While some went nuts over the idea of a 'compromise'with the repugs others see it as strategy that worked to force Frist(Rove) into a no win situation. IMHO Reid did a great job with Rove and Frist the loosers. I snipped some comments from the kos thread.
Reid just engaged Frist in a game of chicken, and Frist blinked first.
Reid has been extrememly effective in whipping up opposition to the Nuclear Option, garnering strong grass- and netroots support, editorial board support, and popular support (as the latest polls show scant appetitite for ending the filibuster).
But in order to avoid looking like obstructionists, Demcorats had to make efforts to "find a compromise", lest the chattering class get the vapors from such Democratic intransigence.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/26/133311/075comments:
...........................................................
Actually, as I understood it (none / 0)
the GOP had to back away from the nuclear option now, AND on Supreme Court nominees, as part of the "compromise". Read this.
My opinion is that Bush pushed these previously rejected nominees back on the Senate because he KNEW they would be filibustered, and he wanted the nuclear option used now; he didn't want to wait and have it used on a SCOTUS nominee. That would get too much press. He was hoping that the nuclear option would get used on a few judges under the radar, and therefore be in place by the time he nominates someone for SCOTUS.
Reid's compromise would have prevented that. However, I think Reid was magnificent here. My only problem is that it appears we will not be shutting down the Senate as a result. I think that's a mistake. Dems can still push for their positive agenda (it's not going to go anywhere anyway). By not shutting down the Senate, we lose the support of Big Business, who wants legislation passed and has opposed the GOP's nuclear option. If they think they can get their legislation through, they will jump on the bandwagon for the nuclear option.
...........................................
I think Markos is right. Reid was gambling on republican arrogance forcing them to refuse the deal. Can you think of a single situation in which the repbulicans have been willing to compromise in any way? The recent bankrupcy bill is a classic example - they even voted against giving breaks to soldiers fighting in Iraq! Talk about campaign material.
Reid was taking a gamble, because if the republicans had shown themselves willing to compromise just a tiny bit, he would have incurred the wrath of a lot of people by having offered the compromise. But, as always, they didn't compromise even that tiny bit.
Remember: They don't want to govern, they want to rule.
by dianem on
.................................................
Reid understood the Frist was stuck between a rock and a hard place. If Frist did call Reid's bluff, he could lose his base. Frist loses either way. Brilliant.
.......................................................
Judy Woodruff to Reid yesterday.... (4.00 / 7)
"Are you saying the President lied, Senator?"
"The President said the WH would stay out of the filibuster fight...the VP was sitting right next to us when he said it..then I saw what VP Cheney said in the newspaper.....Draw your own conclusion, Judy."
I like him.
......................................
I don't think that Frist had a choice... (none / 1)
and I am pretty sure that it was Rove that made the call on this one. Rove gave an interview to USA Today and announced that there would be no deal. I'm inclined to believe that Rove is calling the shots for the party right now, there is a lot of emphasis on convincing the republican base to follow Bush like he is an absolute leader.
Whether it was Frist or Rove who made the call, I think that decision is based on the religious right twisting their arms right now. The religious right feel that they are so close to victory they are getting desperate to clinch it. Some of the rhetoric coming from the right is spectacularly arrogant, their confidence level is out of sync with with the mood of the nation.
Case in point, Janice Rogers Brown is not only one of the contested Justices the republicans are trying to nominate, she is making blunt partisan speeches that appeal directly to the religious right. You can read it here.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-brown26apr26,0,6225135.story?coll=la-home-headlines