For those who think we got a raw deal on filibuster. What would you

[Quixote1818]

have done? Perhaps we could have done better but I just don't see how. Remember they have all the power. We were lucky they went behind Frists back. The Religious Right wanted everything!!! They wanted to go nuclear and then just push one extreme judge after another down our throat and their would have been nothing we could have done to stop it. Is that what you wanted? Is their something I am missing here?

Based on how both sides think they got a raw deal I think it was a draw however if we had lost the filibuster could they not have done anything they wanted? We would have been screwed!!! In that respect we got more than if they had gone nuclear. It was lose, lose for us but we didn't lose as bad as we could have. Thats the way I see it. When you are out of power you are screwed no matter how you slice it.

I am still trying to figure all this out but I just don't know what else we could have got out of this deal. They may still force a bunch of extreme judges on us (which they would have done anyway) but at least now we can stop them from putting in an extreme Supreme Court nominee. We were in a lose, lose situation but at least now we still have the filibuster to use for the Supreme Court.

Again, am I missing something? I am new to all this. What would you have done? I am open to you changing my mind.

[LoZoccolo]

1. If someone complains and doesn't post why...

...just ignore them and move on. Anyone can gripe on a message board about decisions they themselves don't have to make.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Well said. It feels like half of DU likes doing that though.

Comedians gripe about hecklers thinking they can do the comedian's job better than the comedian can. Politicians get 252 million people, most of whom have no real fucking clue at all, all thinking they know what to do better than they do.

[returnable]

54. So far in this thread, I've seen...

...no serious alternatives proposed and even a couple "Gee, I had a great plan, but I don't wanna tell you what it was"-type posts.

Typical.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

2. I guess we'd need to know the answer to this question:

How many of the 7 Republicans in the compromise group would have voted to end the filibuster option? Frist needed 50 votes (for Cheney to cast the tiebreaker), and with 55 Repukes, if 6 out of the 7 would have voted to retain it, the Democrats could have won outright and kept those three cretins off the bench to boot.

[Jawja]

18. But that's where the "deal"

comes in. Frist didn't have the votes. The 6 who brokered the compromise did that so that the GOP wouldn't have an outright defeat on the Senate floor.

[trotsky]

39. Right, an outright defeat.

Which apparently means the Dems would have won a total victory if the nuclear option had come to a vote, right?

Instead we weaken the filibuster (only for "extreme" candidates) and three GOP toadies get on the bench.

[mzmolly]

52. Frist claimed to have the 51, Graham was one of them who changed

his mind and is getting heat from the Rabid R's.

:shrug:

[GOTV]

56. Followed by....

... who knows how many worse candidates.

[trotsky]

61. I can hear it now...

"But <insert knuckle-dragger's name here> is a perfectly qualified nominee and not extreme in any way! The filibuster cannot be used here."

Ugh. Yeah, I reserve the right to piss and moan about this and no one is gonna tell me that I can't second-guess our Democratic leadership because at this point I'm four-hundred-thirteenth-guessing them after seeing them cave that many times.

[housewolf]

95. We didn't have 6 out of the 7

Two of them (DeWine and Graham) both said on tv last night that they would have voted FOR the nuclear option. They didn't want it to happen and worked their hearts out in order to prevent it from happening but they WOULD have voted for it.

That left us with a MAX of 5. WE WOULD HAVE LOST even if all 5 had been with us.

[trotsky]

112. According to MSNBC, we had all 7.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7967386

Monday night’s bipartisan deal prevented a vote on Frist’s proposal, as seven GOP senators promised to vote against it.

[housewolf]

113. All I can say is...

During the initial press conference, DeWine said that he was prepared to vote for the nuclear option

A little later, in a tv interview, Lindsey Graham said that he was committed to voting for the nuclear option even though he didn't want the vote to occur.

Outside of the repub's gang of 7, were there any votes with us? I don't think so....

[Telly Savalas]

126. The seven GOP senators promised to vote against it...

because they signed the deal. That's what the deal was.

[jpgray]

3. But they can still nuke us later

In the meantime we let some nasty people to the bench, and the battle still remains unfought. If I understood what delay gains us, maybe I'd be happier about this, but as soon as the first nasty SCOTUS nom comes up, the nuclear option is back in play and we're back where we started only with three people serving as judges who shouldn't be.

[returnable]

8. What the delay gains us...

...is time. Time to gain more votes in the Senate.

It's really that simple.

Had it gone to a vote today, we would've lost the filibuster.

But with the compromise, it survives for another battle down the line. A battle perhaps we will be better armed to win convincingly.

[DefenseLawyer]

21. But they can only nuke us if they have the votes.

Without the deal they had the votes. With the deal they don't. Now the power is out of Frist's hands. Frist can threaten the nuclear option all he wants but he needs 50 votes. The moderates made a power play and won, they are not going to give up that leveage easily. That is why the right wing is calling McCain a traitor today, because they know the nuclear option is DOA.

[GOTV]

63. "Without the deal they had the votes."

I've yet to see the evidence of that.

If they had the votes why compromise? Well, the 7 republicans compromised to protect the filibuster. If protecting the filibuster was important enough to deny their party a victory, why would they not have voted with the Dems if they got a chance?

They must have known the compromise would have painted them as traitors anyway.

The 7 GOP compromisers gain ONLY IF the GOP did NOT have the votes to begin with.

[OilemFirchen]

93. DeWine and Graham would've voted yea.

DeWine stated such last night, and Graham essentially did so this morning.

Can't speak for Graham, but DeWine had to carefully measure playing to the puggie fringe (and potentially losing his seat) or his constituentcy (and potentially incurring the wrath of the puggie leadership). He made a wise choice.

[GOTV]

101. Yeah, I know what they said

I just don't know that I believe Them.

DeWine says he supports eliminating the filibuster and then signs a compromise to protect it.

[OilemFirchen]

111. And I explained why.

I know Mike DeWine. While I can't attest to his motives in this event, I know how he works. I also know how Ohio works. Do you think we have two milquetoast puggie Senators by accident?

Remember who preceded them (and the puggie "revolution")? If not, here's a hint: Metzenbaum and Glenn. If either Voinovich or DeWine starts squealing like a fundie (despite the fact that DeWine IS one), it's toast time and a firebrand Dem returns.

I absolutely believe that DeWine would've voted for the nuke option, but was thrilled to have the compromise instead.

Prolly the same for the new-improved Graham, but I'll leave it someone from his home state to answer that.

[GOTV]

66. And...

... I higher standard of reasonableness on filibusters than we had before.

The GOP neutered the filibuster while not having to look like extremists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. no, you got it right

this is more and more seeming to me like oh 1936 Redux...

We will truly not know just who truly won or lost, for years, but the baying from the Right Ring Religious nut jobs tells me that right now we got a slightly better end out of this.

[geomon666]

5. Question...

Perhaps we could have done better but I just don't see how. Remember they have all the power. We were lucky they went behind Frists back. The Religious Right wanted everything!!! They wanted to go nuclear and then just push one extreme judge after another down our throat and their would have been nothing we could have done to stop it. Is that what you wanted? Is their something I am missing here?

How can we stop them from doing that now?


We were in a lose, lose situation but at least now we still have the filibuster to use for the Supreme Court.

What will stop them from doing this all over again?

[Just Me]

11. An agreement in writing.

I can't say what the consequences would be in the event that written agreement is breached. I assume the matter would be moved to the judiciary for enforcement; but, don't know for sure.

[Quixote1818]

15. I don't think they would dare go nuclear over a Supreme Court nominee

the US public would not allow it because the stakes are too high over that position. Polls show by a wide margin that the public is for the filibuster when it comes to the Supreme Court.

They could do it all over again but if they had gone nuclear then we would not have had any bargaining power down the road. At least now we still have some.

Let me know if I am missing something. Again, I am new to this.

[geomon666]

16. The public is against the war too.

People are still dying though.

[Quixote1818]

20. But they were for the war when they voted on it. nt

[geomon666]

26. So that makes it a good idea?

By the way you mentioned Bargaining Power earlier. What bargaining power would that be? What do the Dems have to bargain with?

[Quixote1818]

38. Absolutly not, but they had support of the public when they voted on

the war. If they threaten to go nuclear over a Supreme Court nominee and the poll numbers are against them then the democrats could force their hand with more barganing power (a combonation of the filibuster and public opinion). The public would go balistic if they went nuclear over such an important position. They wouldent do it unless they wanted to lose even biger in 06.

[geomon666]

45. We'll see. n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. I'm just gonna sit back and watch

when the judicial nominees come to the floor for a vote - I'm sure all three will be confirmed, to our great loss.

Then, the two who were jettisoned in the interests of this brilliant "compromise" will either be re-nominated (yeah, the Republicans are that brazen), or two worse candidates will be nominated.

And then we'll be right back where we started, because the "extraordinary circumstances" option is going to be one tricky piece of work, no matter how it's executed, and the Republicans are going to make the Democrats look like obstructionists yet again.

I have no interest in changing your mind or anyone else's. You gotta get educated about how this works, and that means you have to read up on the history of the Senate and judicial confirmations. You've got your work cut out for you.

[returnable]

12. So what was your plan?

You obviously don't think much of the compromise, so please share what you would've done.

Let Frist trigger the nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster today? Explain the benefits of such a strategy. I'm open to hearing your thoughts.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. Why?

I get paid for that kind of stuff, and, right now, I just don't feel like giving it away.

Anyway, you can figure it out, I suspect. Follow the power.

[returnable]

Translation: you didn't have a better option

Thanks for sharing :hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

40. Yes, you're probably right

After all, I'm no Senator ..................

[returnable]

62. Again, thanks for participating

You've added a lot to the discussion.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

79. Well, shucks,

there was no discussion, just demands that could never, ever be met.

Feel better.

[returnable]

87. Demands that could never, ever be met?

So I guess you agree with the OP, then - this is the best deal we could hope for.

Feel better.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

97. No, silly,

I wuz tawkin' about chew.

"Feel better"? Where have I heard that before?

Ah, the impotent thrusts of the uninspired ...............

[returnable]

105. Stay gold

[GOTV]

84. My Plan: Trigger the nuclear option

I'm not sure I'm ready to believe Frist that he had the 51 votes on his sayso, or on the post compromise say so of other Senators.

It seems to me that the best bet of the 7 GOP compromisers, if the GOP had the votes, was to avoid the compromise because they stole total victory away from their own party and will be considered traitors.

But they did compromise. Why? Either 1) the filibuster is too important or 2) the GOP didn't have the votes and they saved the GOP from total defeat.

if 1) I think they would have voted down the nuclear option anyway and we win. The compromise shows that they are not that concerned about the traitor label. If 2) then we still win the vote.

So I think we had a chance. But what if we lost?

The filibuster would be gone. Well, I don't see that as a big cost because I think the filibuster is almost entirely gone as an option now anyway. So the cost of having the nuclear vote is small.

The benefit may also be small but since the cost is so small it's still worth it. I think the nuclear vote could have been a big GOP overreach that would have worked against them.

Plus I like the threatened Democratic response of pushing a progressive agenda and forcing the GOP to vote against many popular bills.

I think this all would have worked well against the GOP and all it would have cost is the loss of a filibuster that we can not practically use.

[returnable]

109. Perhaps

But I think it's impossible to say with any certainty that the nuclear option would've resulted in the backlash against the GOP.

A lot of folks have been saying that the public was on our side in this debate, and, yes, polls indicated that a majority favored keeping the filibuster.

But those same polls indicated that a majority felt the nominees all deserved an up or down vote.

How do you read those tea leaves? It's the same kind of thinking that has the majority saying the rich don't pay enough taxes yet at the same time opposing the estate tax.

In short, we can't count on the American voter to make much sense :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. You didn't answer the question.

How would YOU have done it? What was your brilliant plan? You say the author of the post has to get educated, but quite frankly, I think YOU need to get educated to the real world.

[saracat]

35. I would suggest you look at OLL"s resume before you dare to suggest to her

that she needs to be "educated to the real world". She has more knowledge in her pinkie than almost all of DU put together. And she doesn't have to repetitively give that knowledge away for free to people who don't appreciate it. JMHO.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. I don't give a flying fuck who she is.

If you've got the gaul to make a comment, you should have the gaul to back it up. No one asked her to open her mouth.

Quite frankly, you shouldn't assume anything about me.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

37. Yes, you're probably right

My 29 years as a Washington lawyer have probably given me nothing in the way of knowledge or insight into the matter.

So, then the question remains: why are you asking me?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. 29 Years eh?? Wow that's impressive!!!

:sarcasm:

Too bad you can't answer a simple question still.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

59. Impressive?

Naw, just endurance, that's all.

Well, edurance, a lot of hard work, and a reluctance to answer the questions of demanding strangers on message boards who think they are somehow entitled to what I know.

Wise up, child. Your questions don't always get answered, and you got some bad manners.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

82. Now, now,

you're taking a message board so seriously, just because someone's not willing to expend time, energy, and intellect to answer the casual questions of strangers.

My sense of honor will somehow remain intact, in spite of your vapid demands.

The instrument that would measure my interest in whatever respect anyone on a message board might have for my persona here has not yet been invented, and will, no doubt, calculate in light years.

All that seriousness, all that scolding, all that effort expended on someone you don't know? My goodness, if only your exquisite passion could be bottled and sold - wouldn't that generate heat and light for the needy?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

98. I don't have time to read your screed

But, I'm pretty sure I love you ....................

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

104. I hope you don't break the spine on your Roget's over little old me.

[returnable]

91. Priceless

"just because someone's not willing to expend time, energy, and intellect to answer the casual questions of strangers."

Uh, you've just expended enough time and energy (not sure about intellect) to post on this thread 7 times at last count. Seems to me in might've just been easier answer the original question and be done with it. That was kinda the point of the thread, after all.

But what do I know? I don't have 29 years experience as a Washington lawyer. No wonder nothing ever gets done in that town...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

99. You, there's no doubt

I love you..................

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. But since I wouldn't demand something I wouldn't do myself.

Here's the way I saw this:

There are five possible scenarios that I can see in this case:

Scenario 1: Nuclear option passes, all justices confirmed. The only real "victory" in this scenario is if it created such a vast riptide of public backlash that it forces a 1994 reversal for 2006, certainly not a guarantee, especially this early in the election cycle when Americans have such short memories. Before anyone harps, "BUT FRIST DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES!!!", remember that they didn't have the Medicaid votes either. That bill still wound up passing. I'm not saying one way or another whether or not the nuclear option would've passed, but that's because NO ONE can say for certain either way. Meanwhile, ALL of these atrocious nominees go through AND we have no recourse for Supreme Court nominees. Not good times at all.

Scenario 2: Nuclear option fails, filibusters on all appointments hold. This, obviously, is the clear cut victory for us, but there was no good way of ensuring this. Yeah, we (we being the "centrists", not Reid) blinked. No other way to say it. And yes, this scenario COULD have happened, but there are absolutely no guarantees, and I sure as hell don't trust either RINOs or DINOs to hold their ground under pressure.

Scenario 3: Frist backs off nuclear option, filibusters hold. Somewhat unlikely scenario, as Frist would have to sacrifice his Presidential aspirations to do it. Of course, this would probably have the consequence of killing any 2006 momentum we've been building to this point, as the good ol' "obstructionist" label rears its ugly head again. The 'thugs come out looking the ones who wanted compromise, not us, and the label would stick. Pretty much cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Scenario 4: Frist backs off nuclear option, Dem centrists fold under pressure and most nominees go through anyway. Don't think for a minute this wouldn't happen. This would be a complete loss for us, no two ways about it, no possibility of redemption.

Scenario 5: The compromise that happened. Some of the atrocious nominees will go through. Others, if you believe Lindsay Graham, will not, which will probably change the complexion of this deal in a lot of DUers minds. The absolute bottom two nominees are canned. We still have the filibuster for Supreme Court if/when that becomes an issue.

If I were to rank them in order of preference, I'd say 2, 5, 3, 1, 4, with all three of the middle scenarios being pretty damn close to each other. I think we got the second best scenario we could hope for in all of this. As an added bonus, I think the base of the Republican party is starting splinter in a big way because of this. There are a lot of people really pissed off at Frist and Company this morning - you know, the assholes who think because they won, everything they want should be done immediately and without compromise. Meanwhile, I don't think this has caused any major new rifts within our party. So yeah, I'd call it a mild victory, which is sure as hell better than most of the alternatives. I'm still not thrilled though.

[geomon666]

64. Question...

What's the difference between 4 and 5?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

68. Frist didn't back off.

And it's an important difference. This wasn't a leadership deal that was made, meaning if Frist backed off, it would be Republicans as a whole compromising. Frist has never backed off - he's just had his plan thwarted. Doesn't seem like a whole lot, but it's all in the public perception of things. He pushed the envelope, is seen as doing the wrong thing, and STILL didn't get his way.

[geomon666]

71. So..

You get the exact same result except with #4 you get the illusion that republicans have compromised. The republicans get what they want anyway, with no guarantee of not going through this again and that's a good thing?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

81. You seem to think that illusion is valueless.

Perception IS reality in the game of politics. The common perception is that Republicans lost and that has a HUGE benefit to it. You also have to understand that only one of those scenarios was a true win for us - and it was not incredibly likely to happen.

I also forgot to mention the part of the nuclear option being off the table for the rest of the 109th Congress. With Frist backing off voluntarily, he is under no obligation to keep it off. Under this agreement, it would be a huge blow to the integrity of anyone who violates their signed agreement to vote for the nuclear option. And then in the 110th Congress, we could definitely be in a better position to fight against the nuclear option outright.

Are we just delaying the inevitable? Probably. But that in and of itself is a bigger win than you think. Especially considering that the most likely alternative outcome was to lose the filibuster completely with nothing at all to show for it.

[geomon666]

85. Excuse me...

I also forgot to mention the part of the nuclear option being off the table for the rest of the 109th Congress.

Nowhere in the agreement does it say that and I sure as hell don't trust Frist to keep his word.

As far as perception being reality. I'd rather have the reality than the perception and I'm sure everyone else would too. There is no common perception about this. Maybe to you but look at the news. Everyone is divided on this. This wasn't a win, this wasn't a loss. This was the same old thing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

89. It's not Frist's word.

Once again, it is NOT a leadership agreement. Reid has said he will continue to filibuster and Frist says he will not back off the nuclear option. It's the 14 Senators that signed the agreement, that put their integrity in writing that must uphold the agreement.

What reality would you have rather had? Please, point to the best reality that was likely to happen had this not occurred.

[geomon666]

90. Call their bluff

Let em go nuclear if they can. They're going to anyway. Why delay the inevitable.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

94. Reid was going to.

He still will. But now we've got it in writing that at least 7 Republican Senators will vote against the nuclear option. Isn't that better than the guarantee (of which none existed) that we had yesterday when you woke up in the morning?

[geomon666]

115. No you don't

They don't have anything. You don't think for a moment those 7 repubs will vote for a nuclear option to save their own asses?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

117. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Yes, I do think they might, but they will have to face the consequences of going back on their word now. And having that consequence is more than we had yesterday when no such problem existed for them.

[geomon666]

118. Yeah sure

They just confirmed Owen today. Another slime gets appointed to the courts. Real good compromise so far. The republicans are above reproach now. When you have the media, and the courts, and the white house, and the congress, and the voting machines...you are above reproach.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

119. Please, present your fool proof alternative.

Boxer said today they didn't have the votes to stop the nuclear option. So Owens and everyone else would go through AND the filibuster would be gone. How exactly is that better?

[geomon666]

120. It isn't

But at least you would've made a stand and maybe...gained some respect back from your base. And these horrible scum judges would not be Dem Approved.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

121. I still have respect, as does a lot of people here at DU.

If you think YOU are the base, I'm sorry, but I think you're slightly mistaken.

[geomon666]

122. And You are?

I got news for you...we're all the supposed base. At least we all used to be. But every day that goes by I hear more and more people wanting to switch to 3rd Party.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

124. I didn't say I was. But I didn't pretend to be to begin with.

[geomon666]

125. Neither did I

Then again if you're a progressive you shouldn't have to pretend. You should already know that the Dems are supposed to represent you. Right now they are not representing me and a lot of other people.

[BR_Parkway]

36. Perhaps not - if they have to explain why they think someone is under

"extraordinary circumstances" then THAT is the thing that will get the media coverage, not if the nuclear option is legal, or precedented or constitutional.

Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Imagine if WHY Owens was not fit was the part of this that had gotten the coverage, instead of all that got repeated over and over. The public relations battle will be WHY the Dems think that someone isn't fit to serve. And that doesn't seem like a battle we're going to lose. Sure, we won't get the Fristians, they are going to be loyal to Party & Dobson no matter what. But the actual moderates are going to look at the person and the record that they bring - and hopefully the Dems can make the convincing case as to why that person is too extreme to sit in that lifetime appointment.

Frist & Dobson took a hit on this. They have been publically slapped and told that they don't run the whole show. Frist certainly doesn't look like a leader now. Shrub & Cheney took a big hit, their poll numbers down and more and more people see that their direction is not the one that they want for themselves.

The wingnuts feel betrayed, the corporations want their business done and are publically saying that all this "culture war" isn't helping them. Major break in the two main legs of the Right wing. Let them beat on each other for a bit. Shrub ought to pull out that Bible quote that says "no man can serve two masters".

Do I wish that Frist would have called for the vote and gotten told "NO , you're not consolidating power that way" by his own party. But I doubt that the vote would have gone that way. The moderate Repubs might survive on the "keeping tradition so we compromised" arguement but I doubt if they could have survived totally going against the Party and voting No on the nuke option. They would have voted for it and we would have wound up with those judges anyhow. Plus anything else that Frist would have called for - Bolton, impeaching judges so they could refill the slots are the first things that comes to mind.

[QC]

7. Most of the responses I have seen, in those rare cases where people

have actually dealt with the practical question of what would have been a better course of action, have been along the lines of "but we had the votes to win! I just know it! I know we did!"

What you're seeing here is, I think, in large measure people reveling in the glories of martyrdom. We do that a lot around here. There's just something about this place that brings out a lot of people's inner Norma Desmonds.

[Quixote1818]

19. ROTFL!!!!! nt

[saracat]

41. It is obvious we had the votes by the vote count.

The repukes didn't want to shoot themselves in the foot with their consituents.The gang of twelve however was more interested in not shooting themselves in the foot with the corporations. Notice the background of the dealmakers. Bah! I am tired of people telling me to cheer on something that wasn't that wondeful. Why do people who don't believe this is a great"deal get to be branded "delusional'? I quess Russ Feingold is Norma Desmond too!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. Obvious like it was when we had the votes to defeat Medicaid?

Never underestimate the ability of a RINO or DINO to sell out under pressure.

[saracat]

65. So a bird in the hand is better than one in the bush? ( No pun

intended) ? The democrats are too conservative.They don't take risks.That was what was wrong with the campaign and that was what was wrong with this.People vote for risk takers.It shows they believe in something.Once again, we blew the opportunity to roll the dice. I think we had and even money shot at winning. I am ashamed we didn't try. I hope this lack of courage isn't reflected in the 2006 race!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

83. Even money? I think you're being too kind with your odds there.

You forget who funds their campaigns. Any defectors would face major heat within the party in the form of lost chairmanships and lost campaign donations. We don't have such threats on our side.

It may LOOK like we only had to get 2 out of the 4 Republicans sitting on the fence, but the odds are a lot longer than just that.

Once again though, it wasn't a leadership agreement. It was a seizure of power by 14 "centrist" Senators. They could do this on every issue if they so desired. Your leadership was fully willing to take that risk.

[saracat]

88. I am sorry. I can't stop laughing! We"We don't have such threats on our

side' ? Are you naive or what? Did you read the names of the Dems negotiating this deal? Please, I am gaging here.I don't mean to be rude but surly you know what their interests are and who funds "their " campaigns? You didn't think Dems were excluded from this funding did you? A cross check might show you many of the 14 have the same contributors and are concerned for the same corporate interests. Much of this deal was actually brokered by corporate interests . This fact was mentioned not only by Lou Dobbs but discussed in depth on NPR.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

92. Really? We can threaten Republicans to obey?

Even if we did that to the Democrats that made the deal, it wouldn't do anything about the fact that if 50 Republicans vote for the nuclear option, it passes. So my statement stands - we have no such threats available on our side. And I'm not the naive one.

[saracat]

96. No, but we can threaten Democrats! The ones that really threaten them are

donors and these Dems have the same donors as the Repukes. That is the point. And this deal was a bow to their corporate masters!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

102. Okay, but in the scope of THIS FIGHT, what good would that do?

You haven't addressed that yet. If the 7 Republicans don't offer a compromise, they can enforce their will. Period. We can't do anything to change that fact.

So the 7 Democrats accepted their deal on behalf of themselves. In doing so, we still have more today than we did yesterday, however little more that may be. And your scenario may still well come to play out, but instead of having no guarantee going into that battle, we at least have the written word of 7 Republicans. Even if the end result is the passage of the nuclear option, because of this deal, we will have more fuel to use later in the 2006 election cycle than we did yesteday, in that the integrity of those 7 Senators is completely absent. Oh, plus the little civil war brewing within the GOP between the moderates and the wingnuts. Can't forget that part when assessing what this compromise earned.

I never said this was a total victory, or even a big victory. And no, I'm not totally thrilled about the deal myself. But it IS something.

[QC]

69. No, but Feingold would make an excellent Joe Gillis.

Handsome, brooding, principled, etc.

[Quixote1818]

78. Here is a thread on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3720553

[Dhalgren]

9. The only thing the Republicans want is to get Bush's

nominees voted through - and that is happening. Bush will continue to push his other nominees and when he does I do not think that the 7 Republican "compromisers" will hold out against him. When the Democrats come back with the filibuster, they will be tarred as "welshers". If we had forced the Republicans to either uphold the filibuster rule or kill it, while the nation's dim attention was focused, then the Republicans would have suffered in public opinion. But, now, the public will move on to some runaway bride or other and when the Republicans kill the filibuster it will go all but unnoticed and be treated as "old news"...

[yurbud]

10. Given public opinion polls on filibuster...

If GOP ran roughshod over dems and ended filibuster, it would have been a tactical victory but a strategic blunder of epic proportions.

But as someone noted, once that filibuster is gone, it would be tough to bring it back.

[Quixote1818]

27. I am thinking they know they are going to lose in 06' so they want to

push through as much as they possibly can while they still have power.

[LightningFlash]

13. I would have continued the session debates for more than one more day...

I would have made sure that the filibuster option could still be used on any judge, and restrict the process for calling on the nuclear option.

The compromise was very weak in this regard, and I believe it was more than possible to allow filibusters on most legislation since there was anger on both sides of the aisle over Frist's power grab. Democrats and Republicans both failed entirely in this arena and should have absolutely secured the full right to invoke the filibuster option, whenever neccesary under law and not just in extreme circumstances.

Other then that, nothing else.

[chaska]

14. Do you compromise with a rapist?

"How about a bj instead?" Hell no. It was wrong. By doing this they let put some real nutjobs on the bench. This is a disloyalty to the country.

We probably would have won if we hadn't blinked. And even if we had lost, there would have been an upside (I won't go into it - no time).

Additionally, this is far from over. You can't compromise with bullies, they don't play fair. They will force us into this corner again. "How about a BJ instead?"

[LightningFlash]

17. Weigh the overall consequences...

Let three of his Circuit Court judges go in, or let 10 or more go in with no supervision after the nuclear option destroys the ability to dissent?

Both republicans and democrats did this to save face.

[GOTV]

32. I think we'll get 10 awful judges anyway...

... and the compromise will have helped us not a bit.

We can start counting now.

one, two, three.

[returnable]

44. Bingo. No Compromise = 10 more nutjobs in instead of 3.

And, yeah, Owen sucks.

But if it's any consolation, the 5th Circuit is such a nuthouse already, seating her there is like tossing another pebble onto a rock pile. Thurgood Marshall couldn't clean up that mess.

And I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how eliminating the filibuster today and allowing unrestrained rightwing judicial nominees for the next couple of years is a good thing...

I occasionally read some horseshit about how it'll be perceived as a "power grab" and a backlash against the GOP will result in a serious ass-kicking in 2006.

Uh, hello?

We've been witnessing a naked power grab and unprecedented corruption from this administration for over 4 years now, and the GOP STILL hasn't paid at the polls. How would surrendering even MORE power to them change that?

It's an unbelievably stupid argument.

[GOTV]

100. The invincible GOP

I occasionally read some horseshit about how it'll be perceived as a "power grab" and a backlash against the GOP will result in a serious ass-kicking in 2006.

Uh, hello?

We've been witnessing a naked power grab and unprecedented corruption from this administration for over 4 years now, and the GOP STILL hasn't paid at the polls. How would surrendering even MORE power to them change that?

So you just think it's impossible eh? Nothing can shake the image of the GOP? Invicible you say?

I don't agree we are doomed. I think they can be brought down. But we won't do it through continued cowering. The Dems hardly did a thing last term to oppose the GOP. We gave them everything.

I didn't suggest surrendering power to them (which is what we did with the compromise which you support). I say if they want what's right and what's our's they should have to take it.

I think through various overreaches of the GOP they've already suffered in the polls. How do we keep pushing? Not by compromising.

And then we shouldn't stop with the nuclear option. We should continue to embarrass them with responses such as this:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/25/173341/077

We stand up for something. We stop being complicit in our own demise. I think I've seen the beginnings of this from our recently battered Democratic party in the fights over previous nominees for example.

This could have been another opportunity. We might have won, but if we didn't we would continue to put the real agenda of the Bush administration out there in front of the public while drawing a sharp line between them and us.

We could have said that we don't work together to put corporate extremists on the bench. The GOP does that over our best efforts.

Instead what we said is that a few corporate extremists are not too bad as long as we avoid pain.

[returnable]

108. I never said it was impossible.

In fact, I think it's very likely we will see gains in 2006.

And I happen to think this compromise will assist, rather than hamper, that very effort. As pissed as some folks on the left are about this deal, the radical right is eating its own. That'll only help us in the long run.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. We'll find out soon enough if it was a wise gambit.

[OilemFirchen]

110. And even a "serious ass-kicking in 2006" means what?

The Dems aren't going to regain the House next year, no matter how serious the ass-kicking might be.

And the Senate? How many puggie Senators are up for reelection next year?

Why on earth do people keep bringing up this midtermer? What difference will it make, in this context?

[returnable]

114. Exactly.

Some folks seem to think that by LOSING the filibuster, somehow we'd be swept back into power in 2006. I want what they're smokin'...

[Telly Savalas]

127. But the polls show that the public supports the filibuster...

and we can reasonably assume that this will be the ONLY issue people will base their vote on in 2006. People may forgive the GOP for lying to us to start an unnecessary war, but if they start fucking around with arcane parliamentary rules there'd be hell to pay.

[LizW]

130. If you have a gun, no.

If he has a gun, yes.

When faced with a bully with more power than you, the goal is to stay alive. You'll have to explain to me the "upside" of losing the filibuster, 'cause I don't get it.

[Dr Fate]

22. I look forward to working with the liars and criminals.

Let's trust them some more is what I say-I'm sure the Republicans will keep their promises. Saying anything else is DEM bashing.

(Waves & shakes pomp poms)

How did I do???

[understandinglife]

34. Answer: Most excellent. (nt)

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. If a senator, I would have declared myself an Independent or Green.

What we have now is two corporate parties who slap each other on the back and play politics with people's lives.

Both of these parties are corrupt beyond redemption.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. I should remind yuo of the 1880s

we are having a nice repeat of that to a point...

[TomClash]

29. Really?

How would the Repukes have broken the filibuster? The didn't have anywhere near the votes even to invoke cloture to get the rule change to the floor for a vote.

I would have made them violate the Senate rules first, making the confirmation of these judges suspect and unlawful, just like Bush's election and the Schiavo case. That's something tangible you can run on in '06. After all, the goal really isn't the judges but picking up seats in '06. How does this help us do that?

[MadHound]

31. What you're missing is the fact that Frist didn't have the votes.

The nuclear option was nothing but a bluff, and we fell for it. If(I know, I know, in these days, a big if) the Dems had all hung together and voted against the nuclear option, we would have only needed six more votes to kill it. McCain, Snow and Chaffee were already saying they would vote against the nuclear option, Warner was coming over our way, and surely we could have picked up to other votes from the sane Republicans that are still in the Senate.

Instead, we caved on the bluff that Frist laid down, and once again the Dems rolled over for Bushco. They give him three judges now, with no restrictions on the other four coming back. We also made a promise that is wide open to interpretation, ie the Dems won't filibuster except under "extraordinary circumstances" Well gee, if a nominee that is as fanatically RW as Owens, Brown and Pryor are isn't an "extraordinary circumstance" then what is? Hell, Bush has free range to push through virtually anyone, including Ashcroft, for a spot on the Supreme Court, and the Dems are handcuffed. If they say a peep, the 'Pugs will scream that they're breaking the contract, and unleash the nuke option anyway.

The Dems had both the moral high ground, and public sentiment behind them on this issue, right now. They could dragged these Neo-Con fuckers out into the light of day and shown the country just how extreme they are. Instead, they squandered it all on a do nothing "compromise" that does nothing for the Dems, and everything for the 'Pugs.

What would I have done? Something that the Democrats today seemingly can't do, girded my loins, prepared for war, and told the fuckers to bring it with their nuclear BS.

Damn it to hell, these fuckers can't even win when their holding all the cards, and people wonder why I'm going Green.

[Quixote1818]

42. Others are saying they did have the votes. Who to believe?? nt

[MadHound]

55. Sorry, I don't buy it

With three 'Pugs in the bank, one coming on over, that means we would have needed two. I think that could have easily been pulled from some of the saner, more thoughtful 'Pugs, people like Spectre, Graham, and Coleman were speaking all last week like it was quite possible they would vote against the nuclear option. They didn't come right out and say it, but they certainly hinted all around it.

This is simply another example of the Dems rolling over, and doing the 'Pugs job for them. Today was the time to stand tall and fight, and instead they turned tail and ran.

[Quixote1818]

80. Check out this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3720553

[returnable]

57. Says who?

"and surely we could have picked up to other votes from the sane Republicans that are still in the Senate."

You'll need to back that up with some evidence.

[MadHound]

67. See post #57 above.

Spectre and these others were all over NPR and other networks, doing everything but saying they would have voted against the nuclear option. We had the votes, and yet once again the Dems formed up in their battle formation, and promptly caved.

[returnable]

70. Sorry, but I disagree

I heard ol' Arlen speak several times over the past week, and my impression was he would be siding with the Cat Killer. And there's nothing in Coleman's Bush-licking resume to suggest he'd suddenly grow a conscience overnight.

The fact is, we really can't say for sure how the vote would've come out.

Your instincts tell you we had it in the bag. But that's just a guess on your part.

My instincts tell me that if Byrd, one of the few senators I'd be willing to bet on, really believed our side had the votes, he wouldn't have pushed this compromise. Again, it's all just speculation.

But I'd rather err on the side of caution as long as those freaks still hold a 10-seat majority.

[MadHound]

75. Then I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this

Sad to say, we'll never find out. Me, I'd rather go down swinging. I've watched the Dems roll over too many times in the past five years, I would like to see them come out swinging just one time. But alas, it looks like it is not to be.

[returnable]

77. Getting the majority power to blink isn't rolling over in my book...

...but I guess, yep, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[Quixote1818]

74. See here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3720553

[understandinglife]

33. Simple answer:

They should have forced the vote.

The outcome would then have been clear even to the most obtuse, and irrespective of outcome (though I don't think Frist had the votes), we could have leveraged the courage and conviction to expand a major opposition effort (specific details of what that opposition should do are noted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3688434#3690417).

Instead, a nuclear land-mine has been planted under the seat of every minority member of the senate. The trigger is 'extraordinary circumstance' and the subjective measure that the majority leader will use to determine if a minority member has pulled the trigger is 'bad faith and bad behavior' (those are Frist's exact words).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24cnd-judge.html?hp&ex=1116993600&en=bc6f87011187a779&ei=5094&partner=homepage

So, instead of forcing the Bu$h neoconsters into full exposure of their anti-Constitutional, anti-republic agenda, the compromise now provides that group with the opportunity to blame a minority member for the demise of the filibuster because they claimed an 'extraordinary circumstance' in a 'bad faith, bad behavior' manner.

Just how long do you think it will take Frist to make that claim. I'd wager the very first time a member of the minority makes the 'extraordinary circumstance' argument.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccmplished.us

[WilliamPitt]

43. Want to smile?

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

[Quixote1818]

50. Will, do you think Frist had the votes or not? And why?

I trust your judgement.

[WilliamPitt]

53. I posted a reply in your other thread

but in short, I think he would have done whatever was necessary to get them.

[GOTV]

49. Let me try to explain why we disagree

"Remember they have all the power."

They don't. They have a simple majority. Popular support for the nuclear option is low. Support for their president is low. And 7 of the 55 Republican Senators were against the nuclear option to the extent that they agreed to the compromise.

It's possible a vote would not have come out against us.

And had the vote come out against us there might have been an exploitable backlash.

Plus there was a plan by which the Democrats would have pushed an agenda in the aftermath of the nuclear option that would have forced the GOP to vote against very popular measures. I liked that possible response.

They have a majority but we did have some usable power.

"and then just push one extreme judge after another down our throat and their would have been nothing we could have done to stop it. Is that what you wanted? Is their something I am missing here?"

It's not what I wanted but I don't see how the compromise which puts an added burden of justification of the filibuster that wasn't there before does anything to prevent it.

That's what you're missing. The compromise may have made it nearly impossible to use the filibuster anyway WITHOUT making the GOP the bad guys.

"It was lose, lose for us"

It's not clear that that's the case. We might have won the vote but even if we lost we could have come off as principled and the GOP could have come off as reckless - as they did when they shut down the government.

"but at least now we can stop them from putting in an extreme Supreme Court nominee."

See, this is where you go wrong IMHO. The compromise has done nothing to help that. Mike Dewine has explained that if the GOP feels we are not acting in good faith that they can still trigger the nuclear option.

"Again, am I missing something?"

Yes. You believe the compromise delivers assurances that it does not.

[Telly Savalas]

128. So would this "exploitable backlash" be like the one...

where no WMD were found in Iraq?

[FreedomAngel82]

51. The thing I'm worried about is this

We all know the republicans can't win elections without their freeper and fundie base. All of them are pissed off now and this, I think, was political suicide. They will have to do SOMETHING to bring back the base by 2006 and 2008. So what are they going to do? What do they have planned to bring them back? We all know the republicans won't go far and work with the democrats to impeach Bush or anything like that, so why this compromise? Even Rove stepped in and said "no compromise." So what's up? What do these republicans have planned?

[nonconformist]

60. The best option was for the Democrats to stand on principal

Because it's damn past time for that to happen and this was the perfect opportunity.

We had the support of the American people. The PR was ours. We should have grew a pair (I say this as a woman mind you) and called their bluff. Best case scenario? We WIN. Worst case scenario? Fascist, extreme power play on live TV. We still win, maybe even win bigger. We had a lot to gain and little to lose with this, considering how it turned out. They've effectively dismantled our ability to use the filibuster at our discretion anyway. They've seen how clearly we back away from our principals when threatened.

Don't kid yourself. They've tainted and framed how the filibuster can be used in such subjective terms that they can easily now say we don't have a "right" to use it because it's not extraordinary enough in their personal opinions. If we push it, they can STILL go nuclear. If we don't, they get their nominee. How was this "good"? Bush gets his SCOTUS nominee even easier than before this 'compromise'.

This is textbook neocon shit and I'm amazed that so many fail to see that. Why get muddy when you can make your opposition roll over quietly? If they wanted it, they should have been forced to TAKE it and all the bad PR and internal implosions that would have come with that. Dramatic? 'bout goddamn time. Make them do their dirty work out in the open for a change.

All we got out of this was the opportunity to point and laugh at that spoiled little child Frist. While amusing, that is hardly a fair trade.

The amazing thing is this whole shebang is dependent on "trusting" the Republicans - it was even written that way to show just how nonpartisan they can be. Yeah, you gonna put your eggs in that basket?

[saracat]

76. Right on.You nailed it. I hope this works out for us but, I have

my doubts!

[returnable]

103. I disagree on your worst case scenario

"Worst case scenario? Fascist, extreme power play on live TV. We still win, maybe even win bigger."

Do you really think the Democrats getting whipped on the filibuster would play out like an underdog story in the press?

I don't. The way our mainstream media operates these days, we'd be hearing an echo chamber about how impotent the Democratic Party is in the face of GOP authority.

For four years, the media has been spinning the corruption of this administration and its cronies in Congress into gold at the polling booths for the GOP. I fail to see how this would play out any differently.

As it is, all the reports I'm reading in the press indicate the Democrats struck the best deal they could under the circumstances and the rightwing base is exploding. So we've already won the spin war.

[Zorra]

106. Yeah. I would have stood on principle and called on Democrats

everywhere to unite, stand up, stick up that middle finger to the republicans, and engage in a general strike in order to shut down the country and bring it all on home to mama, baby.

That is how you get respect. You don't get respect, or votes, by bending over and exposing your naked ass in fawning submission to your enemies.

And golly gee, now we can filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. And then republicans will bust out the "nuclear option" threat again shrug their shoulders, laugh mockingly at Democrats and say,

"Yep, haw-haw, we lied! Bwaahaahaahaa! It's not like we never lied to you before, you pathetic fools. You are so lame that you deserve what you get. Suck eggs, losers!"

[GOTV]

107. I agree...

... and said much the same in another post.

[mmonk]

116. given them the less extreme nominees

[Jose Diablo]

123. What would I have done?

Let them nuke the filibuster, then shutdown this legislating session until the elections.

There was nothing on the table except bad judges and anti-worker legislation anyway.

Close it down.

Would you rather see a war in a talking session in congress or in the streets. Because the only alternative now is the street. And our own corporate 'Senators' made it fucking happen.

[Telly Savalas]

129. And what do you envision the results of such action being?