against them in future elections. No more pretense of moderation for any of them.

With or without the now impotent "right" to filibuster, Bush's right wing nominees are going to be appointed. So, why not make the Repugs take responsibility for the power grab. Why not put the Democrats in a winning posture of forcing their agenda in the Senate while using the Senate rules to slow down the Repugs?

Just having the Democrats willing to REALLY fight for something for a change would have been a huge boost to our future electoral chances. This was just another example of their much too willingness to make deals on any issue--even ones they claim are dire.

I hold this deal was the WORST possible outcome for the Democrats.

[OilemFirchen]

14. Frist had the votes.

The assertion that the puggie six knew that Frist didn't have the votes and thus compromised to save him face is a howler. Only a few of that group give two shits about Frist's face. And, of course, the Dems can count too. Does anyone think they would have compromised to save Frist's ugly mug?

Give that one a break. Frist had the votes and a few more.

[Jose Diablo]

15. I don't think Frist had the votes because

if they gone nuclear, and the Dems responded with role call votes on every bill, the slowdown in business would have effected the corporate power centers ability to feed at the trough.

All of the Repubs are under control of the corporate money. Threaten those interests with a shutdown of government money to corporations, then all this BS with nuking the filibuster becomes just so much hot air for the consumption of the religious faction of the GOP.

Frist was lucky to not be called on the proverbial carpet by the 'real' boss. Maybe he was, Bu$h too. And as for the 'moderates', they gave the Republican party a way to save face.

Thats the way I see it, we once again enabled our enemies to screw us, plus they got who they wanted on the bench. How did we win???

Edit: One last thing, this whole deal is being played on CM as a save by 'moderate' repubs, convincing obstructionist Dems to relent. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

[nonconformist]

16. I question if he had the votes, especially if it was allowed to go

beyond rhetoric. Network TV would have broke in LIVE on that vote, the pressure would have been fierce and many would actually care (selfishly, but care nonetheless) about the very weak support of the American people on this. Unfortunately, fascist craziness will not be televised when it happens under the table. Anyway, when push came to shove, he may or may not have had the votes. I predict that he would NOT have had the votes, going off of the discord in the right on this. I actually think it would have led to a meltdown, an implosion of sorts. You think they're pissed now? It would have been a sight to behold.

Even if he had the votes, I would argue that it was a battle worth fighting for. Novel concept these days, true, but it was the right thing to do in a true democracy. This issue was far larger than the particulars of the situation and we should not have agreed to any compromise - because we weren't being the unreasonable ones here. Compromise is important, vital - but this wasn't a negotiable issue, we have bent over backwards and every which way for them and short of stepping aside and letting them do whatever the hell they wanted they weren't going to be happy. Besides, the agreement reached WASN'T a compromise in any sense of the word. This was more like a shakedown.

We should have fought this and nothing will change my mind. How high must the stakes get before we decide something is worth fighting for? A desperate grab for ultimate power was the best possible battle to fight if only for it's poignant message, and with the American people solidly in our corner to boot.