A Republican civil war

[WilliamPitt]

Neither side is happy about the filibuster compromise, which probably means it was good.

Understand that they didn't have to compromise. They could have threatened any wayward Senators with the loss of chairmanships or other plums and held that ground. When the Dems reacted with parliamentary moves to lock the Senate, they would have run a dozen 'important' bills up the flagpole and painted us as obstructionist etc.

Maybe it would have exposed Frist et al. as the extremists they are, but in the long run the GOP would have won the standoff, the filibuster would be gone, and there would be ten wackos on the applelate court instead of three. Without the filibuster, the road to SCOTUS would be wide open and free for any yahoo to get the nod.

These kind of defensive setting-firebreaks/victorious retreat wins are what happens when you are in the minority. I think a lot of people here forget that we are in the minority, or don't understand just what that means as far as our leverage goes. Saving the filibuster was an absolute must, given our minority status.

But I am loving what I am seeing as a result. The Freeps are wild with rage, Hannity was apoplectic last night, and the extreme-right Senators are threatening to push this fight all over again in defiance of the deal. There are seven GOP Senators on record as saying killing the filibuster is 'bad for America,' so what we have here is a big fat rift right down the middle of that party.

Give this a few days. There may be benefits to this we haven't even considered. If the GOP goes to war with itself in the next weeks and months, the 2006 midterms will be very interesting, and the landscape for SCOTUS nominations will have dramatically changed.

Think about it: Whoever wins that civil war, we win. If the extremists win, they will over-reach and we still have the filibuster. If the 'moderates' win, a degree of normalcy will return to the Senate, and we still have the filibuster.

Get your popcorn.

[davidinalameda]

1. yum popcorn!

:popcorn:

but I still have a bad feeling that the three worst candidates will now have a free pass

[WilliamPitt]

3. Free pass to where?

They'll get voted on and probably approved, yes. Is that what you mean?

[davidinalameda]

48. free pass to a life time appointment on the federal bench

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. As opposed to the free pass they would've TAKEN anyway?

Seriously, what exactly were your criteria for success and what was its likelihood of happening?

[davidinalameda]

52. my criteria included not putting the 3 worst judges on the bench

and I think that the likelihood was 50/50

If they had put up others instead of Pryor, Owens and Brown, I would be more accepting but this is just another example of the "moderates" selling out the rest of us

[Beetwasher]

2. I've Been Staying Out of The Brooha Here On DU and Taking a Wait and See

Attitude...I hope you're right, I'm not sure what to think, but I like the frothing that's happening on the other side and I like Reid coming out and declaring a victory.

How's it being spun on the idiot box and in the Coroporate Media?

[WilliamPitt]

5. Dunno, haven't looked.

Last night it was all about how good it was to 'preserve Senate tradition.' I don't know if that has changed.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

24. Tweety did say on Hardball that Frist just had a stick stuck in his

eye. That is always a pleasing mental image.

[returnable]

33. Niiiice.

Especially after Tweety predicted on his weekend show that Frist would win the fight, get all of Bush's nominees through, and emerge as the Hero of the Radical Right.

Proving, yet again, that Matthews is as sharp as a beachball.

[6th Borough]

67. Some fat old f*ck on Tweety called Joementum a "Left-Wing Extremist"

...or something rather along those lines.:eyes: I think the wacky right just might possibly have a slightly skewed view of this whole debacle :sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

73. It's being spun as a Democratic Win mainly, but a wash to cover Republican

bootaaay. The RW commentators were all very pissed. The Republicans could have steamrolled us, and as will said, got many more than 3 judges and taken our right to filibuster.

[wtmusic]

4. Major plus:

With Republicans split, moderates are far more likely to support us in upcoming legislation.

[tridim]

25. And the best part is, the split is more like a deep chasm

It's dividing the GOP right down the middle. The way it's shaking out, you're either with the Radical fundy rubber-stamp Fristians, or you're with the moderates. A divided GOP in 06 and 08 will be a dream for our side. Moderate repukes are very beatable because they will be destroyed by the radical right before the elections.

[moondust]

6. What good is a filibuster if you can't use it? n/t

[WilliamPitt]

8. Who says you can't use it?

That's the gripe I don't get. 'ERxtraordinary circumstances' my ass. The Dems kept the filibuster, and kept control of the terms under which it can be used.

They don't use it that much anyway. When was the last time the Democrats filibustered something? Can you tell me?

[moondust]

13. As soon as they indicate they will filabuster

Frist starts up his nuclear bulldozer. Only by the next time it happens he will have twisted arms/threatened at least 7 lives, careers, and families into submission.

[WilliamPitt]

14. I don't understand what you're saying

[moondust]

23. Delete.

[smartvoter]

19. This assumes the deal is in bad faith. If it is, we will win big in PR.nt

[moondust]

27. All they have to do is say

"NOT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES!" and the media will jump on board.

[smartvoter]

32. They said it's based on trust and subjective. I guess we're in

disagreement because if we do our part right now and let those judges in, we are acting in good faith. As soon as they fail to, we win...

The trouble with all this argument is it's forward looking. As the wise little green guy says, always in motion is the future.

I guess we'll have to wait and see who's right.

One thing is certain -- this was a huge black eye for Frist. There is real value there.

[markus]

68. McCain for one. This morning on NPR

he made it pretty clear that fillibustering judicial nominations would be allowed only if the GOP signatories agreed.

I realize were were at a bad pass, but all I can see--given they wouldn't give up at least one of the Terrible Three--is we blinked.

No one who fits the profile of the Terrible Three could be considered an extraordinary case. Which one do you want on the Supreme Court?

[Itsthetruth]

18. You're Still Getting It Wrong William! Senator Feingold Got It Right

The filibuster will not be used. ALL of Bush's judicial appointments will be approved. That's the bottom line. Case closed!

Now explain to me why this is a great victory for progressives that I and others should celebrate? I'm not buying that political spin. When someone is pissing on my head I'm not going to shout: "The drought is over, it's raining!"

You're still getting it wrong William and Senator Feingold got the meaning of this deal right. I hope you reconsider your position.

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold on Tonight's Decision Regarding Judicial Nominees and the Filibuster

May 23, 2005

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.

Please read Senator Feingold's complete statement at:

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/05/2 ...

[lastliberalintexas]

26. God I love Feingold

Why it isn't as patently obvious to others is beyond me.

[Inland]

9. With the loss on three to five nutbag judges, but I agree with hope

It seems to me that in a month where Bushler's approvals have dropped another four points, anything that puts off the final conflict for another day has got to help democrats.

The rifts are only going to grow wider as Bush loses power and the electorate becomes more knowledgeable of the theocrats and business interests behind these judges.

And if it doesn't---well, we were fucked anyway.

[Dudley_DUright]

10. Get your popcorn!

I was already eating some when I read that line. :popcorn:

[johnaries]

11. We've been waiting for some time for the Mod Cons and Neo-Cons to

really start dukeing it out. We've heard some grumbling, but I think it's about to get serious. Yes, the 2006 Elections could be VERY interesting!
:popcorn:

[smartvoter]

12. I knew this would be the case as soon as it was announced and have

gone out several times to look at Free Republic and there are literally thousands of posts, now, on this subject. They are imploding.

I know many others around here wanted an all-or-nothing outcome, but we faced just as much exposure from shutting it down ("We want to help the children, but the Dems won't let us..." and other such B.S.)

We're outgunned by a seriously unethical and dishonest majority. This is about as close as we're going to come to a win.

Let's enjoy the fallout.

[Blue_Roses]

45. another great post!

:thumbsup:

[Jack Rabbit]

I'm in agreement

My first reaction to the compromise was "Good grief, we're going to get these three whack jobs in the federal courts. This is a win for our side?"

However, for that price (a high one, I agree), we have preserved a mechanism of checks and balances in the process of nominating/approving judicial appointments.

Given that the radical right and its allies in Congress and the White House are determined to ride roughshod over any dissent, this was an important principle to uphold. Bush and his regime represent a threat to American democratic institutions. We should at least be pleased that a bi-partisan group of senators have resolved to preserve an important part of our political heritage.

This is neither a win or a loss; it is a compromise. It is not a compromise with extremists, but with reasonable people with whom we liberals and progressives often disagree on specific, narrowly defined political questions. There's nothing wrong with that kind of disagreement. We should see how it plays out.

[capriccio]

15. And about those three judges

If anyone thinks the Federal courts aren't already populated with the likes of these three, you haven't been paying attention. And let's not even get into Thomas, Scalia, and Rhenquist. The bottom line is this: if Owens and especially Brown are as bad as their past comments and decisions indicate, they will now be right where they ought to be: in the spotlight.

[Coexist]

17. I can see the headlines now

"Owens, a controversial nominee whose approval vote almost shut down the United States Senate, made an extremely controversial ruling today, reigniting calls for her impeachment."

[lastliberalintexas]

29. Well by that reasoning

Ashcroft or Gonzalez should be named to the Supreme Court. To put them in the spotlight, you know. :eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Saved the filibuster? You mean the one that wasn't used on the judges?

The 3 that are going to get in unopposed by a filibuster. The filibuster that we are "saving" for really bad nominees? The one that the Republicans won't use the nuke on at their whim?

It's kinda like the IWR yea votes that "saved" us from invading Iraq. That was declared a "victory" too.

[bobthedrummer]

20. I'm ok with everything except the persistent rumor that Bolton is tied to

this-I'm not ok if it was agreed to give Bolton a pass:grr:
This is the next test politically, John Bolton's UN nomination by the neo-conservative dominated BFEE.

There better not have been a deal struck about Frist involving Bolton.

[WilliamPitt]

22. Were we going to filibuster Bolton?

I hadn't heard that.

People are acting like the filibuster was used six days a week and twice on Sunday. It wasn't. I actually can barely remember the last time it was used. It wasn't used on the ANWR drilling bill, for example.

[bobthedrummer]

28. My Senator is Russ Feingold, I trust him-these other folks I don't trust.

Who knows all the reasons for the deal-I hope you're right about a Republican civil war though--it's long overdue.

[WilliamPitt]

34. That doesn't answer my question

Were we going to filibuster Bolton?

[bobthedrummer]

44. Who really knows, Will?

The Bolton nomination hasn't happened, and most folks thought it would just sail through.

There's a lot going on, who really knows?

[progressoid]

85. OK, so if we rarely use it - how is this a victory?

What's the point of compromising to save a tool we rarely use?

[lastliberalintexas]

21. It's just an act

The republicans got almost everything they wanted- nominees to the bench, a Democratic party which is seen as even weaker than before (after all, we can't even stand firm when we have the public behind us?), and their base all worked up about our obstructionist techniques in order to lay the ground work for Senatorial campaigns in 2006. They've gotten 99% of their appointees now, but that won't be enough. They now have a new rallying cry for the right wing.

There won't be a civil war in the republican party- the compromise guarantees that the supposed republican moderates can keep voting in lock step with Bush while retaining the appearance of centrism. If they'd actually been forced to vote, people like Chafee would have had to buck the party (something he's not done in quite a while) or else show his true colors to the people of RI. Instead, he and the others can now play the statesman.

We've only saved the filibuster *temporarily*. As soon as they need it, especially in time for the SC, the republicans will pull the nuclear option out again and we'll be back to where we were yesterday. Only with a few more corporatists on the bench than there were yesterday. And it will be many more than 3- you can bet money on that.

We didn't win anything other than the Neville Chamberlain Award for Appeasement.

[Itsthetruth]

31. Will You Be "Loving" The Result Of This Deal?

"But I am loving what I am seeing as a result."

And when Bush's most reactionary right-wing appointments are approved under this deal will you also be loving that William?

[returnable]

41. Who said the public was behind us?

Every poll that I've seen offered the same conflicting information:

By almost equal numbers, Americans wanted to keep the filibuster AND wanted all nominees to receive up and down votes.

That's not exactly a mandate for a showdown, especially when ya factor in that an overwhelming number of Americans don't even give a shit about this crisis, anyway.

[chalky]

66. Exactly! What makes THIS bout of hissy-pissy fits

any more meaningful than all their other hissy-pissy fits?

They've been whiny-ass crybabies even while controlling the all three branches AND the media. They moaned while they shoved Real ID down our throats and they groaned while they manufactured the crisis on Social Security. They've got indignant rage down to an artform. And I'm supposed to believe there's something significantly different in and a reason to celebrate over this instance?

[kentuck]

30. Possibly..

They have a very fragile coalition. I have compared it to a house of cards. If one cards falls, they could collapse. Bush's support is a mile wide and an inch deep, in my opinion.

[Itsthetruth]

42. William: Will Progressive Democrats Of America Support This Deal?

I doubt it. If PDA were to come out with a statement supporting this "deal" manufactured by the most conservative "Republican lite" Democratic Senators in collaboration with Republican Senators, that would amount to political suicide.

That's just speculation on my part, but since you're a leader of PDA you can speak with knowledge and authority on how such a PDA endorsement would impact the organization and its supporters.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

35. The Freeps want to donate to opponents of dewine, etc. Even to Dems!

I urge that all republican potential donors take any money they would have give to the RNC and give it to the primary opponents of the sickening seven-

Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island Mike DeWine of Ohio Susan Collins of Maine Lindsey Graham of South Carolina John McCain of Arizona John W. Warner of Virginia Olympia J. Snowe of Maine

And should any of the sickening seven win their primaries give money to their democratic opponents. That way perhaps some day a real conservative could come along and win the seat.

The way I see it, they offer nothing positive, all they do is harm the republican party and help the democrats. So IMO That should be the base's biggest priority these fake republicans need to be thrown out of the senate.

[WilliamPitt]

40. Link?

[smartvoter]

56. There are many. Here's one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1409499/posts

[kwassa]

36. I don't agree with your thesis that the Repubs could corral wayward

senators.

Frist would not deal if he had confidence in his ability to get the votes he had to have.

He knew he didn't have them, the deal was struck, he still wins because he breaks the Democratic impasse on the three judicial candidates blocked so far.

[WilliamPitt]

38. Frist didn't make this deal

The other Senators did. They went around him.

[Blue_Roses]

51. that's what makes this so sweet

:D Frist doesn't hold the power in the Senate.

[bvar22]

57. The DLC ALSO went around party consensus...

..to make this deal with the Republicans to get 3 more fanatical Corporatist judges on the bench.

It is possible that Reid wasn't told until after the coup, but that is still unconfirmed.

[Blue_Roses]

59. Reid didn't have much choice from where he sat

either way. We are the minority. What part of this do people not get?:eyes:

I believe Reid is the one who proposed the compromise a few weeks ago anyway.

[smartvoter]

64. Evidently, the "minority" part. nt

[bvar22]

65. REID as leader of the Democratic Senators....

...should be the one making DEALS with unified Democratic Party consensus....
NOT Lieberman and the DLC.

What part of that don't you get?:eyes:

Corporate Pedigrees of Senators making the DEAL:
Joe Lieberman--DLC

Ben Nelson---DLC

Mary Landrieu---DLC

Mark Pryor---DLC

Ken Salazar---no DLC listing, PHenry rating -(minus)100

Kent Conrad---No DLC listing, PHenry rating -(minus)97.5

Robert Byrd---No DLC listing, PHenry rating -(minus) 60

These are the MOST conservative PRO-CORPORATE anti LABOR Democratic Senators in Washington DC.
Did they serve YOU, or their Corporate Masters?

The biggest objection that the Democrats had against Owens and Pryor were that they ALWAYS ruled in fovor of CORPORATE POWER.


Do you REALLY think that the Working Class (Democrats) got a deal?

If you WORK for a LIVING, you have been stabbed in the back by the Democrats who openly solicit BRIBES from those who OWN the Corporations!

[Blue_Roses]

71. Hold on now. Back that gloom and doom train up. You're getting ahead of

yourself.

REID as leader of the Democratic Senators should be the one making DEALS with unified Democratic Party consensus...

It was Reid who first initiated the compromise weeks ago.

These are the MOST conservative PRO-CORPORATE anti LABOR Democratic Senators in Washington DC.
Did they serve YOU, or their Corporate Masters?

As a matter of fact, ONE of these Senators DOES INDEED serve me in my home state of Arkansas--Mark Pryer--and while he may be a centrist, he is definitely for the "little people." His dad also has an outstanding record in politics.

As for whether I "got a deal" I would have to say "yes" and the reason being, we are in the minority. Compromise is all we have going for us right now. I've been around long enough to see that in politics compromise is indeed good. Does compromise mean that we get everything we want? Hell no, but it is a start. A start to putting this high school bickering in the Congress behind us and move on with the needs of us--the little people. There is POWER in compromise and that is what most here who disagree are missing in this venture.

[bvar22]

74. Mark Pryor is a member of an organization...

...whose goal is to increase the POWER and INFLUENCE of Corporate Management in the Democratic party.

If you work for a living, I hope you never wind up in Owen's court. The POWER of those who OWN the Corporations has GROWN as a result of "The Compromise".

The Democratic Party got NOTHING but spin.

[Blue_Roses]

76. How the hell would you know

you live in Minnesota:eyes: I live here and see what he does or tries to do for us under a right wing Republican governor. I see this *cough* debate is going nowhere. Let's just agree to disagee. That's called--compromise.

[bvar22]

78. Simple.

I keep up. :eyes:


Mark Pryor, Democratic U.S. Senator, AR....Member DLC

PHenry rating...-(minus)80

VOTED with the Republicans on the Bankruptcy Bill
Some champion of the little people

In his defense, he did vote AGAINST tort reform.


But that's NOT the point. This group of 7 conservative Senators on their OWN without Party consensus went behind the Party Leadership and brokered their own deal with the Repuiblicans that put 3 Fanatic Corporatist Judges on the Federal Bench.

Whether Reid suggested this compromise last month in immaterial. Some here said that Reid only made the offer because he KNEW the Republicans would REJECT it, making them look EXTREMIST.

The BIG loss for the Democrats here is that the Republicans NOW look like Moderate Compromisers without sacrificing ANY their extremist agenda. BIG PR WIN for the Republicans.

[Blue_Roses]

80. Sorry but

this will be my last post on this for awhile. I've spent too much time already on a debate that is going nowhere. Point is: I didn't agree with Bill Clinton on everything he did, nor will I agree with every decision my Democratic representatives make, however, I will continue to support them rather than bash them. Time is the truth-all for what took place yesterday. We can argue until the day is long and it still won't change what DID happen or what may happen in the future.

Look, one of things that has allowed the repubs to stay in power as long as they have is that they are lock-step with one another--until now. Doesn't that tell you anything? The uproar is insidious from the repubs. We were in a lose-lose situation and no amount of "holding out" for a better deal was going to change that. Having a "compromise" gives us more power and leverage. Would you rather those 7 repubs stand with Frist or with us?

[smartvoter]

79. This is a good point. Reid did try to compromise. Frist wouldn't, so

it was done in the ranks. Reid was dealing with someone hell-bent on killing the filibuster so the deal was cut around the leaders.

[kwassa]

72. I think Frist was apprised throughout the negotiations

He wouldn't be Senate majority leader if he wasn't.

The idea that this small group worked without the tacit approval of the leadership of both sides is highly improbable. They would not have been able to reach a deal without consulting Frist and Reid.

[tavalon]

88. Yep, this is the point I get hung up on

No way, no how was Frist not in on this. Reid too.

[returnable]

43. Frist didn't cut this deal.

Similarly, using your logic, the Dems never would've agreed to it if they knew they could block the nuclear option.

The fact is that Reid could not guarantee more than 49 votes.

I for one wouldn't wanna gamble. Without the compromise, we were looking at least two years of unrestrained rightwing judicial nominations.

For those who say we're gonna get that anyway, I say take a pill and let's see what happens first.

[Quixote1818]

50. You make a really good point nt

[donsu]

37. 2006 midterms will still be rigged

nt

[LeftCoast]

63. Rigged elections can only happen in close races...

Just an observation...

[Blue_Roses]

39. well said

:thumbsup:

[gordianot]

46. Civil War is right, you don't need bullets to have a Civil War

The congressional tone today seems to very similar to what occurred 150 years ago. Slavery was real and the Union was divided by both ideas and region. Radicals on both sides managed derail compromise. History showed that the "anti" slavery radicals were right.

One party is the goal of the current radicals. Interestingly enough modern liberals and progressives have become the real "Conservatives" as they attempt to retain the Governmental Institutions on which this country and Union was founded. Maybe history will show that the maintenance of the Republic was right.

[sadiesworld]

47. You're trying to sell a stinker here, Will.

And a new thread isn't going to help.

[proud patriot]

49. My sigline agrees

;-)

[goodboy]

53. I still don't see how this means the pukes won't get who they want

on the SCOTUS. The language is "filibuster only in extreme circumstances. How many different definitions of "extreme" do you think there are? This is important because Renquist is most certainly on borrowed time.

[ibegurpard]

54. Will wait and see

Part of the whole spin thing is getting your loonies to decry the "compromise." The key is to do it enough to make it seem like you DO have problems with the agreement but not so much as to rally opposition against it...because you really DO like it.

So we need to wait and see how long and hard this right-wing opposition goes on. It may just be the smokescreen to make the agreement seem reasonable.

[spanone]

55. The religious right is REALLY pissed and nothing makes me happier.

We could have lost the filibuster and with the majority, they could have gotten all 5 of these nominees voted in.

[im10ashus]

58. I am waiting for the benefits.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

[ginnyinWI]

60. The glass is half full for me

It seems to me that this is good for America in the long run.

It also seems to me that the 14 are patriots before partisans, and care more about America's future than partisan interests, and that's as it should be. Good legislators know how to make good compromises.

We can't have it all, and neither can they. Dems are more likely to realize this, and right-wingers less likely. They are black-or-white, all-or-nothing thinkers, and that's why they are all going ballistic today. ;)

[Beetwasher]

61. NYT Calling this a BUSH VICTORY!!!!!

Motherfucking, bootlicking, cocksuckers...:puke:

A Modest Victory for Bush, but More Tests Lie Ahead
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: May 24, 2005


WASHINGTON, May 23 - President Bush won enough from the bipartisan compromise on judicial nominees on Monday night to claim a limited victory, but he now faces a series of additional tests of his political authority, with the stakes extending to the fate of his second-term agenda.

On the plus side for Mr. Bush, the bipartisan agreement among 14 centrist senators expressly called for up-or-down votes on three of his nominees to federal appeals court seats, all but ensuring their confirmations, though it left in limbo the fate of two more.

By explicitly exempting from the agreement two additional judges opposed by Democrats, it did not meet Mr. Bush's oft-stated demand that all his nominees get a vote, and it did not foreclose the possibility that Democrats could block an eventual nominee to the Supreme Court, a matter of intense concern to the White House. The split-the-baby outcome, moreover, did little to resolve a rolling series of challenges to Mr. Bush that in coming days and weeks could do much to set the tone for his second four years in office.

On Tuesday, the House is to vote on a bill that would defy Mr. Bush and lift restrictions on federal financing of stem-cell research, legislation that stands a good chance of passing.

--snip--

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24assess.html?oref=login

[progressoid]

86. I'm afraid the NYTs is right in this one

He certainly hasn't been too upset about it publicly.

[Beetwasher]

87. Not Him, But His Mouthpieces and Water Carriers Are Going Nuts

So, I'd have to disagree...

[tex-wyo-dem]

62. I agree with you, Will...

All in all, this was a good outcome for the Dems. Reid's response in contrast to Frist's was perfect making the Dems look like the ones who were reasonable and happy to compromise and the Fristians look like the extremists they are.

Make no mistake, Frist wanted this to happen now with the lower court nominees because he knew that the ones really paying attention were the far RW radicals that wanted it worse than he did and who would give them their unqualified support if it was successful. Negative backlash would be minimal since most moderates and independents were not paying attention and would get a glossed over summary from the media. If he tries to pull the nuclear option for a SCOTUS nominee, the profile will be much, much higher as will the political risk.

I've been thinking about this since last night -- was this all part of Reid's strategy? In the days and weeks leading up to last night, Reid at least gave the appearance of wanting to compromise with Frist, with widely publicized private meetings, debate on the floor, etc. Reportedly after those talks fell through, Reid gave up and prepared for the showdown...or did he? Was he actually facilitating this compromise behind the scenes knowing that this could effectively cut the radical right off at the knees and fragment the Rethugs? One wonders...

Something else that seemed fairly evident to me: Pressure was being applied by the corporatist RW for a comprimise...the last thing they wanted was a disabled or shutdown Senate unable to pass their pro-corp. legislation. This seems to me to be a major trump card that Reid can play at any time of his choosing...Frist wants to invoke the nuclear option, Reid can just respond with threatening to disable the Senate, corporatists demand a compromise, filibuster is retained.

[LightningFlash]

69. This is what I've been saying all along....

The compromise ends up as a loss for both sides, but in the end republicans are NOT lock-stepping to the leader's agenda, are becoming increasingly distressed, and there is a true civil war brewing in.

Republican senators, more than 6, remain fully opposed to Frist's abuse of power. Enough to tip the balance and another who is really questioning Frist's motives.

Democrats, overall, refuse to even engage in this game. Democracy has been ripped back into the people's hands, and republicans who are centrists, conservatives, extremist and moderate are all fighting with eachother.

All of this in-fighting will bring down the circus and I believe as the Downing Street Memo truly catches fire, the Senate will fully investigate and get into the illegal war violations.

Remember, in a war of this proportions whoever's standing on the outside and no matter their heritage is the one who wins.

[DemBeans]

70. it's far too soon to tell

Yes, we keep the filibuster for now, but the real test will be if we're allowed to use it. I think we're on shaky ground having to rely on 7 Republican senators to agree that a filibuster is being done under "extraordinary circumstances", and if the majority of the 7 don't, we're right back to the nuclear option. So, I don't think anyone can declare victory until this agreement is tested.

That said, I'm enjoying the meltdown that's occuring within the far right. This might indeed be the split of the GOP we've been predicting since Reagan opened the door to the insanely religious, and it's going to be fascinating to watch.

[lala_rawraw]

75. I want a divorce...

Sorry, but how much is enough corruption? One cannot compromise on principles and there is nothing worth salvaging in the way of Ms. Owen and her handler, Karl Rove. This is a disgrace. They caved. I will never be convinced that Ms. Owen was worth compromising for. Never!! I have had enough of the Republicans. I have had enough with Iran Contra, drug deals, child trafficking, murder, war, Watergate, slavery, etc. I have had enough of their anti-Christian God chatter. I have had enough of 9/11, red alerts, fake documents, torture, etc. I just have had enough. There is no way that a corrupt political Rove puppet (the other one) like Owen has the right sit on any bench, not even on a playground bench, let alone a higher bench.

The Dems had the right, no, the duty to say no to a bribed judge, a Halliburton and Enron owned judge, and unethical and frankly, elected by the Rove machine judge. They had the duty to us, the citizens, not a duty to reach an agreement that does not even consider the implications of this women's role for us.

I want a divorce from the Republicans and I am not going to settle for anything else. There were chances to set wrong to right. There were chances to renounce the fake installment of King George and the faux election of 2004. There were chances to ask real questions about 9/11, oppose the bankruptcy bill, the real ID act. These were all squandered for the sake of "friendship" in the House and Senate. But what about us? Us, the people these laws, actions and inactions directly impact?

We share a continent, but we need not share a country. I think they will agree as we do, divorce!

[JackDragna]

77. The difference between the Dems and Republicans..

..is that Republicans are much better at enforcing party loyalty. They still get everything they want, with the threat of the nuclear option hanging over our heads like the sword of Damocles. There's as much chance of a Republican civil war as there is of Bush being impeached.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. The difference is that the Repugs have better seats at the trough.

But, they all feed from the same one provided by corporate America.

[me b zola]

81. I am in agreement with Senator Feingold & many other Duer's

I believe that the compromise was not made in good faith from the republicans, that they will attempt to nuke us in the future. That being said, I am putting aside those beliefs/thoughts/feelings to make the best of the situation.

I do not beleive that the chism in the republican party is an act, I believe that it is quite real. Since the reCorination of * we have seen an absolute centralization of power in the Executive Branch of government. It wasn't enough that they controlled both the House & the Senate, the Supreme Court, the press, & the Oval Office; the administration set about strong-arming the Congressmen & Senators into complete & total complience with every bit of legislation put forward, we have seen this played out on the floor of the Senate day after day--strict locked step voting from the republicans. This, I believe, is beginning to make some republicans with an ounce of conscience nervous; well okay, maybe they just fear their constituents and the thought of re-election.

I just saw on MSNBC Tony Perkins from the family research council talking about retaliating against the republicans who supported the 'compromise'. This is another piece of evidence that supports your theory of chism within the republican party. Although I didn't/don't support the 'compromise' I do support fracturing the republican party, and am more than happy to assist their implosion.

So here is where I stand. I will stop bitching about how crappy I feel the 'compromise' is/was, and use my energy to go forward to advance the Democratic Party's fight against tyranny.



PEOPLE UNITE!!!!!

[tex-wyo-dem]

83. I too was wondering at first how Dems could possibly take....

the Rethugs at their word regarding this agreement. I mean, what is the definition and who will define "exceptional circumstances?" I thought that's the only reason you really brought a filibuster to the floor in the first place was exceptional circumstances, so what sort of deal is this?

But, looking a little deeper at what happened last night, this compromise was brought about by "centrist" Dems and Reps (in reality, corporatist senators) who are worried about pissing off big business with an impending Senate shutdown. This was the real power behind the compromise. What this effectively does is gives the Dems a powerful card to play...IMO the nuclear option is no longer an option as far as the true powers that be are concerned.

The aftershock of this has been the sudden chasm it has created within the Rethug party. As far as the theocratic radical RW is concerned, there is no compromise...this is going to get ugly for them and that is good.

[WilliamPitt]

84. MORE

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

[dave123williams]

89. Strangely, Pat Buchanan called this during the election...said there was a

'looming rift' and a 'civil war' in the GOP. Popcorn, yes.

[efhmc]

90. I predict that neither will happen. They will seal their rift because the

love of power is far greater than their love of country and go on with their power grab. They will stuff the SC and liberty and freedom as we know it will be not just ailing but dead.

[Jose Diablo]

91. There is no rift only a disagreement in methods

The Republican agenda is continuing it's progress. Notice the 3 nominees will not be filibustered?

The Republicans need the ability to filibuster also, if nothing more than to insure they retain a voice IF in the future they become once again the minority.

The looming crisis, a shutdown of the Senate, was averted. But to who's advantage? The current legislative agenda is the destruction of the progressive laws now on the books.

The progressives within the Democratic party have been labeled as extremists, not worthy of consideration, by 'moderates' within this party. This deal is a great victory for the progressives? I for one don't think so when those that brokered this deal ignore the needs of the people and march along with the other corporatist across the aisle. These 'moderates' I add, that no matter what we wish was happening within the opposition, have marched with the agenda of dismantling the progressive laws we had and have on the books.

I would suggest a closer look at our so called 'moderates' within our own party, before breaking out the champaign and popcorn.

Sometimes it's really hard to know who are your friends, and who are your enemies.

I for one, do not like the moniker 'extremist' being laid on those to the left of 'moderates', by those within our own party.

I disagree that this was not the time for a showdown. It would have been far better, IMO, to shutdown this legislative agenda.

You may disagree, but let's just watch and see just how far a hoped for civil war with the Republican party will go.

In the meantime, we can watch what Owens does too.