Seven Republican Senators just admitted that the Nuke Option was BAD

[alcibiades_mystery]

Bad for the country.

Bad for the institution of the Senate.

Bad for the American people.

No Democratic Senators admitted that judicial filibusters were BAD. None. Zero. Nobody.

Now, you're telling me that those seven can come back and vote for the nuclear option six, eight, or twelve months down the line? Please.

[cally]

1. Exactly!

They all said this compromise was good for the country and the Senate. I don't see them supporting the nuclear option in the future.

[Coexist]

2. or risk being labeld flip-floppers!

I love it when elections near!!!!

[spooky3]

3. I already emailed Sen. Warner to thank him for his work in this.

He's not a moderate, and the fact that he worked for the compromise suggests to me that the Rethugs are not as united as Frist wants to believe, that principles do matter, or that polls do and they need to think about how this will play during their next reelection campaign. Or, enough of them sensibly foresaw retaliation once the pendulum swings back to the Dems, as it inevitably will.

[Mass]

16. And thanks for the Dems who are giving us up by not filibustering

Brown and Owen. I am sorry, I dont think this is a win for the Dems.

[spooky3]

17. they don't have the power to get a big win that would make you happy

This was as good as can be expected given the position they were in, including consideration of the unknowns.

[vi5]

4. Well if it was that bad they should have voted against it...

period. end of sentence.

These seven senators just admitted that they are held captive by the extremist wing of their party, otherwise they would have been able to vote their conscience.

Yet mark my word, the spin is going to be that the moderate republicans saved the day from the fringe extremes of their party (yeah...right) and the fringe, out of the mainstream democrats(all of them).

If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but something tells me I won't be.

[TheFarseer]

5. What troubled me was . . . . .. . .

DeWine said he was prepared to vote for it tomorrow. Unless I heard wrong. Why would he say that? and why would he say that and admit it was wrong? Was it a threat that they can bring it back up?

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Yes. Dewhine is the one exception

His statement that he was ready to vote for it was cleary meant as a weasel way out of the future nuke option. But that still leaves six who said it was not good, and that wraps up the nuke option until the next Congress (in which we take back seats, or deserve to lose everything).

[GreenArrow]

6. then they could have voted against the nuke option

without making any "deals." Right is right, after all.

If they are really so principled, lets see them vote "down" on these "judges" who have already been duly and fairly shitcanned.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. That's not the point

I'm not talking about what "could have" happened. I'm talking about what CAN HAPPEN NOW and in the future. In the future, it will be extremely difficult for these six senators (and I'll exclude DeWhine as per posts above) to vote FOR the nuke option without appearing to contradict their very strong statements today. Could've should've would've. We need to think about the future.

[GreenArrow]

13. I suppose you're more of an optimist than I am

If nothing else, it'll be interesting to see where it leads. But I hold little faith in the good auspices of the Republicans here.

[TheGunslinger]

8. *SEVEN*??? Then that's PROOF that Sonofabitch McConnell was LYING!

I knew he was lying.

I can't stand that self-righteous prick!!

I'm going to call his office tomorrow and laugh my ass off!!!

[brentspeak]

10. The whole point of a filibuster is to prevent crony judges like Owens

and Brown in the first place. That's what it's there for -- to protect the American people. Who cares how this "deal" affects the Senatorial political chessboard?

[TheGunslinger]

11. Do we have the names of the 7 and are they on the record?

[housewolf]

12. The fact that a pollitician says something is bad

doesn't mean that they won't vote for it.

Politics are about compromise. There are many, many factors that go into determining a senator's vote, only 1 of which is whether they think it's right or wrong.

We all think that politics should be simple black/white, do the right thing but in reality, votes are WAY more complex than that.

All I'm saying is this - the fact that 7 Repub senators said that the nuclear option is wrong doesn't mean that all 7 would have voted against it. Some of them have already said that they were prepared to vote for it and are relieved that they don't have to.


Remember tha book - "All I ever needed to know I learned in kidergartern?" Well, what's one of the very first things you ever learned about politics.... it's dirty, right? It's dirty. Right.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Obviously

My point is simply that should we be pushed to a showdown again, those same Republican senators will have to defend their previous action in trying to avoid the nuclear option. I make no claims about how they would have voted this time around, had it come to that. If it is bad for the country and the senate in May 2005, then how is it not bad for the country in November 2005, or February 2006? Explain that? The Democrats made no such possibly contradictory claims regarding judicial filibusters. My point here is to counter those who say "Some deal, Frist can now just invoke the nuke next time he wants some radical nutbag in!" I don't think he can. I think by entering into this agreement, these seven Republicans have basically put Frist5 on notice that the nuke is OFF the TABLE, at least for the remainder of this Congress.

[Mass]

15. Democratic Senators admitted that Justice Brown and Owen

were not extremists. And they signed on refraining to filibuster extremist judges like that. Sorry, this is bad.

And this is probably for nothing because the same thing will occur if the Democrats want to filibuster Renquist's successor. (or are these 6 Democrats ready to accept Scalia as head of the SC?).