Redstate

In particular, I think the Landrieu and Salazar participation is crucial amongst the Dems. Both made statements about nominees in their races (IIRC Landrieu reneged on Estrada, but Salazar was supportive of AG Gonzalez). Their inclusion here signals they at least want to remain on the fence on these issues. I don't know if Landrieu can be re-persuaded on Estrada, but I think Salazar wants to support some Bush nominee against the party's edicts. The deal keeps pushing the ball toward that goal, which is NOT the Dems goal.

As for the Republicans, all they need do is arrange for various individual "no" votes strewn amongst otherwise comfortable confirming margins. This is likely McConnell's whip responsibility, but certainly within his grasp.

If anything, while the MSM may call it a Dem win, it should remain an unsuccessful Borking, particularly if the 2006 races break as referenced, and W can renominate those still filibustered

My only disagreement with you is when you say that the filibuster has generally been a friend of conservatives.  

I am quibbling about details, but here goes..

Actually, the filibuster is not available on the one issue that many conservatives care about: tax increases.  

The 1993 Clinton tax increase passed the US Senate 51 to 50, with VP Gore's vote being the tie breaker.  This is because the 1974 Budget Act limits debate over budget issues (resolution and reconciliation bills) to 50 hours.  

Also, the filibuster killed school choice for Washington DC schoolchildren a few years ago.  We had 58 votes in favor, but 42 opposed.  

But I do agree with you that we need to elect more Republicans, especially those running in Red States (North Dakota) and in Light Blue States (Minnesota).

I also agree that this judicial filibuster/constitutional option deal might not be a complete disaster.  We'll see.

Have any of the Democratic 7 stated whether the judicial nominees not covered by the agreement are deserving of filibuster?

If not, and we can at least get votes on them, then I'll call this deal a success.  If it's just that we get the 3 mentioned and the rest get killed by filibuster, then not so good.

Thanks for pointing out some of the positive aspects of the deal. I want to be optimistic about the whole thing but have my doubts.

I was glad to hear Senator Graham's remarks earlier today where he promised to back the nuke option if Democrats welched on the bargain. I can tell you, that the conservative voters of SC, like me, who voted for him; intend to make sure he follows up on that promise.

 This has been a real shock to SC conservatives and alot of us are none too happy with Graham. We certainly do NOT want him to become the "John McCain" of SC.

Speaking of McCain... Remember that little ole firewall of conservatives he ran into down here in 2000? WEEELLLLLL... let me tell you...that "Straight Talk" bus of his won't be welcome down here in 2008.

I think this sort of analysis is useful in the rarified atmosphere of Red State.

I have my doubts about some of the theses, in particular the idea that the filibuster has been 'preserved' for our own use someday. Let's remember how the number got changed to 60 from 67. If the Democrats need to change it again, they will. We may then beat ourselves with chains, and crow about our moral superiority: Woe is us! We didn't do it them when we had the chance.

I also do not trust Tough Talk From Squishes. For the longest time, the by-word in the Senate was "Don't count your Hatch before he chickens." Hatch himself seems to have ingested some Viagra, but my experience is that a squish will go squishy on you just when you need him not to. Graham, to pick one, will tell us that the Democrats embedding a spear in his right arm "does not rise to the level."

But the real problem with this deal isn't going to be on Red State. The long, slow build-up to this nuclear, climactic, crucial vote in the Senate energized a whole lot of people who don't look too far past the headlines. They don't care about the niceties. They wanted to see the Monster Truck roll over the bad guys. And instead the wheels fell off the Monster Truck right in front of them. "Boo! Hiss!" they are shouting. They want their money back.

Now we can say that those people are rubes for enjoying Monster Truck events, but they vote too, and right now they are pretty angry at the guys who sold them Monster Truck tickets.

All of this was unnecessary. It was Frist himself who sold this as a Monster Truck event, and he's been doing it for months. "May have to go nuclear. Guess there's no way but nuclear. Go nuclear next month. Nuclear, Real Soon Now. 10. 9. 8..."

And then pffft.

Not only do the wheels fall off the Monster Truck, but when it crashes to the ground, the door pops open and John McCain steps out. It's like Andre the Giant just threw The Patriot into the stands.

There's no telling how long those folks will remain angry, but for sure they aren't going to be following the legal parsing of the document.

This whole thing was very poorly done. And as far as I'm concerned, Doctor Frist gets the credit for that.

but I want to elaborate on one point: it seems that most of the silver-lining crowd, and the 7 RINOs, are justifying their actions with a slippery slope argument concerning the filibuster:

"Well, if we do this, then it will be just that much easier [for the Dems, later] to eliminate the filibuster on legislation."

Why?

Did the 1974 Budget Act, which prevented filibusters of tax increases, lead to a wholesale abolition of all filibusters?  No.

Did the Byrd-engineered reduction in the requirements for cloture vote in 1975 from 67 to 60 lead inexorably to the "destruction of the character of the Senate, turning it into the House, destroying its fundamental characteristic of the protection of 'minority rights'"  (e.g. kill all filibusters)?  No.

Did Byrd's other actions in 1977, 1979, 1981, and 1986 lead to a wholesale abolition of all filibusters?  No -- and in each of these cases a specific issue was disallowed to be filibustered.  Kinda like removing judicial nominations from that threat.

So why, EXACTLY, would this action immediately send us careening down the slippery slope?  Because the other actions were taken by Democrats, and Republicans refused to retaliate (e.g. take the next step)?

So the real argument here is, well if D's restrict the filibuster, that's okay because the R's will oppose (see 1996) -- so no slippery slope.  But if R's restrict the filibuster, the D's will be off to the races?

Translation: "our opponents are unprincipled, it's up to us to preserve the Senate"

Ummm, sure.  Only one problem: if your opponents are unprincipled, they need no excuse to abolish the filibuster.  If it is to their advantage, they will do so -- whether you've taken this step or not.  So why surrender -- it's not as if they are going to like you more and start inviting you to their weekend cookouts.

The D's understand politics: win, and you get to define 'good'; the R's want to be seen as good losers, under the definition imposed by those who have defeated them.

Yesterday I listened to people like Hannity and Limbaugh spew their suds about this deal to keep the Freepers riled up, and I'm not really too upset about pissing off the monster-truck crowd.  I think the monster-truck crowd is hurting us, and they need to crack a book instead of a six-pack every once in a while.

Let's look at it the other way:  do you really want to be the 160 IQ member of the party riding to victory in the bed of the monster truck?   You may have some sympathy for the people who started watching the WWE at age 12 because that was when it really started making sense to them, but I don't.  

Look, I don't think the agreement is great, but we're not exactly sitting pretty as a party right now, either:  The President's approval rating is the lowest of his tenure, the Democrats have been beaten into a kind of deranged lunacy by their string of losses, and we've got people here on this very website calling for the U.S. to just withdraw from Iraq.  And to top it off you want me to feel sorry for the monster-truck crowd because they didn't get to see some skulls get crushed this time around?  Where does it end?  

The more I've had the opportunity to think about this deal (after my untimely near-meeting with a bridge abutment after hearing of it on the radio yesterday morning), the angrier I get at Bill Frist.  Like Nick (above), I lay this entire debacle squarely at his feet.

You expect these things of John McCain (McPain?), it's his nature.  Recognizing that he's looking with clear eyes to the 2008 election, McCain is probably betting on one of two things:

1. That he knows he's not going to win the hearts and votes of conservative voters and is therefore trying to secure the "I can work with everyone and get things done" vote in the squishy middle, and/or
   
   
2. That Saint Hillary is almost certainly going to be the Dem nominee, that the only way to beat Her High-and-Mightiness is with a marquee name, and that he's the only one in the field (the "Sure you're pissed at me, but what are you gonna do about it?  Live with Hillary in the White House for 4-8 years?" approach)

The other possibility is that McCain could be thinking of running as a Perot-type independent, but in reality I think that is not at all likely (though the MSM would eat it up).

Similarly, we can (and probably should) take issue with Graham and DeWine and should certainly hold them to their "bold" post-deal rhetoric - but the problem was, is, and ever shall be Dr. Frist.  He is most certainly a lovely gentleman, but we don't need a "lovely gentleman" as SML right now - we need Patton, LBJ - heck, gimme back Bob Dole.  We need someone smart, good on TV, schooled in Senate procedure and (most of all) ruthless.  Frist ain't that guy.

Still, Frist still has the chance to make this right - by bringing-up all of the President's nominees and insisting they get a vote.  If the vote fails, I can live with that.  But I do not think we can allow nominees who have majority support to be denied seats on the courts because Teddy Kennedy doesn't like their point of view.  We'll see how committed DeWine and Graham are to the President's nominees when Saad or Meyers comes for a vote.  I'm not hopeful.

That said, I can already see that it will probably be very difficult for me to stick to my Not! One! Penny! More! pledge.  Stuck in traffic this morning behind one of those omnipresent Volvo station wagons driven by a prematurely grey, stringy-haired woman, blabbing on a cell phone, with "Bush Lied" and "<strike>Mission</strike&gtNothing Accomplished" MoveOn.org PAC bumper stickers, it dawned on me that it is frankly more important to keep these people out of the White House than it is to get our people in - and that takes money, too.

So thanks, Adam.  Your point that perhaps this is not yet the time to abandon ship is well made.

Yet, I think you are kidding yourself when you state that (i)t perserves (sic) the filibuster which is generally a friend of conservatives and does not take us on the first step toward eliminating all filibusters.  I'm sorry, but that is simply not a credible argument.  We all know that the Byrd Option will be triggered the day after a Demo-Senate/Demo-President combination is in place - with the fawning approval of the MSM, of course.  Thus, we have preserved only the right of the Democrats to use the filibuster against us, nothing more.

I don't see that as being among the better parts of this so-called compromise.

Cheers.

If the deal works, and the judges get through... then McCain's the one who's going to get the credit.  If the deal works, and if there are enough moderate Dems willing to tell Reid and MoveOn to shove it, that will put McCain as the GOP front-runner in 2008.

Frist might as well go back to being a doctor.  He's a good one, and a decent man, but as Majority Leader, he probably was in over his head.  I just hope he's not replaced by Harold Ford Jr. in 2006.

I wouldn't put myself into the "not one more dime" category but I would encourage those who still do feel that way to focus their efforts on electing more solid conservatives in some of the open races that are coming up in 2006.  They have done nothing to earn our ire and you can still support them without sending your money to the national party.  I would even go so far as to suggest that it might be better for these candidate to have an independent source of support from the conservative base rather than be beholden to the national party which values things like an $849 Medicare prescription drug benefit and the occasional "hot button" issue that's thrown as a bone to the base.

Also (thinking more long-term) keep cultivating strong conservative candidates for local and State offices who may eventually become the Congressional Representatives and Senators of the future.  The current group won't be in there forever and there may be a few in "safe" seats that can be replaced with someone more effective.

No matter what happens in terms of whether there are future filibusters (I think that there probably will be), Senator John McCain will be remembered as the one who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and forced Republicans to give up two, possibly four more judicial nominees when we could have gotten the lot.  

Moreover there will probably be some "moderate" justices nominated in the future and conservatives will always be wondering if they were nominated to appease Democrats since they still reserve the power to filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances."  Should one turn out to be another Souter, conservatives will know which Seven Senators to blame.

Or more accurately, you're not, which is really grinding on me. When did you and I start explicitly agreeing so much?

do you really want to be the 160 IQ member of the party riding to victory in the bed of the monster truck?

No. I had previously written about exactly that on Trevino's thread.

My point here is that this got to be a Monster Truck event because Frist made it one. He started the 'Jaws' music months ago. It got to the point where people were yelling, "So bring on the truck already! You got a Monster Truck or not? Let's see it!"

There was no need for that. Senate procedural moves can, when desired, have all the excitement of drying paint. Instead this got turned into a big circus with mobs on both sides of the Big Ditch screaming their heads off.

What was that about? Why did we need that? Why didn't Frist just quietly line up his ducks, and then do it. While the Dems were crying 'foul,' he could have been holding votes on the judges... all of 'em.

I'm sorry, but I know a FUBAR when I see one, and this was one.

If Frist had not pushed the nuclear option, we never would have gotten the Owen nomination on the floor, nor the others now scheduled for a vote.  They would continue to linger in never never land.   Regardless of the outcome two days ago, and I was not happy with it, he has unquestionably moved things forward.  He will continue to push the other nominations (all of them) on the floor and then we'll see the sincerity of the deal makers.

But we wouldn't be this far without Frist.

I'm pretty good at guessing games:  

It's important to make Bill Frist the scapegoat for this deal, even though it will ultimately probably turn out better for the Republicans because:

1. Frist is a heart surgeon but should have been a proctologist instead.
   
2. Frist is the kind of wussyboy who should never have been put into a leadership position in the Senate in the First Place.
   
3. Frist is the kind of guy who might try to run for President and it's important for us to make sure he knows that someone from the Great State of Florida might like to do that, instead of him.

Three guesses, the first three don't count.  

or better, "They have done nothing to earn our SUPPORT".  Sure, 48 R's held "firm" (really, "held squeamishly, tentatively, more-firm-than-day-old-pudding but less-firm-than-jello but won't somebody PLEASE do something so I don't have to actually cast a vote") when it came to their OWN votes on this issue...BUT:

These so-called "solid conservatives" did not put the screws to their Honorable Colleagues ("Say, Sen. Collins, that's a mighty nice Highway Pork Project ya got there in Maine.  Be a shame if somethin'...bad...happened to its funding.") because that sort of thing "just isn't done."  Senate Comity and all that.

Except that it IS done, ALL the TIME.  But they DIDN'T do it THIS time, on THIS issue.  Why?

I for one don't give a good goshdarn about their "Senate Comity".  I didn't send conservative Senators to Washington so they could get invited to all the nice parties, or to play footsie with the likes of Ted Kennedy OR Olympia Snowe.  They are there to pursue an agenda -- not to give away the farm, toss 7 good judges overboard, or stand by while their "honorable colleagues" do so.

They didn't "toss 7 judges" overboard.  The one that has come up was just affirmed 56-43.  2 more are guaranteed votes.  The other 4 were left out of the deal, but may still get votes.  Furthermore, the likelihood of a SC filibuster is very small now.

Hold your fire until we see how this "Deal" works out.  If it screws us, then we can go mad.  But if it helps us in PR and gets us the ability to confirm the President's nominees, then it is a double win.

If you are interested, there is a coalition of bloggers who feel as you do, that the 'deal' is not bad for reps.

It is the Coalition of the Chillin' and was started by Mark Coffey at http://decision08.blogspot.com/2005_05_22_decision08_archive.html#111704612
190745098

join up if you wish.

If by chillin' he means in reaction to the deal, that sounds good to me.  If he means (like Instapundit) that the whole issue was uninteresting and unnecessary, then I must disagree.

This is Mark Coffey, Coalition of the Chillin' founder.  It's chillin' reaction, not chillin' unimportant...

coupled with a most likely passing bill on stem cell research and you've broken the back the of Dem's for public impression of the Senate and Executive.

It leaves them with Iraq, which they won't get swaying support on and SS which they will. The Dem's have left themselves without any sort of public image victory by not forcing the Rep's to use the option. The use of that option at this time would have really helped the Dem's in the next election as far as what I could see, at least there was a reasonably good chance of that happening. If my loyalties were only to party I would be very angry they didn't push the issue to it's end. But, in the light of what best for the country, the decision was a good one. The tradition was maintained and perhaps a system of balance, it was a choice I am glad was made.

The Dem's will need to push the issue again at a time and place of their chosing, which I believe those who seek power over substance will eventually do. And, again the Republican's will threaten with the "Nuke'em" thing, but this time I think the Dem's will push it and set it up for a final public impression battle right before election.

I am glad to see what has happened, but fear it is only a delay tactic to set it up the target more precisely.

In the end, to see what has been written on all the blog's in the last 24 hours, I believe the institutions of balance will be place on a rapid and far reaching destructive beeline toward the abyss within 14 months. We'll begin the process of becoming more and more like Nicaragua, Mexico and Brazil soon enough when we find ourselves stuck in the day when we decided to take down the walls of balance.

It will be so subtle at first though, we'll hardly even notice it. A slow, but totally painless death of the system of balance. It will be when we are all old men and woman when we see what we have done and not before, as youth is always determined that it is always correct and old wisedom's are for,...the old..

Pickering, Estrada, and Kuhl, who have already pulled out.  Then, there's these four:

   `We will keep four judges off the court,' vowed Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. `They are Myers, Saad, Kavanaugh and Haynes.'  (May 25, AFTER the 'deal')

That's 7.  of 10.  Worse, I'm assuming that Sen. Graham was lying Monday on MSNBC when, according to one of Kevin Drum's commentators, he said " atleast one of these(*) would be voted down on a bipartisan basis."

(*) Owen, Pryor, or Brown

The only response I can come up with to your guessing game is what?

That's because I have no clue where you are coming from with this. Please explain.

I am sure you did not mean it this way, but your comments come off as idiotic and condescending. I expect that from a sneering Democrat, but certainly not someone who calls himself a Republican.

My opposition and rage at this deal involves a bit more than the pitiful "monster truck" analogy used in this thread. Wihtout going into great detail as far as the terms, I will sum up the big picture succintly (at the risk of offending your 160 IQ):

The seven Republican Senators made a deal with members of a party that has no problem using the most vile tactics and terms to destroy not only their enemies, but if it suits their purposes, their country as well. They have done it time and time again, in instances too numerous to count, and will do it again, regardless of any "deal". The ends always justify the means, and the MSM is all too eager to assist. We won this ineffective majority in large part because of the Rush Limbaughs of this world exposing these people and tactics. If you want to make a deal with Democrats, go ahead, but I have been around long enough to know what happens as a result, EVERY TIME.

All the best.

Yes, it was.  The point, and I didn't make it very well, is that I am not convinced that we should be beating Bill Frist about the head and face over this deal just yet.  I've heard people (in my own family!) screaming at Frist for letting this happen in the past two days, mostly displacing their anger about John McCain, and I think they are being a little hasty and reckless.  

That is all.

cwilson,

The "they" that I was referring to are conservative Senate candidates in the upcoming elections, i.e. people who are running for the Senate such as Mark Kennedy (R-MN) who had nothing to do with the "deal" that was struck.  They're going to need a lot of support if they're going to pick up some seats and whatever ire you, myself, or others may feel at the Q7 for striking this "deal" or at the Senate leadership for not making it crystal clear that this was a Party line vote - it ought not to prevent us from supporting new Senate candidates who had nothing to do with the "deal" particularly since every solid conservative that gets elected to the Senate whittles down the influence of the Q7.

I am not convinced that we should be beating Bill Frist about the head and face over this deal just yet

I am willing to entertain the possibility that the long Bolero build-up and McCain's surprise last-minute action were both part of some diabolically clever plan to hose the Donks. But if that's true, somebody over there is a lot more diabolically clever than I am. To me it looked like a train wreck.

And to be more specific, candidates such as Mr. Kennedy who say things like

The so-called compromise does not end a fundamental injustice: For the first time in our nation's 216-year history, judges are now being held to a 60 vote standard, not the simple majority intended by the Constitution.

Never before have judicial nominees who have passed out of the Judiciary Committee and would win a Senate majority, been denied a vote on the Senate floor. While it's nice that 3 nominees will receive the floor vote they deserve, it leaves 4 nominees in limbo.

Likewise, there is no guarantee going forward that future nominees will receive a vote. In my experience, practically everything is an "extraordinary circumstance" in the Senate. This agreement rewards obstruction. I want to serve in the Senate so I can help try to end the obstruction that has gone on too long.

It's time, once again, for common sense to prevail in the United States Senate.

They should definitely be getting some support from us... especially when compared to outgoing-Senator Dayton who was prepared to vote for Obstruction.  He didn't even join the gang of 14.

But right now we're sucking at playing offense and we're sucking at playing defense.  We're just sucking.  When the LA Times is calling for Frist to resign and Drudge is reporting that the majority of the country, including 33% of conservatives polled, are willing to vote for Hillary, something is deeply wrong in the bowels of the engine room 5 months into Term II, and we'd better be praying it's a diabolically clever trick, IMO.

I do believe right now Hilary could stand a extremely strong chance at beating virtually anyone the Republican's could muster right now, minus McCain.

I think McCain would brutalize her base and end up defeating her.

However, I also believe if the Republican party can really start to get it's image in line, go back to concentrating on the war and it's positive progression, propose SS reform, but don't push all that hard, give it time to sink in, try not to make it seem or give a sense that the party is power hungry and most importantly, work these inner debates in private rather than in front of the public and coming out with an idea that avoids the prior points and absolutely stop fighting with each other, at least stop giving that impression, then I think you can take her by 10%.

If the public believes anything on the lines I am refering to here as far as the negative side is concerned, I think the Rep's may have a problem.

The middle vote will decide the outcome, pander to them, make them feel secure, don't fight them all that much, but stay with your principles calmly and I think the Rep's have a good chance at reeling in a good majority of those middle votes.

I am convinced they will decide the next election, I would at least attempt to give them what they want without giving away the barn. The hard road approach (my way or the hiway) I believe will lead to some real trouble.