It's important to look at the present "crisis" in the big picture...

[kentuck]

Wherever we are at present is only a temporary place. It is not possible to say who "won" or who "lost" at this time. The Republican majority is split. With the split, they are a minority, if the Democrats stand with the "gang of 14" in the middle. But the Republican leadership has not accepted that reality yet.

It is not certain that the Senators that created the "compromise" have accepted that reality yet. No doubt, there are multiple arm-twistings going on as we speak. Will Senators Dewine and Graham hold up under the pressure? That is an open question. If they fold, the Repubs again will have a working "majority". If they hold, Bush and the "neo-cons" have been put in a cage where they belong.

This battle is only beginning. It is not over. The "nuclear option" is still a threat. We are dependent on a few brave Republicans to hold the line.

[EST]

1. Amazing, isn't it?

How often the enemy of my enemy becomes my friend.

[CWebster]

2. Maybe

But in this strategy they can still do their master's bidding under the illusion of moderation. These senators reflect well for the public--they are not getting their arms twisted, they are getting their heads patted for a job well done.

[kentuck]

3. No, I don't think they are getting patted on the head...

hardly...

[CWebster]

4. Ha,

You think Rove wasn't on the ball about growing negative perceptions--especially with the Republican Senate? Send in good soldier McCain to save the day and still get those judges.

By hook or by crook.

[kentuck]

6. Yes, they got their judges but...

they would have gotten them anyway. The only thing the Dems won on this was time. They gave up the right-wing judges in the hopes of keeping open debate in the Senate. If the Repubs on the "compromise" do not stand their ground, it was all for naught, you are correct. But if they do stand their ground, it is a major defeat for Bush and the Republicans. Because it is not just about the "filibuster", it is about the 60 votes for cloture and the request that Bush seek the advice and consent of the Senate before sending these people up for nomination. That is part of the agreement, also. I agree that we gave up a lot. But, only time will tell if it was worth it.

[BillZBubb]

5. I think you are wrong, we lost and it's evident at this time.

There is no real split in the Republican ranks, that's an illusion and wishful thinking on our part. Sure, they didn't actually kill the filibuster, but they got their judges an up/down vote which was their original goal.

They'll go nuclear in the future if the Democrats attempt a filibuster. So, we got nothing, they got their circuit court nominees approved.

The big picture is this: Once again, the Democrats, while claiming the Bush nominees are unfit for the court and must be stopped, surrendered at the first sign of resistance. The Democrats won't fight for what they supposedly believe in.

The implications for Democrats in national elections is clear. If they won't fight the Republicans on serious issues, how can they be trusted to fight the terrorists or other foreign enemies???? This is why we lose the male vote over and over and over.

[pgh_dem]

7. C'mon...I agree that this was a bad deal, but don't blame on ALL...

Democrats.

The Democratic Senate leadership did fight hard, way past the first sign of resistance. So it is unfair to generalize to all Dem senators.

The truth is the "centrists" caved (arguably on both sides), and they roped in Byrd, who just wanted to preserve his idea of a collegial Senate.

Byrd wanted "Country, tradition - then us" (meaning party interests), but the Lieberman/Landrieu/Nelson types wanted "Corporations and corporate money, corporations and corporate money, (repeat 100x), then anything else".

Just saying don't blame Reid, Boxer, Feingold and their allies for the corporate sellout.

[kentuck]

8. But we had to have 7 Dems to go with 7 Repubs....

and we needed 7 Repubs. That was a magic number.

[placton]

9. Sorry, my friend

the Dems in the Senate are, mostly, passing around the "support the GOP" flag. Somedays its Stabenow from MI voting for the bankruptcy abomination and our new Atty General. Somedays its this gang of 7.

We need to realize these folks are all the same.

[kentuck]

10. I think what we are seeing is possible breakup of the Repub Party..

This is a very fragile position for them. There are many moderate Repubs that are not happy with the present direction of their Party. They have to handle this situation with kid gloves or else it could backfire on them. This is an historical moment in the history of the Senate, in my opinion.

Otherwise, you make very valid points.

[pgh_dem]

14. Ok, but on this point alone, the majority of Senate Dems fought hard

This whole compromise, in my opinion, is only a victory for McCain, who gets to play middleman. It slaps down Frist and the far right, but only because their rhetoric was amped up to go nuclear and win. They're slow on the uptake, but soon they'll realize they get everything they want, and the Dems who crossed over get zip.

Landrieu and Byrd voted for Owen...maybe they got something under the table (a no on Bolton for UN, or Brown/Pryor/one of the others), but I have a feeling the nutcases will wake up happy some time next week.

[BillZBubb]

13. Point taken.

I guess my frustration is that one time it's this 7 that cave, another time some others, another time some others, etc, etc.

I don't buy that the Repugs caved in this or are splintered. They got everything they wanted without having to kill the filibuster (yet). They played good cop/bad cop and got the Dems to fold. The Repugs will stick together when a Bush Supreme Court nomination is made, no matter how reactionary.

In just this month or so, we've seen the Democrats support a big chunk of money for the Iraq rathole without a murmur, a pro big-business bankruptcy bill, Sen. Levin backing whimp Norm Coleman in attacking Galloway, now this collapse that will allow virtually all of Bush's radicals to pack the courts.

Our party consists of way too many weak links. We lack the unity of purpose (and discipline) that allows the party with minority positions to rule as the majority (ie the Repugs).

[Doctor_J]

11. You're right, amBushed

There is no split in the GOP, that's a bunch of propaganda that Rove has approved for the MSM to disseminate. They got everything they wanted (all the RW judges will be approved) while appearing to "compromise".

It is true that we have had exactly zero say in what's happened over the last 4-1/2 years - the regressive tax cuts, the crushing deficit, the endless war to put tax dollars in Halliburton's pockets, the media takeover, the shredding of the consitution, and, worst of all, the sacrifice of 3,000 people at the WTC so that all the other stuff could happen.

The upside is that when the US burns, as it must (like every other empire run by sociopaths), we can say that we tried.

[kentuck]

12. "all the RW judges will be approved"?

I seriously doubt that. I think they agreed upon three and those three will no doubt pass. They would have passed those anyway. But the Democrats have bought time. The 7 Repubs are still Repubs and the only issue they have joined upon is the nomination of judges and the right to unfettered debate in the Senate. If they hold, it slows down the right-wing juggernaut that has been on a fast and deadly pace to run over the entire minority. Something had to be done. We gave up a lot and only time will tell if it was worth it. But this battle is far from over.

[Doctor_J]

15. This sounds alot like a win

"those three will no doubt pass. They would have passed those anyway"

"But the Democrats have bought time."

"have joined upon ... the nomination of judges and the right to unfettered debate in the Senate"

"it slows down the right-wing juggernaut that has been on a fast and deadly pace to run over the entire minority"

I take it all back. It was a big win.

:sarcasm: