It's amazing to me the DU Stalwarts who approved Fillibutster Resolution.

[KoKo]

How could they have caved. And even our "illustrious William Rivers Pitt" who writes the Blog for the Progressive Democrats has caved and said it was a "good thing."

I don't think it was a good thing and neither does Josh Marshall and neither will a number of Progressive Democrats.

I feel badly that some feel they have to "Spin" the Democrats CAVE-IN here on DU.

I think it SUCKS!

You have to scroll to get all of Josh's comments, but it's well worth
the visit:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[Mass_Liberal]

1. newsflash

it doesn't do you or anyone else credit when you say that anyone who disagrees with you is a faux-liberal DLC appeasing pig. People have given adequate reasoning for their point of view as to why the compromise was a good thing. Why don't you refute their actual words instead of just namecalling?

[KittyWampus]

2. What Did Marshall Have To Say About Election Fraud?

[KoKo]

3. Don't throw a "Straw Man" in here.....

Read all of Josh's comments about this...I gave the link.

[KittyWampus]

5. Point Being, Marshall Is Entitled To His Opinion. Doesn't Make Him Right

[Mass_Liberal]

6. hmmm

I'm noticing a pattern. You post bullshit, and then when multiple people call you on your bullshit, you wuss out and don't respond.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. Why Do You Always Call Out Will Pitt?

:shrug:

And you're badly mischaracterizing Josh Marshall if you're claiming he thinks this was a horrible outcome.

DTH

[Capn Sunshine]

51. Somebody has to

:evilgrin:

[Democrat 4 Ever]

7. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Just like every other

issue confronting the Democratic Party, we are allowed to have a variety of opinions and solutions notwithstanding Josh Marshall, William Pitt or anyone else who chooses to write on this matter. Big umbrella, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I wish that the nuclear option had been exercised because I truly believe the American public would finally see the real backbone of the Dems ready to fight to the death for the Constitution. BUT, at least this way, the compromise is the best case scenario of the worst case scenario we found ourselves in yesterday.

The repugs cannot, will not, let this compromise stand, we will still get our fight and we can take the moral high ground when we do.

So, the situation we have here is we can piss and moan about what was done yesterday or we can take what we got from the deal and move forward. While we are whining about what a terrible compromise it is the repugs are re-grouping, re-organizing and getting ready to fight again and again and again. The Dems have come out of this stronger, much stronger than Frist/Cheney/Rove ever thought possible with a majority in both houses. Let's not lose that energy or passion looking back. JMHO

[Mass_Liberal]

8. Well said

:applause:

[mikehiggins]

11. What exactly are WE getting from the deal?

I must have missed something along the line there.

The GOPukes get their up-down vote on three reprehensible nominees, the Dems get a GOPuke PROMISE that nobody will step on the filibuster UNLESS the Dems do something naughty, like oppose Bush's nominees, and the whole thing is held together by the promise of "good faith".

I hate to belabor the point but there are hundreds of thousands of DEAD people right now who got that way because people beleived the GOPukes.

What is so hard to figure out here? The Dems caved, as most of us knew they would, the GOPukes got three out of five WITHOUT a fight, and the last two, and the possible future SC nominations are still up for grabs.

I guess that is what passes for victory for the Beltway Dems.

I'm just amused to see how many on DU swallow the "moderate" gobbledegook of Jomentum Lieberman and the rest.

In the end, there is a great lack of guts in the Democratic Senate, and apparently in a lot of so-called progressive circles.

I can't express my disgust thoroughly enough.

[CWebster]

28. You expressed it perfectly

:kick:

[sendero]

31. The Dems in the senate..

... and at large are like dogs abused for five years by their sadistic master.

Just one bit of kibble has their tails wagging.

I heard Ms Landreau on NPR yesterday explaining how this compromise was necessary to keep the business of the senate moving. Say again?

An energy bill she says? It would be better for the country if not a single piece of legislation passed in Congress until 2008, since not one fucking piece of it since 2000 has been good for America.

All I can say is - just like the Polyannas bleating endlessly about what JK was doing "behind the scenes" in November of 2004, I'll be here to call BULLSHIT on all of the Polyannas here who think ANYTHING has been accomplished by this, yet another in a long string of, pink tutu capitulations being spun as a "compromise".

[placton]

37. Amen x 2, my friend (N/T)

[Tomee450]

53. I couldn't agree more.

The compromise was a bad deal. Privately, I'll bet the Republicans are laughing there heads off knowing how they really played the Democrats.

[Old and In the Way]

9. So, when are you running for office Koko01?

Perhaps you can lead us out of the desert, into the Promised Land.

[KoKo]

16. ROFL.. I was a Precint Vice Chair who worked for Kerry....

and I'm working every day to get the DRE Machines out of my state. And we have a great organization working on that.

Yes...I might run. And, let me ask you all....what have YOU done lately to further the Bush Push Back...those of you so accustomed to "Compromise, Failure and Lost Elections."

BTW, I'm a member of the PDA...if Pitt is now working in a Public Way for our group "PDA" then I have every right to mention him. We "Progressives" don't need the DLC types out there trying to cover their butts. PDA is all about a COUNTER TO DLC/DNC crap that's lost us election after election because of their failed "compromises" and "hand wringing" and naysaying about letting NEW BLOOD into the Party.

[Old and In the Way]

22. Super.....

And I'm sure calling out people like Pitt will only help our cause.

I think it's great you are working locally, I am too. But I grow weary of your incessant posting that seems hellbent on splitting and dividing Democrats. Yeah, I know you are the uber-liberal and you have a clear vision of all things righteous from the top of Progressive Mountain. But when you're done purging all the DLC/DNC/moderate members from the Party, I suspect that you'll still be wondering why we don't win elections.

[Lex]

10. Ummm . . . your opinion is no better than mine, and

.
Josh Marshall's opinion is no more weighty than Will Pitt's.

Both sides have equally reasonable arguments as to why the compromise was good or bad.

Don't cast aspersions on other good Democrats. It's futile and divisive and gets you nowhere.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Reading Marshall's remarks, I think he sounds cautious

I think cautiously optimistic is a good attitude.

We won't know who did better in this until all of this plays out over the next weeks and months. But I think this was a decent resolution, given the range of options on offer. A working majority in the senate wouldn't consent to Bill Frist's Dobsonian radicalism. This potentially introduces a third force into the operation of the senate. And this will send the Dobsonites into a feeding frenzy of intra-party cannibalism.

As for 'Viva Reid', I think his leadership has been unexpectedly able in the last six months. Understated and unaffected, he's become an able co-worker with the president in the dismantling of the White House agenda and the president's popularity. All things being equal, I've learned to trust his judgment.

Trust but verify, of course, as another pol said.

I don't disagree with that. While I regret that at least three whack jobs will get seats in the federal courts of appeals, they would have gotten those seats for sure if the nuclear option had been invoked. At least two will be blocked by this agreement (and that's two more than would have been blocked if Frist had been able to drop the Bomb).

So, I agree with Marshall: Trust, but verify. Meanwhile, the Democrats came out with something in a fight that they really couldn't have won, if by winning one means blocking all of Bush's appointments.

[CWebster]

29. They would've gotten the seats anyway

with the nuclear option--but now they got them without the political fallout of using the nuclear option.

[KoKo]

13. Perhaps I should ask all of you: When did Dems Caving ever

produce results that were favorable to the Continuence of the Democratic Party?

We've lost three elections. We caved all the way from when Jefford's switched parties to help us and Tom Daschle allowed the Senate to APPROVE ALL OF BUSH's APPOINTEES coming off the Florida Fiasco?

And what did all of those Bush Appointees that Daschle was so willing to approve (when the Democrats because of Jeffords Controlled the House?)

What?

Daschle gave Bush everything he needed to go down the road to Iraq and Privitization and DEBT out the WAZOOO!

The Democrats who had a majority compromised away every right we had to be an Opposition Party coming off and election where Bush barely scraped by... and another 2004 election where we don't know who the hell won because of the voting machines.

You tell me that we Dems don't need to have spine. :shrug:

[Mass_Liberal]

15. you change the topic completely

None of us believe that Democrats should 'cave'. The thing in question is whether or not this compromise was 'caving'. Personally, I think we got the best out of a bad, bad situation. Anyway, the reasoning for my point of view is all over this board. Please actually refute that instead of taking the cowards way out, by using rhetoric that ignores the actual argument.

[unkachuck]

25. I'd say, 'never' and I'm with you 100%....

....being a liberal/progressive first and a Democrat second, I might be convinced 'you can win by losing', but not the DLC-way....

....the repugs got what they wanted and the DLC got what they had....IMO, the DLC lost and we came out looking weak, like usual....

....we should have fought, and yes, 'maybe' lose....but in the process, we would have 'bloodied-up' the extreme repugs and their pathetic governing skills with the whole world watching to see the outcome....

....but hey, I'm not too disappointed over this missed opportunity, because in a few days, in a few weeks, we get to do this all over again....and maybe one of these times they let us fair so much better....if the DLCers ask the repugs nicely, of course....

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Who caved?

Outnumbered and outgunned, a compromise was reached.

A compromise that both sides think sucks, so it must have something good about it.

The alternative was to have the Democrats obliterated in the actual voting and become martyrs in the elimination of the filibuster. In this case, they survived, which is the best they could do under the circumstances, and that you or anyone didn't like the outcome doesn't mean it wasn't the best, or at least a damn good, one under the circumstances.

And that seems to be Marshall's opinion, too, so I don't know why you refer to him.

[flpoljunkie]

32. Agree. Compromise forged by these 14 Senators, who basically rolled Frist.

Frist, Cheney, and Dubya wanted the nuclear option. Dobson, Focus on the Family, and his ilk were demanding the nuclear option., and they are outraged at the Republican moderates who took this away from them.

From Salon: Frist himself tried to put the best face on things Monday night. Just a few hours after declaring that senators had a "constitutional responsibility" to provide up-or-down floor votes for every judge the president nominates, Frist struggled to explain how an agreement that will deny floor votes to two long-stalled Bush nominees might be spun as a victory for the Republican leadership. It didn't work, and Frist seemed to know it. After a brief floor speech and a hand-shaking photo op with Harry Reid, Frist all but raced out of the Capitol as he said, over and over, "Let's move forward." As Frist stepped outside and toward a waiting car, his press secretary, Amy Call, physically held a Capitol door closed to keep reporters from following him.

<>For his part, Reid said he was optimistic that the agreement would keep the right to the filibuster alive, at least through the end of this Congress. Asked whether the parties might be right back to the edge once Bush nominates a replacement for the ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Reid said that Senate Democrats didn't intend to "pick a fight" with Bush, but that Bush shouldn't "pick a fight with us, either."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/24/senate_compromise/index.html

[sadiesworld]

17. It will be fascinating to see what dems run on in '06 and '08.

The Iraq War?
Oversight of funding for the war?
The abuses in the Patriot Act and it's progeny?
The unfairness of the Bankruptcy Bill?
Extremist judges?

Blech.

[LittleClarkie]

18. Or perhaps some of us differ with you and think it was a good thing

No spin (why do I want to add "Oh Really?" to that statement. Curse you, Reilly)

Not perfect for us. But Frist lost way more than we did. And I'm glad the Senate didn't blow up.

Those of us who disagree with you are only stating our opinion. We are not for the most part playing a public relations game. This felt like a win to me. And so I say as much.

[Q]

19. This 'deal' will fall apart in a matter of weeks...probably days...

...and then they'll be back to square one with the Dems playing 'moderate' defense to the Bushie GOP's scorched earth politics.

Never

Ever

Negotiate

With

Fascists

[Mass_Liberal]

20. for one

the ones that were negotiated with were moderate republicans.

As I have tried to argue time and time again:

Moderate Republicans does not = Fascists

And I think you know that. As for the never, ever negotiate, part...

politics involves compromise. It isn't a take-no-prisoners type. Its a lot more of I'll do x if you do y, or at least it was like that historically. Admitedly Neo-cons have been passing extreme and crappy legislature without consulting the minority. This is something that I believe the old-school moderate conservatives want to stop.

Otherwise, why else would they put their necks out on the line?

[Q]

21. But the Republican party is controlled by...

...fascists. And don't be fooled into believing that the 'moderate' Republicans went out on their own to negotiate with the corporate wing of the Dem party.

The so-called moderates (doesn't describe McCain at all) were more than likely following instructions from the WH to make empty gestures of compromise to put the Democrats off guard and have them claim a 'victory'. But make no mistake...as soon as the Demcrats begin to make any attempt to block the chosen ones getting on the bench...they'll resume their scorched earth tactics without hesitation.

And frankly...I don't trust any deal that involves Joe 'Enron' Lieberman.

No one is 'putting their necks on the line'. It's all meaningless words, gestures and theatre for the masses. In the end...Bush will once again get nearly everything he desires and another scandal or stage-managed event will take its place in the corporate media's WH scripted news.

Five friggin years of this and you STILL don't understand how it works?

[Mass_Liberal]

23. I think

that the republicans who agreed to the compromise represent a genuine split in the Republican party. I'm not saying that McCain is a moderate. But he is an old-school conservative who I don't think wants to change our government to a one-party system. As for your belief that the whole thing is staged by the white house....

do you have ANY evidence at all?

Why do we keep up with the conspiracy theories? They don't accomplish anything! The Bush Administration gives us plenty of ammunition every day that we can actually prove!

[Q]

24. I wince whenever someone mentions...

...the phrase 'conspiracy theory' because I realize it's an attempt to discredit the messenger instead of discussing the message.

Evidence? How about five years of the Bushie RWingers screwing us and the Democratic party doing little more than simply taking it?

I remember watching McCain giving a speech on the Floor, touting the Bush line about Iraq and essentially framing an attack as a cake walk. He's as much as a warmonger as Bush and Lieberman. Birds of a feather.

I'm not suggesting that there are NO sincere moderate Republicans. I'm saying that they have no power in this totalitarian regime to make deals...especially when it comes to stacking the courts for Bush's base: the zealots and corporate masters.

I'm just amazed that after five years of lies, deception and blatant corruption that Democrats still think they can negotiate or compromise with these fascists. It boggles the mind. I used to think it was just cowardly Democrats making deals to advance their careers and stuff their campaign donor's pockets...but now I realize it's simple complicity.

[loudsue]

50. I'm with you, Q....as usual.

And whenever I hear someone on DU accusing us of being "conspiracy theorists", it throws up a big red flag for me, as well...it comes straight from the republican party/corporate media talking points memos.

As for the "nuclear option", NPR reported, right after the agreement was announced, that Frist said he would still use the nuclear option, no matter what kind of agreement some people came to over the Owen vote.

OF COURSE you can't make an agreement with the republicans! They are totally devoid of any honor or moral code that supports honesty or fairness. In fact, it appears to me that they hold honesty and fairness in contempt.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Rowdyboy]

26. Ya just gotta love a party where you're allowed to have different views,

now doncha? Glad we don't all march in lockstep like Nazis or Republicans.

I think it was a solid victory and I've voted Democratic every election since 1972. You disagree. Thats your privilege-as a Democrat.

[CWebster]

27. Well Feingold didn't think it was a good thing either

and that is good enough for me.

[RedstDem]

30. The Democrats Would Have Won That Vote

Too Bad They Let Those 3 Judges Pass Thru, They Would Have been Stopped Otherwise. But I Guess We'll all Have To Move From Forward From Here, But I'll Bet Any Amount Of $ That It Comes Up Again For The Next SCOTUS Appiontment...& The Pugs Will Lose Then.

[RogueTrooper]

33. what gives you the right to cbreak DU's rules

and call other DUers out? What gives you the right to take a prophetic stance on this message board?

[Bridget Burke]

34. Can you summarize your opinion? "I think it SUCK!" won't do.

Will Pitt can write. It's a useful skill.

[RaulGroom]

35. I have no particular love for Will Pitt or Josh Marshall's opinions, but

People keep asking "what did we get?" Well, what did they get? We got to kill two judges (in addition to the five that were already beaten back.) They got to keep three. Neither of these outcomes means jack squat.

I know the left (including me) is deeply opposed to these three judges. We should be. They're awful. But it's three judges. Nothing more.

The "compromise" merely pushed the showdown back towards the 2006 midterms. Which was, of course, the desired outcome for the Democrats. Frist wants this issue to be long gone by the time he faces voters in 2006.

Basically, this whole thing wound up being a dress rehearsal. The compromise is meaningless, except for timing. And the timing favors the Dems.

So what's the problem?

[Stand and Fight]

36. I agree with most of what you said...

However, I would strongly urge that you be aware of the facts before you post. This has largely to do with your statement, "Frist wants this issue to be long gone by the time he faces voters in 2006." William Frist is stepping down from his Senate seat in 2006. The widely held BELIEF is because he has designs to run for president in 2008. When you're wrong on key facts like that it makes your whole argument sound amateurish and woefully ill-informed...

I do agree that putting off this fight to battle another day was the best thing for the Democrats to do, because when we take the Republicans on we'd better be damn well ready for one hell of a fight.

[RaulGroom]

49. You're right, that's a big mistake

The principle stands, though. If the Republicans lose Senate seats in '06, Frist has no shot at the Republican nomination in 2008.

Thanks for the info.

BTW for all the folks who seem to think that only sellouts like this deal, I was 100% prepared to hate, hate, hate this compromise. When I heard about it I didn't look at the news for 12 hours because my heart sank so low I couldn't face it.

Then I looked at what the deal really was and thought "wow, they did something right for a change."

If there is a downside to this deal (other than the three judges), it's that it slows the marginalization of the appeasement wing of the Democratic party. But it also confirms that Lieberman et al realize that they no longer have the upper hand, and that soon they are going to have to stand with the Democrats or be elbowed out.

[Stand and Fight]

38. How Dare You?

Who the hell do you think you are to say other Democrats have caved on this issue? Just what the hell makes you the authority on any of this?

You pose the question, "How could they have caved.(?)" For one, a lot of people don't seem to think that the Democrats in the Senate "caved" at all on this issue. Completely contrary to what you're proclaiming, Josh Marshall seems to think this compromise is a good thing. William Pitt and Josh Marshall both seem to think that the compromise was the best thing to do at this moment in time, as do a good number of the Democrats on this board. There is a variance of opinion on this issue, but that does not mean that just because someone does not agree with your view they've "sold out."

You are saying that the compromise "sucks," but you are not elaborating on exactly why it sucks so badly. Do you really think that the nuclear option would have presented the Democrats with an opportunity to win on this issue now? For you to insinuate that the people on this board are anything but liberal or progressive Democrats is asking for anger to be directed at you.

[CWebster]

40. Ah, maybe because the poster has been paying attention

Since, at least year 2000 and has witnessed a consistant pattern of caving followed by a consistant pattern of predictable apologies: They have a secret strategy, They must pick their battles, etc, and maybe the poster just couldn't bring themselves to hoist that tattered old excuse one more time.

[Stand and Fight]

42. Are you implying that other DUers have not been paying attention?

"Do not become paralyzed and enchained by the set patterns which have been woven of old. No, build from your own youthful feeling, your own groping thought and your own flowering perception."
-- Lotte Lehmann

[CWebster]

45. No

but maybe some have reached their tolerance level for ongoing betrayal.

For example, we hear Kerry and Clinton's rousing strains of liberation and bringing democracy to Iraq. What do you think:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4578755.stm



Don't that just make you swell with pride?

[Stand and Fight]

47. I agree with you...

There is a certain disheartening nature to some of the concessions we seem to make all too frequently; however, I disagree with the OP in the fact that I think this was a time for compromise so that we might fight another day.

[CWebster]

48. fight another day...

for example...

[DemocracyInaction]

39. I'm thrilled we have the filibuster in our back pocket for the day

when this deal is, of course, going to be blown sky high (just wrote a post about it). Had things gone 'nuke' at this judge level the American people wouldn't have even noticed. The biggest audience we are going to get to play in front of is when the first Nazi Supreme nominee is sent up by Bush. That's the time to allow this deal to explode all over the front pages of America's news. That's the best time we have to show the people what it means to them if people like this get on the court. Had we gone nutso at this level......the response would have been a gigantic 'yawn' by the public.

[kentuck]

41. I usually agree with Josh but...

this time I have to agree with Will Pitt. We have to understand the precarious position we were in at the moment. Yes, we had to sacrifice. We would have had to anyway. But what do we gain? We have an "agreement" (for what it's worth) with seven moderate Repubs. Fifty-five minus seven equals forty-eight and 48 is not a majority. And the 60-vote cloture still stands. At least for a while longer. Maybe a week? A month" or maybe until the 2006 elections?

[Stand and Fight]

43. kentuck, read what Josh said...

I don't know if you would necessarily disagree with him then -- in fact I think you'd find yourself agreeing with both him and William R. Pitt.

[kentuck]

44. Sorry about that ...

I should not have accepted the statements at face value...After reading, I don't really see that much difference in the two positions ... or my own.

[Stand and Fight]

46. No problem, friend. n/t

[nickgutierrez]

52. I'm not "caving in".

I really believe it was either this or lose the filibuster altogether. I think this is the better option.

[LittleClarkie]

55. I fear that some would rather go down in ideologically pure flames

than win even a partial victory.

I don't blame the Dems for being in the minority. All I know is we better do something about that fact, or even partial victories will be a thing of the past. Onward to 2006!!

[CWebster]

56. So, what you are saying is

they can get whatever they want by pulling out the nuke option whenever they need it?

Oh, that's right, we will make a deal to confirm their judges and bypass that nasty threat.

Do you see a problem here?

[chaska]

54. Lemons, lemonade, spilt milk, we live to fight another day. EOM

[Moderator]

57. I'm locking this thread

reason: calling out