From a "divisiveness" standpoint, it appears Democrats won the battle...

[kentuck]

The Republicans, especially the talk radio kingdom, will be very angry at their Party. They wanted all-out battle. They are disappointed in Dewine, Graham, and the others for working out a compromise. From this perspective, and it is an important one, the Democrats have won this battle. In reality, it may prove to be a totally different story, but the perception is all that is important today and the Repubs "perceive" they have lost. Because their expectations were that the Democrats would be stomped into the ground.

[rigel99]

1. IS that what you say to the victims of these 3 judges

how do you answer to the citizens that will get these 3 judges and be railroaded in their basic civil rights?

there can be no victory till we impeach the president and then slowly remove or impeach the unelected officials...

[kentuck]

2. I would rejoice in that day...

in the meantime, we should take our victories wherever we can find them.

[Birthmark]

3. Question

What action by Democrats would have prevented those three judges from being appointed - while losing the right to filibuster future nominees?

To me, it looks like a good bit of bargaining by the Democrats while in a tough spot

[rigel99]

8. You don't get it...

the REPUKES can do this all over again anytime and now they know dems are weak and they will get a few more judges here and there.

as for their compromise it would not have happened if frist had all the votes to shutdown the filibuster..

in the end, they called our poker hand and they won, as they always do because there is NO LEADERSHIP WHATSOEVER on our side and this is a sad day for democrats that we begin negotiating with terrorists and calling it a victory...

[CWebster]

4. The problem is

the Repugs want total domination, nothing less and they act as if it is the most reasonable thing in the world.

Democrats operate as if the Neo-cons are playing fair and act grateful everytime they are kicked in the ass with a sock rather than with a shoe.

[napi21]

6. Well, I think this was a much bigger defeat for the Pubs than us.

They are all freaking out! Dobson and his crowd are really pissed. I suspect Frist has lost any support he might have had from them in 2008 (thank God!) andof course they won't support any of the 7 signators of this agreement.

I don't think there was any way WE could have wond it all in this issue, and everybody wins & looses something in a compromise.

I believe this is a good thing that happened yesterday. Far better than what "could have been".

[supernova]

5. Absolutely because Grover Norquist

said that he hoped to break the will of the Dems, turn us into more compliant minority willing to meekly accept anything the majority repukes want.

In that, they failed.

It heard this on NPR this past weekend, but I can't find a link right now.

[CWebster]

9. That's what you think.

That is precisely what they got. Will they get their confirmed judges? You betcha and accomplished it by getting the Dems to believe they won something.

[tgnyc]

7. That only means the repugs were being unreasonable

in their demands. It doesn't mean they "lost" as in, got less than the other side.

[jzodda]

10. We won in that.

The right is so furious. I did not expect them to be this angry and that makes me happy

Also Frist has been hurt and as leader he could not keep his troops in line. That also makes me very happy. So in every storm cloud there is always a silver lining.

Anything that drives the Rep moderates away from the right wing wackos is a good thing.

[rigel99]

11. It's time to demonstrate in the streets folks.. this is ridiculous

and folks like you calling it a victory is part of the problem...

------ Forwarded Message
From: Not In Our Name
Reply-To:
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 18:13:30 -0500
To:
Subject: Democrats Capitulate ... Again


This is a comment on the outcome of the "compromise" in the Senate over judicial nominations. C. Clark Kissinger is one of the initiators of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience who, along with Joan Bokaer (Founder of Theocracy Watch.org) and others, called for people to protest the threatened "nuclear option":

"After all the bluster and shadow boxing was over, President Bush got his way. Under the terms of a "compromise," three of Bush's worst nominees will be voted on and they will likely be confirmed. And what did the Democrats get in return? They got to keep the right to filibuster, provided they promise not to use it!

"That's right. The Democrats got nothing. And what will happen when even more disgusting candidates are brought up as nominees for the Supreme Court? The Republicans will simply roll out the threat of the "nuclear option" once again, since nothing in the so-called "compromise" prohibits them from doing that.

"Once again this demonstrates the need for a mass popular movement of
resistance. Without the kind of mass upsurge that we witnessed in the 1960s, there is nothing that will prevent the current threatening dynamic from continuing. This is why we called on people to go to Washington, and make their presence felt in the streets. The world can't wait any longer. We need to be about the business of driving the Bush regime from power."

C. Clark Kissinger

from the NION SOC Staff

www.nion.us