ok. somebody please, please explain to me what do you want

[okieinpain]

dems to do.

I see a lot of folks crying that dems backed down, that dems bent over, just what are they suppose to do in the circumstance.

[NWHarkness]

1. Destroy America in order to save it

I guess that's what they want, an all or nothing, scorched earth policy.

[rpannier]

2. Call it what you want...

You say scorched earth policy, others say showing spine in the face of a serious issue. I don't trust the pukes on this and I will go on the record and say now, "This will bite us in the ass."

[okieinpain]

5. yes, they will try and bite you in the ass. but what do you want dems

to do. all they can do is slow down business, not stop it just slow it down. and it just not slowing down business in red states, we're talking about blue states.

now how do you think that will play in 06, folks out of work because the fed projects are put on hold because of the dems. yeah people are really going to give a shit about a fed judge, when they are worrying about putting food on the table..

[okieinpain]

3. that's damn sure what it looks like to me. I'm really confused by

the side that wants it all, no matter what. people should remember all dems could have done is slow down the senate, not shut it down. and that would mean all of the business for the states that the dems represent.

[Bandit]

15. I prefer a principled stand now and then but it is apparent

The Democrats are every bit as unprincipled as the Republicans and America will get all it's just rewards. It is better to go down fighting than to just go down.

[simcha_6]

4. Valid question

This deal was probably as good as you could get. I'm angry that the Republicans could propose such a preposterous thing and get three judges confirmed as a result. The Dems were honorable- they backed down on the filibustering Owens and others to save the Senate. But I don't think the Republican leadership should have done this in the first place.

I kind of would have liked to have seen a vote, although if it damaged America significantly, I guess this is best.

[many a good man]

6. Reid got the compromise he offered weeks ago

A couple get in, the rest don't. Since he's the one who proposed the compromise, we won.

But the junta ought to withdraw the other nominees. And they better consult with us before nominating other corporatist clowns and fundie freaks. What are the chances of that?

Cheney is steaming because he knows they COULD HAVE pulled this off and the Murican people would barely have noticed. It'll be harder for them to try this a second time. But they are, if anything, bold.

[bvar22]

7. Cheney and Rove are celebrating today.

They have 3 more fanatical Corporatist Judges sitting on the Federal Bench, and all the others are still in the pipe. The Democrats got NOTHING.

The CorpoMedia will play the Repubes as the Great Compromisers (though they gave up nothing). Today, they will be saying that this is a coup for the Moderates in the Republican Party which will negate all the recent publicity they have been getting as EXTREMISTS, yet the EXTREMISTS got EVERYTHING they wanted.
Great play.

The Republican Wing of the Democratic Party also got a WIN today. The DLC was able to INCREASE the POWER of Corporate Management in government, so the DLC can celebrate and collect their checks, but Working America LOSES all around.

[Zhade]

8. Yep. See my enhanced sigline.

Added thanks to tonight's "compromise" (which will be broken by the Republicans the first chance they get).

[bvar22]

9. The Corporate pedigrees of the DEAL Brokers:

These are the Democratic Senators who brokered the DEAL where the Democrats got NOTHING,
and the Republicans got 3 more fanatic Corporatists on the bench.


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!

[Zhade]

35. You and I are obviously in agreement.

This was a royal screw-job - a delaying tactic AT BEST that cost far more than some realize.

[derby378]

10. An old punk song to put things in perspective

Revenge by Black Flag
(In honor of the "compromise" courtesy of the DLC gang)

It's not my imagination!
I've got a gun in my back!

Promises you made
Never became fact
We're gonna get revenge
You won't know what hit you
We're tired of being screwed

Don't tell me about tomorrow
Don't tell me what I'll get
I can't think of progress when
Just around the corner
There's a bed of cold pavement
Waiting for me

Revenge! I'll watch you bleed
Revenge! That's all I need
I won't cry if you die
We're gonna get revenge
You won't know what hit you
We're tired of being screwed
Revenge!
REVENGE!

[CWebster]

11. Their job

Is it too much to ask?

[LandOLincoln]

12. This seems to be the very definition of a good compromise, because

the idiot wingnuts on both sides are howling bloody murder.

At this time, the only naysayer I'm able to take seriously is Russ Feingold, and I don't see him offering an alternative either.

[CWebster]

13. Except it ISN"T a compromise

It is a loss.

[LandOLincoln]

14. Okay, I'm going to tell you up front that I have no respect whatsoever

for your political opinions. None. Zip. Zilch.

That said, IN THIS CASE ONLY, I'd be very interested to know exactly what you offer as an alternative?

[derby378]

16. You should consider the Killer D's down in Texas

Rather than be forced into rubberstamping DeLay's redistricting plan for Texas back in 2003, they bailed from the capitol and shut down the government.

Governor Rick Perry was forced to call three special sessions while they tried to force the Killer D's back into Austin. DeLay contacted Homeland Security to track the planes used by the renegades. The Republicans in the rules committees in Austin used every trick of intimidation they could, from stripping the Dems of their parking spaces to imposing huge fines on them. But the redistricting plan remained on ice, threatening a promised Republican consolidation of power in the US House in 2004.

That is your alternative - you don't let the bastards get you down. All else is simply windowdressing.

[davepc]

18. Running like cockroaches when the lights got switched on?

Yeah, thats a great way to show the American people that we work for them. The Republicans back us into a corner and we flee the capital.

Nothing says taking a strong stand like running away.

[derby378]

19. That's the Republican talking point right there

The fact was that the renegade Democrats were doing the job we elected them to do - they were representing their constituents by thwarting an unconstitutional power grab. That's what our elected officials are supposed to do, no matter how ugly the fight gets.

[babylonsister]

20. And what exactly did the Killer Ds accomplish? nt

[derby378]

23. They WOULD have shut down redistricting in Texas through atrophy...

...except that a single Democrat buckled under the pressure and gave the Republican-controlled legislature just enough votes they needed for a quorum, thus making redistricting a reality.

Eyes on the prize, babylonsister. The Texas Democrats came this close to helping ward off the muck and mire we are currently wading through with the nuclear option, but one of our own gave up the fight.

Now I see the DLC Senators throwing in the towel just like this one Texas Dem did. Dobson may howl and whine, but if he'd just shut up for one minute and read the papers, he'd realize he's getting everything he wants.

[davepc]

24. Dobson wants moderate republicans to revolt?

Could of fooled me, I thought he might want them to keep going with the flow and not going behind the Majority Leaders back to make him look like an idiot.

[derby378]

29. Dobson is getting his judges...

...as well as a toothless "filibuster," a preserved nuclear option, and a bunch of cowed Senate Democrats. However, Dobson's always been a bit slow on the uptake. Give him another 24 hours and he'll be dancing nude in the streets in celebration.

[davepc]

30. He was going to get them ANYWAYS.

Short anything Democrats did...well I guess we could of gone the TX route and ran away and cried NO FAIR NO FAIR till voted out of office in '06 and '08.

What we did do was preserve what they wanted to DESTROY (the filibuster) and one of their own (McCain) was the one to do it.

I don't care if Frist "preserved" the option to blow up the Senate, because right now he's too limp dicked to do it even if he wanted too.

[derby378]

32. The goal was simple - Owen OUT, filibuster IN

The reverse has now been achieved. Owen was not supposed to be confirmed, but now she will be, with no further review of her sorry record on the bench. This still translates to one in the "L" column for Democrats - Americans really could not afford her as a Circuit Court Judge.

[davepc]

34. And the Republican Goal

Was the destroy the filibuster and pack the SCOTUS with as many far righters as they could find.

They can't do that now because McCain and his band of 7 just told the White House and Frist to FUCK OFF!

McCain et all aren't magically Democrats now, but they will NOT be ignored and force fed extremist judges who they don't agree with.

The net result is that in the future (think SCOTUS) we'll get less extreme right wing justices being nominated.

Now if you're all 'all or nothing' type then you wont see any advantage too that, but considering who Bush *could* of appointed and who he's now going to be forced to appoint, I'll take the more moderate right wing judges then the more extreme right wing judges.

All for the price of three fundy judges who were going to get nominated either way.

[LandOLincoln]

28. They accomplished nothing in practical terms, but they did buy

some time, time that--in different circumstances--might have allowed them to accomplish something lasting.

I would submit that this compromise has done exactly the same thing: it's bought us some time, and in these VERY different circumstances, that may be all we need, especially since it's had the extra bonus of opening a major schism in the heretofore solid Republican front.

I'm goddamed tired of our circular firing squad, and can't begin to tell you how happy I am to see Republicans blasting away at each other for a change.

[CWebster]

21. Sort of like the bullies on the Right

say to the apologists in the Middle, huh?

Works for the Right every time.

Since you had to personally attack, you have no argument.

[LandOLincoln]

22. I said I had no respect for your POLITICAL OPINIONS.

Your OPINIONS, and more specifically, your POLITICAL opinions.

But of course you claim that as a personal attack, and decline to answer my question based on that.

Nice dodge, but rather too easy, don't you think?

[CWebster]

25. It is the equivilant of liberal bashing

You really didn't offer anything other than a generalized putdown of my politics on a debate site for the Left.

[LandOLincoln]

31. Ah--so you claim to speak for all Liberals? Anyone who questions

your opinions is ipso facto anti-Liberal?

Is that really what you intended to imply? And how come it doesn't work in reverse?

By the way, I capitalize the word Liberal--a title I have claimed with pride my entire life--and can't help but notice that you didn't.

[zipplewrath]

17. Sometimes ya gotta lose

They may have lost this one. Lose the battle win the war. If these folks are going to get approved anyway, and further limit our ability to stop any in the future, aren't we better off losing the vote and portraying the GOP as hell bent on one party rule? Let them dive hell bent for the right and see when they go too far. God knows it worked with the Schiavo thing. Had repubs running like crazy from the whole mess, even the White House. Jeb basically walked away from it as well. Ya keep letting them over play their hand and it's over.

[CWebster]

26. We always lose

and it is always the same centrists who lead us down the losing path.

[derby378]

27. History has indicated otherwise (re: Neville Chamberlain)

Plus, Frist has already announced he'll diss the agreement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3717721

Backers of the DLC compromise, I hope you're happy...

[welshTerrier2]

33. the "other" view

i have not made a decision what i think about the "compromise" ...

it seems to me the predominant arguments fall into two categories ... one sees itself as being very "realistic and pragmatic" and makes arguments that "we didn't have the votes to block the filibuster" or "they could have pushed the 7 judges through anyway and then we would have nothing" ... it is a narrow view that focusses on the very tangible, short-term ideas about winning and losing ...

but there is another prevalent argument being made by those who oppose the compromise ... the other argument has absolutely nothing to do with winning and losing on the issue of filibuster or judges ... it has to do with finally bringing the partisan battle to a head ... it has to do with standing at the window and shouting "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore" ... it has to do with making it clear that Democrats are now officially "the opposition party" ... yes, we might have lost on the filibuster vote ... yes, we might have lost on all the judges ... of course, in the end we still might ... but perhaps there would have been value in loudly announcing that we have the guts to take on these bastards ... the compromise seems to have muddied that a bit ...

as a "fence sitter" on the compromise, at least for now, i find it somewhat disturbing to see strong positions taken when they argue only one side of the issue ... it's not necessary to strike a compromise between the two points of view ... i'm certainly not making a case for the "balanced, wishy-washy center" ... it's more a plea to incorporate, and dismiss if necessary, the opposing point of view when arguing your case ... there's been too little of that in this discussion IMHO ...

[Internut]

36. I disagree -

I am about as pragmatic as it gets, and I still see this as a huge loss. Not the compromise itself, but the whole maneuver of filibustering then backing off. We are right now exactly where we would have been if we did not filibuster Owen, Brown et al - except:

* We did not have the "extraordinary circumstances" criterion to meet in order to justify the filibuster. Now we do.

* We did not have Owen and Brown as the yardstick against which the "extraordinary circumstances" will be measured. Now we do.

So - instead of just allowing the up/down votes on these judges, which would have prevented the "nuclear" option naturally, we blustered and filibustered and compromised - and wound up worse than we were. Yay.