For all who think we lost...

[annerevere]

A message from Harry Reid, courtesy of The Washington Note:

"We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical arm of the Republican base an undeniable message: Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over. We are a separate and equal branch of government. That is our founding fathers' vision, and one we hold dear.
I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside there differences and work from the center. I do not support several of the judges that have been agreed to because their views and records display judicial activism that jeopardize individual rights and freedoms. But other troublesome nominees have been turned down. And, most importantly, the U.S. Senate retains the checks and balances to ensure all voices are heard in our democracy and the Supreme Court make-up cannot be decided by a simple majority."

[wabranty]

1. But the Repubs still get some of their judges. . .

And the Democrats lose a chance to demonstrate how extreme the GOP is now...

Any more "victories" like these and there won't be a Democratic Party in 2006 or 2008.:nuke:

[GOTV]

2. Unconvincing

"and the Supreme Court make-up cannot be decided by a simple majority"

Where in the agreement does this promise exist?

[liberal N proud]

3. Meanwhile the repukes are sitting in their armchairs having a smoke

and saying that sure felt good!

[GOTV]

4. Why won't it play out this way?

Bush nominates another extremely terrible judge.
The democrats filibuster.

Because the of the agreement and to show good faith, the GOP does not oppose the filibuster.

Bush nominates another extremely terrible judge.
The democrats filibuster.

The GOP capitulates again although corporate media starts broadcasting the idea that the Dems are not upholding their side of the agreement.

Bush nominates another extremely terrible judge.
The democrats filibuster.

The GOP capitulates again although now they start to complain that the Dems are taking advantage of the agreement and frequent news of democratic filibusters cause the public to agree.

Bush nominates a terrible supreme court justice.
The democrats filibuster.

The GOP goes nuclear over the endless string of democratic filibusters and with the consent of the public. They get the SC justice they want, all of the judges from that point on and suffer no backlash since the dems are now thought to have pushed the GOP to this option.

We should have pushed the issue while could.

The only way this scenario would be avoided is if (1) Bush starts to nominate reasonable moderates and hurt his parties chances in 2006/2008 or (2) democrats stop filibustering thereby removing all restraint from the Bush administration.

[powergirl]

5. WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE

I think this is the best deal the Dems could get. Frist had the votes for the nuclear option and the Dems were screwed. WE HAD NO LEVERAGE!!! This will buy us time until the mid term election. Hopefully by then we can take over at least one arm of Congress. I agree with your sentiment. This is the best the Dems could do for the country.:patriot:

[QC]

6. Yep--it's amazing how few people here understand basic math. n/t

[mtnsnake]

7. Not only that, but we turned a negative into a positive

when we did what's best for the country by doing what was best for democrats: preserving the filibuster as our only means to fight until we regain power. Like you pointed out, this buys us time and also gives us some positive notice.

[CWebster]

8. They were planning to break the rules to change the law

IF our representitives had any resolve they could have held them accountable and politically punished them--and they were fighting like hell. But then some unprincipled political opportunists(On the Left triangulating with the Right, on the Right, positioning themselves as moderates- while still taking advantage) who really didn't have that resolve, struck a deal which gave the neo-cons everything without them experiencing any political fallout, while the Dems still are held hostage to the Repugs framework.

Yay.

[powergirl]

10. I WISH IT COULD WORK THAT WAY BUT . . .

As you know, your basic American citizen doesn't watch this stuff as closely as we do. I think we were screwed, backed into a corner and had no leverage. The public would forget all about it and really wouldn't pay attention. The math simply prevented the DEMS from getting out the ole can of whip ass. It is frustrating. I am a very competitive person and I was totally p.o.'d last night until I did the math and figured we were screwed. I hope we get a chance in 2006.:hi:

[mtnsnake]

12. Exactly, powergirl.Let's hope our perception as losers is coming to an end

Considering the position we were in, we did pretty damn well, and it's something positive to build on.

As we talk, the chimp's rating has dropped another few points.

[CWebster]

13. I see

the public isn't paying attention is why we should capitulate everytime? Or, the public is paying attention and the Senate isn't polling well so we should capitulate because we assume that those numbers automatically reflect on the Dems negatively for standing up to the Neo-cons? Speaking of perceptions as losers.

[GOTV]

11. I haven't seen any proof....

... that either side had the votes but I could have missed it. Can you provide a link where the GOP showed they had a majority for the nuclear option?

But even if we could not have won, I'm not sure that standing our ground would not have served us better in the long run.

We may find that we are not able to filibuster in the future even though the filibuster rule remains in place.

Also we've lost an opportunity to let the republicans embarrass themselves with their unoprecedented power grab and all it cost us is a filibuster we can't use anyway.

[gratuitous]

9. I sure hope you're right

Because a contract without remedies isn't very enforceable. And the fuzzy language of the agreement practically guarantees that a sizable segment of the Republican caucus will object to any Democratic filibuster as "unreasonable." Do the Democrats then withdraw their filibuster attempt? Do they have a chance to show that their filibuster is reasonable?

"I've got a bad feeling about this." But I sincerely hope you all are correct.