If you're saying we won't be able to filibuster, you're hurting the Dems.

[Guaranteed]

"A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. **Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.**

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

---------------------

It's up to the Democrats to get out there and let it be known that we FULLY RETAIN the right to filibuster AT OUR DISCRETION. I've seen that the Republicans are trying to play it off as if they get to make the judgment as to what's an "extraordinary" circumstance, but that's not the case. We need to let them know that if they suddenly decide that we're outside of our discretionary right and try the nuclear option, we're back to shutting it down.

The Republicans are SPINNING this. We have to stop them. And it does nothing but hurt us when we agree with them on the spin that THEY are trying to push.

[IndianaGreen]

1. The nuclear option remains on the table, according to Sen DeWine

Instead of trumpeting the merits of another Munich agreement, you should read what Russ Feingold said about this travesty:

This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/05/200552327.html

[Guaranteed]

2. If they do, and we filibuster, and they try to break the agreement,

they're cheats and chiselers.

[IndianaGreen]

3. But they are "cheats and chiselers"

and selling this travesty as a "victory" is as disingenous as Bush proclaiming mission accomplish onboard the USS Lincoln.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Oh no!

Not cheats and chislers! Never! Not them. They would never stoop so low.

There will not be another democratic attempt to fillibuster any judicial nominations below the SC level.

They won. We blinked.

[Guaranteed]

15. So you're saying you totally missed the point of the OP,

which was that your defeatist attitude and willingness to relinquish the right retained by us in the agreement are hurting our party.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. yeah thats it

my thinking that this deal sucks is a 'defeatest attitude'. Glad you showed me the error of my ways. Until now, until you straightened me out, I was thinking that handing the bullies our lunch money so that they won't kick us in the ass was a defeat. Now I see that it is instead a Great Victory as we are not getting kicked in the ass and we retain the right to not hand over our lunch money in the future. Now I know better.

Thank you joementum.
Thank you marykay.

:sarcasm:

[mmonk]

7. Which is why we are in this mess to begin with.

Breaking the rules is cheating. I still say this is a Faustian bargain.

[CTLawGuy]

14. no, they claim

"Democrats broke the agreement" and then assert the right to invoke the nuclear option, except this time have a fig leaf of justification.

they will exploit "extraordinary circumstances" to their advantage.

[Guaranteed]

16. That's the point. We retained our full right to filibuster

at OUR discretion. That's what "discretion" means. Now why would you argue otherwise?

You wanna just lay down and die?

[CTLawGuy]

did you READ Dewine's comments??

read them and then talk to me. they are the crux of what is horribly wrong with this deal. Next time we dare to filibuster, they will accuse us of breaking the agreement, and then N.O. all over again.

Republicans do NOT compromise in any real way.

[Guaranteed]

21. That's HIS bullshit spin.

He didn't say that it's at the discretion of each Senator, which is what the MEMO says. He apparently missed that part.

They're SPINNING this. My point is that WE need to get out in front and DECLARE that our right to filibuster is still there.

If we're not going to do that, we need get out of this agreement NOW.

[CTLawGuy]

22. his opinion is the one that counts

and I bet hes not the only one.

A paper can't cast a vote, a paper can't interpret itself. A paper can't correct the RW spin machine.

[CTLawGuy]

19. did you READ Dewine's comments??

read them and then talk to me. they are the crux of what is horribly wrong with this deal. Next time we dare to filibuster, they will accuse us of breaking the agreement, and then N.O. all over again.

Republicans do NOT compromise in any real way.

[lastliberalintexas]

34. They wouldn't be breaking any agreement

They didn't freaking agree to take the nuclear option off the table, for goodness sakes! They agreed to let us keep the filibuster, so long as we don't use it. In the event that we use it, they still have the nuclear option available. How the fuck is that a good deal for us?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. The crux.

Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions.

[delhurgo]

8. But the problem is that the 'nuclear option' would have passed

and these extreme judges (Brown, Owen, Pryor) would have been approved anyhow, but also with the fact that the filibuster would have been nuked.

At least now its preserved for the future, probably for the second Supreme Court nomination that Bush makes - THAT will be considered 'extraordinary circumstances' because it could shift the balance of the court.

There also the possibility of Democrats making gains in 2006 and be more able to beat the 'nuclear option.

This is clearly a win for Democrats. Its not a huge win, but what do you expect - the Republicans control every branch of the government.

[IndianaGreen]

9. But the GOP would have paid dearly for using the nuclear option

because Harry Reid was prepared to shutdown all Senate business. Good bye Bush's dismantling of Social Security, PATRIOT II, and the rest of Bush's second term Contract on America.

[Guaranteed]

12. Which is all they can do, STILL, if we filibuster and they decide

to break the agreement.

[IndianaGreen]

18. You are talking about a political party that has no honor among them

You are asking us to believe in the GOP!

[Guaranteed]

20. No, I'm asking you to stand up for the rights retained by us

in the agreement.

[IndianaGreen]

23. We have no rights under the agreement!

Did you really read the damned thing! We got nothing! They got their rotten judges in!

[MisterP]

5. do you have any evidence our posts will hurt the party?

[Guaranteed]

11. If you're not standing up for our right to filibuster, you're definitely

hurting the party.

[MisterP]

13. that's quite a step, from saying we can't filibuster under the new rules

to saying we shouldn't be allowed to

[Guaranteed]

17. Rights ARE what we can and can not do.

You are saying that we CAN'T.

[jojo54]

10. We may be able to filibuster, but it seems that the Dems

are going to confirm these nominees. What that could lead to is laws being changed to fit the freepers needs...laws that COULD affect the elections next year; laws that could affect how and what our children are being taught in public schools; laws that could affect our freedom (or what we have left of it); laws that could further damage the whos, wheres and whats of healthcare, SS and Medicare.

So in turn, the Dems ARE being hurt. And so is the general public.

[understandinglife]

24. No, you missed the point. And, Senator DeWine is making it real simple ...

... for everyone to get it, though some of us didn't need his help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3714853&mesg_id=3716060

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Guaranteed]

28. READ....THE...AGREEMENT.

You seem dead set on giving away our rights as Democrats.

Thanks a HELLUVA lot for that. GREAT job.

[understandinglife]

31. i.....did....thank.....you.

Suggest you read what Senator DeWine stated and think about it before you turn your snide comments and caps on, again. He 'gets it,' and he'll eagerly support the Majority leader pulling the nuclear trigger the first time a minority member claims 'extraordinary circumstance' regarding an appointment.

Suggest you read what Senator Feingold stated: "I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary."

And, before you post any more of your capitalized insults to persons who actually 'get it,' just read the comments like these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1804546#1805457


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[ultraist]

25. The way I read the Deal...

It pertains ONLY to JUDICIAL nominations. Which means they can threaten the Nuke option against the fillibuster in general. Perhaps that's what DeWine is referring to.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/TheDeal.pdf

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. They won't be filibustering Owens.

And, if they so much as raise a peep, the repugs will nuke them. The Dems sold out.

[ultraist]

27. Right, they agreed to not filibuster Owen, Pryor and Brown

[mzmolly]

30. NO they'll be VOTING on Owens.

The Senate is supposed to be able to do that.

[markus]

32. Did you hear Sen. McCain on NPR this morning

The clear GOP understanding is that the GOP will decide when we are free to fillibuster GOP nominees.

So, we're supposed to pretend in public that this is a good deal? Fine, then explain to me the Secret Codocil that makes this anything less than a mugging, and perhaps I'll agree.

[Guaranteed]

33. No, you're supposed to tell him that he's mistaken.

He knows the agreement he signed. We gave up no filibustering rights whatsoever.

If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have signed it.

If he breaks the agreement, we're back to square one and he loses his power as a centrist.

[markus]

35. BGL, you are the most *on message* guy I've met

since I used to get paid to be an on message guy.

I still think you're wrong. Hell, I'm even considering what (if anything) to post on the local rags board (which probably won't be exactly what I would say here).

I think we just need to agree there's what the agreement says and what it means, and that the two are now the same. You're willing to assert that its a clear and binding contract that the GOP violate at their peril. That's not a bad line. It's a good one.

Ain't true, but as a southerner I've never tried to let the facts get in the way of good argument, especially where there are multiple sets of facts to choose from

What I think happned (we got rolled) and what I'd say if they set up a man in the street outside my office today are too different things. From a public face perspective, you're position is probalby the best unless one goes down the Fiengold path.

If I get a microphone stuck under my nose, I"ll let you know which I choose. But we'd best start planning from the assumption we got rolled, and how are we going to handle it when we reach for our wallet and it's gone.