Why does bi-partisan always mean doing what the fucking Democrats want?

"extraordinary circumstances". Give me a fucking break. They've been shouting about extremist nominees for 5 years.

I haven't been this pissed off at McCain since campaign finance reform.

Even NOW Harry Reed is bloviating on Fox News about how the R's were threatening the Republic.

It's a good deal. It means the votes weren't there, and if you can get 5 out of 7 and a pledge - which is worthless save for p.r. value when the big fight comes - do it.

It also mean, for sure, Frist didn't have the votes.

Now, you get the judges, you get the "pledge" and you have a press on your own people when the Democrats go back on their pledge and you go through this all over again.

(assuming there is a deal)

Others speak of "trust" ensuring the compromise holds. There is no trust. Democrats will not honor the agreement. It's that simple.

When Bush was first elected he came to Washington to change the tone. In a gesture of good will he renominated two of Clinton's nominations. See the goodwill and trust that earned him?

Disgusting, I'd say. The national GOP is largely becoming a joke, unwilling to stand on principle or play hardball with the lefties.

Will Frist ever demonstrate any leadership?

Not one damned dime.

Not one hour volunteered.

I don't back losers or pussies and these guys are both.

Count me a libertarian looney.

Extraordinary Circumstances is going to mean the next USSC nominee.....

and just to confirm... there are 7 outstanding, but they said they'd vote on 3.. .and let 2 sit. What happened to the other 2???

St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy

Don't be such a bunch of drama queens. You'll get your fight.

Only later.

Well Zell...

Now the GOP is using spitballs, too.

Dems celebrate. Republicans capitulate.

These assholes don't realize that the silent majority just went ballistic and will remember this cave-in.

gobsmackingly vile...
elevate to red security alert...
my check writing hand is on DefCon 4...
can't believe i worked--and wrote checks--
for 5 yrs to ''change the tone in Washington''...like Gore ...like Daschle.
what do we get?
the Screw America First gang: McVain, and the RINOS conspiring w/ the Grand Kleagle to start this soap opera again next month, when and if, Chief Judge of SCOTUS steps down

If the Democrats are coherent in 2006 the Republicans will be in trouble.

I understand, but disagree with, the selling out of free trade principles via the farm bill. But this? Any Republican that says this means a Supreme Court nominee won't be filibustered MUST have a cat scan to make sure there is actual brain activity. I can hear Dirty Harry and KKKyrd snickering in the backroom as the Republican dealmakers congratulate themselves for saving the Republic. I would have far prefered a losing vote on the Nuclear option. Is there any party that believes what it says?

For me this has always been a matter of principle. I don't care that Saad or Meyers may not have had the votes to get confirmed. They should have been given an up or down vote.

Better hope Cheney runs for President in '08. Because neither Frist or McCain is getting my vote. Frist had plenty of opportunity to make the Dems actually filibuster but instead kept threatening and threatening until McCain, et al were able to step in and show just how willing they were to "compromise."

Bullshit. Republicans were right on principle here. And now they can no longer lay claim to that position.

I think McCain is a Democratic operative. WTF is his problem. He HAS to be a plant. I think he's going to split the party. WTF, WTF, WTF.

Also, what about Bolton?

Ok, Ace. You were right.

Fuck the Republicans. Hard. Sen. Frist, you just flushed your career down the toilet.

I just e-mailed the RNC and told them to kiss my vote goodbye. If you can't balance the budget, reform SS, control the border, and at least get a full vote for you judicial nominees, why vote Republican. I might as well for for some group that has no chance of winning and at least feel good about it.

I hate McCain. I really do. Something's not right with him. He's not an independent, he's just a little prick.

He gets -- unlike John McCain -- that it's less important than Janice Brown gets to an appeal court than a nominee with majority support actually gets to the Supreme Court, whether a "conservative extremist" (read: mainstream conservative jurist) or not.

That's the only upside here.

I think the term unmitigated disaster is appropriate. The Republicans invested how many months and took how many hits in the press for what? Republicans have agreed to NOT END THE FILIBUSTER and the Democrats have agreed to FILLIBUSTER anyone they want including anyone Bush puts up for SCOTUS. What have the Democrats given up? A few Appeals Court Judges that they have been screwing for years? Big deal. Frist looks weak, the base is seriously pissed, the Supreme Court battle will be uglier than we can imagine, there are two more nominees that were not covered and the Democrats can continue to screw Bolton. This was about the Supreme Court, dammit, and not Appellate Judges. This fight will happen again and the press will be even more anti the Republican position because the Democrats will play the abortion card on any conservative nomination for SCOTUS. There is no chance now that the nuclear option can be implemented. Frist is dead politically, McCain is dead politically (unless he challenges Hillary) and say hello to another Anthony Kennedy and goodbye to Scalia as Chief Justice. We got taken to the woodshed.

I've just figured out who the Republicans are. Always taking a submissive position to anyone in the vacinity, always blindly accepting any statement or command—irrespective of the source—and always always on the losing end of a deal.

Wasn't it great how McCain started the press conference by plugging the movie based on his book? Olympia was swooning over Little Big John's sophisticated humor.

Ponderous...Fucking Ponderous.

Who had the votes? Why would either party give in if they had the votes? If we had the votes and caved.... beyond ponderous.

Part of the calculus wrt to the SC will be who is being replaced. I don't expect that there will be a filibuster if Scalia is appointed to replace Rhenquist, or if Brown is nominated to fill Scalia's seat. But the replacements for O'Connor or Kennedy could be very contentious.

This the worst blog ever. You stink.

MotherFUCKER!

I just got done leaving a message w/DeWine's office and I come back to find this?!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll be calling back to leave another. It won't be as polite.

Fucking Republicans. I used to split my vote about 50-50 with Libertarian/Republican candidates. This last election I voted straight ticket R's because I was so fed up with the Left.

This is how I am repayed? Well, fuck them for letting the minority party run them over. Fuckin' pussies. Not one miserable fucking dime.

Goddamn them. You know what kills me? People like Ace did their trench fighting for them against the second front presented by the MSM. They fought those fuckers and won, beat back 30 years of the MSM monopoly on information and handed the Republicans the whole enchilada. And they did it on their own time, most without ever receiving a dime for their efforts.

Now Republicans have once again backed down to the screaming Dems and their MSM supporters.

Good, Lord why even support this party? They don't merit even the time I put into my own blog, much less the hours Ace must put into his.

He calls himself Bill Frist, M.D.. Not Senator Frist.

Go back to fraudlently billing health insurance companies, asshole.

We didn't have the votes.

Given that fact, I'm assuming it would still be, for so many men and women of principle here, no deal?

Yes, it's sad we have moderates. It's sad we have George Voinovich only 88% of the time.

But we did. not. have. the. votes.

Got it?

So we take a humiliating defeat or

1) get at least 3 of the 7 and probably 5 in

2) get the Dems on record for p.r. footing

3) chunk up their monolith just as our started out chunked up - now they have 7 who can go their own way . . . or knuckle under

And, by the way, Rogers Brown will be a nominee, though maybe not the first.

Not what I wanted. I wanted the nuke.

But we. did. not. have. the. votes.

So enjoy your burger and let's try for steak next time.

We didn't have the votes because DOCTOR Frist is sooo goood, like Tennessee Whiskey. Here's my email to DOCTOR Frist:

Democrats: Each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

Republicans: We commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress.

Great deal, you f'ing wimp. Go back to fraudulently billing health insurance companies, DOCTOR Frist.

How the hell is this Frist's fault?

True, he couldn't corral the 7, but rounding up folks like Chafee, McCain, Graham, and the rest of the gang is like corraling cats.

He pushed for the fight.

He was ready to scrum with, apparently, just his dick in his hand. At a minimum, he rolled some dice.

You're like an infant.

FIGHT!"

He does.

"NO COMPROMISE!"

He doesn't.

"WIN!"

He couldn't.

No one could.

Be angry at the seven if you must.

But Frist?

Petulant.

He's the--get this--MAJORITY LEADER. Everything we do in the Senate is his responsibility.

"They will claim that Brown can be trusted, kinda, on the Appeals Court, where she is required to follow the precedent of a higher court."

I have already heard that argument.

Color me ex-republican.

Who's up for flooding Frist's office with emails and phone calls? What a sad day. I'm embarassed to be a Republican.

This is like the geek in high school coming up to you and threatening to steal your cheerleader girlfriend, and cause you're afraid to beat the shit out of the little turd, you give up an sell her off to the little shit.

Grow some balls, you Republicans and beat the shit out of the democrats. You gave in on this, you gave in on the impeachment, whats next?

Yeah, he fought real hard on that. Like he did with the Arlen Specter confirmation. He doesn't grok the fact that our. goodwill. buys. nothing. with. Donks. Never has; never will. While we're worried about Senate decorum, they're selling mother's jewelry to win.

He couldn't get the votes. Exactly. That's why he fucked up. Get that?

Majority Leader of a Senate, you infant.

Not the Politboro.

Now stop sniveling and act like man. A man! Use this to your advantage. You're acting all Lincoln Chafee.

You'll hate yourself in the morning.

Hey rdbrewer. Why don't you and the rest of your conservative friends go back to the farm and impregnate your sisters and mothers. Seriously. Please get off your computers (Commodore 64's I'm guessing) and get to the inbreeding.
The more you do this. The dumber you get (if that is even possible at this point) due to the watering down of your gene pools. This helps the rest of us smart people win in the end everytime.
Oh yeah. Tell Jesus I said thanks for the blowjob.

One thesis is "How can these seven call themselves Republicans?"

Unfortunately, the thesis is bandied by jackasses who will soon have chapped lips from licking stamps addressed to "Traitor Frist."

Yeah, it is a fucking Senate. Not a politburo. And the constitutional grant of power Congress to set up parliamentary rules is not absolute. They cannot interfere with the operation of the other branches. So, yeah, you're right. And you're a moron. It isn't a politburo.

Maybe I'm an incurable optimist, but I don't think this is the worst thing--after all, the three nominees the Leftards were going to filibuster are going to get a vote now, and the votes are there for them. I don't see why the Dummocrats are celebrating, or honestly, why we're complaining. I WANT those three confirmed (it's said the others aren't as "controversial" as these, although the controversy IS bullshit).

Think about it--if the Dems pull this crap with the others, after this "deal," it would kill them politically and they would lose the argument anyway. Isn't the whole point to get the Bush nominees confirmed, rather than just to use the constitutional ("nuclear") option?

I'm no moderate, not by a longshot--but I'm at a loss as to why we're upset that the nominees will get a vote. Clue me in.

Jeff,

If you can, call in the show tomorrow, okay? I want to ask about the "can't win" argument with Scott from Powerline, and you might as well be there when I do, 'cuzzin you're pretty sharp.

If you can't, I understand.

I get it. Anyone who disagrees with dipshit is a child. Captain Ed. Malkin. Hell, everyone disagrees with dipshit. We're all children.

Email me the number and tell me what time to call. Jeff Larkin is happy to oblige.

lets not quit!

Believe me, thes: these moderates are going to hear from us for failing to live up to the principle of getting a vote for these nominees.

First, demand that Frist and the f...lazy Republicans demand breaking the filibuster, 24 x 7 throughout the night all through the weekend until the Dems cry mercy and if everyone collapses in exhaustion...

Second, Bush should install these nominees with a recess appointment and make a statement that the Senate is the most undemocratic institution of our Government.

Third, find the most conservative Michigan Judge you can find and make the DEMs wish they had accepted Saad.

Fourth, Frist should attempt to change the rules to allow the Filibuster but only require 55 to break cloture. It is within the spirit and letter of the agreement.

I actually think this has shown Conservatives something about Frist and McCain. We know where each stands. Frist can't make these freaking peacocks vote his way. I have more respect for him that I did a few months ago.

Larkin: Why do you say we didn't have the votes? Do you know this, or are you assuming it? If we didn't have the votes, I assume the democrats did. Why would they sign off on this if they could have humiliated Frist on the floor AND retained the option of fillibustering everyone? I think it more likely that the republicans had the votes but caved.

Having a hissy fit and lashing out and suggesting silly actions and getting bent because a guy can't corral cats is childish.

Spelling politburo correctly, however, is cool.

55 Republicans.

You can only lose 5.

7 went with the compromise.

Frist did not have the votes, for sure.

7 said, "No nukes. Peace in our time. Let's deal."

Larkin: How do you know we didn't have the votes???

Pepys

See above where, because I'm dumb as fuck, I typed in your name as if I were addressing you, making my post look like yours, making you look like you asked a question and then answered it.

I'm for THE REAL NUCLEAR OPTION:

Executive Order: The Senate shall have a floor vote on all judicial nominations. Such nominations wil be confirmed after a simple majority.

Frist is too civilized to be majority leader in the age of people like Robert Byrd--who seemed to be able to get the job done whenever he tried. Four times.

We'll find out if Frist and the RNC have balls in the next few days. If Frist couldn't corral the strays quietly then he and the RNC will have to go public on these guys; no reelection funding and start grooming candidates to replace them. Take away their committee chairs/assignments and make sure their pork is the first cut in the next budget. If they flip to the dark side, so be it. This was not an issue where straying from the party line should be tolerated.

Larkin: No worries. But aren't you just ASSUMING that we did not have the votes? Why would the Democrats cave if they had the votes? I just don't get this. The only possibility is that the Democrats didn't realize we had the votes. I ask because I'm a litigator and settle cases every day. However, I'm totally dumbfounded by this. BOTH sides had to have been uncertain and I assume that means a republican was wavering. If that is the case, then the republicans lost their nerve and got rolled, no? Unless, the Republicans knew there weren't the votes from the beginning... but that's crazy talk. Frist pushed it to the edge because he was pretty damn certain he had the votes. Therefore, I believe one or more of the Republicans caved at the end.

Great idea. Let's hobble ourselves so we can become the minority and then, we'll no longer have to settle for 60% of what we want.

We can be principled and get 15%!!!!

You're right about not punishing the defectors unless 1) they caved at the end and 2) they can actually be replaced with a more reliable conservative. However, how could this have come to pass if one of the Republicans did not cave at the end? I bet it was De Wine.

In the end someone had the votes, but no one knew they had the votes, and a good portion of the votes people thought they had were clearly not ironclad, as 14 of those votes just went a different way.

And then there's George Voinovich, who probably would have been the last senator to cast a vote - the deciding vote - whereupon he would have stated that he hasn't studied the issue and thus, he can't vote to end the filibuster at this time. It was very fluid. No one had it in the bag.

And now, we see how fluid it was.

Larkin: I assume that was you. If it was so fluid, why did Frist push it so far? Isn't that more assumption. Isn't it more likely that he had the votes until the very end?

Bush is another Hitler. His family also funded Hitler's rise to power.
Keep drinking the kool-aid my neocon friends. The world will look back on you someday like we all look back on the Nazis, with shame.

Frist was gambling and going for the principle. His options were --

1) do nothing

2) compromise

3) gamble

For this, he is pilloried, because apparently, he hasn't had time to affix electric shock units on the genitalia of all his party's members in the Senate.

I disagree. Frist is being pilloried for either 1) pushing too hard with nothing or 2) allowing a senator to punk out at the end. Either is worthy of sanction.

I'm having quite the internal monologue aren't I?

Jesus.

I'm retarded. The two "Pepys" posts (the Intelligent "Bush is Hitler" post is in between) are mine.

I think I just like to type Pepys.

Pep. ys.

Pepys

Pepys,

My guess is neither side had the votes because 14 senator decided to take matters into their own hands and let their leadership know it. For the Demo leadership it didn't hurt because the result could only be better if their guys worked a deal, no difference if they didn't. For the Repubs this is a disaster and a failure of the leadership of epic proportions. I don't think its any coincidence that most of these 14 have/had presidential aspirations.

Pronounced PEEPS if you care. British (shrug).

Peeps. Easter candy.

At least, here in the States.

This ain't a disaster. Jesus. It's a half loaf and the forestalling of the big battle. The key now is to make the terrain more favorable in the interim.

That can be done, even via use of this compromise.

That is, if moaning, wailing, teeth-gnashing tupes can get ahold of themselves and come to their senses, instead of plotting coups and exacting revenge upon their own ankles.

I get a solicitation at least two times a week, either through email, snail mail or over the phone, to make another contribution to the RNC. They can FORGET it, until the party gets some collective BALLS!

Jeff, we are already the minority. A majority part that would allow this silly "fillibuster" to go on for 5 minutes is not a real majority party. It is a group of gullible children. This is Charlie Brown falling for the football trick each and every time.

The fact that they repeatedly accept "deals" that always go awry is evidence enough that they are far too trusting of the Democrats, that they just don't care, or that they are in collusion with the other side. It's NOT just about the nominees—it's about the resolution and fighting spirit that just simply isn't present on our side.

As far as I can tell, that resolution has never been present. As far as I can tell, it never will be. And that is why it simply does not matter who is in office.

Had. Had.

I started scrolling so he may have said something later I don't agree with, but Jeff Larkin is right.

Frist will be blamed for this by the hardliners, and he's toast as a result. Still, I agree with Jeff on all points that I read.

Maybe "hamburger" is too strong, if Jeff means one of those Hardee's colon pluggers. More like a Whopper Jr.

Remember, though, that taking a Whopper Jr. from the Democrats leaves them very little on their table.

John McCain is neither a moderate or centrist. He is a Democrat in Republican clothing. And his suit is getting thread bare.

Remember Daschle? Similar pressure can be brought to bear on McCain.

Larkin: EXCEPT the fight will now take place on a larger stage and the press will become more involved because of Roe v Wade (their Holy Grail). If these senators were not willing to brave this fire, what makes you think they will stand up to what is surely coming? Frist should never have pushed this hard with so little, if you are correct. Changing a position that is now on the record and which will be lauded so much on the Editorial Pages will be almost impossible for people who lost their water on this issue already, UNLESS there is an incredible amount of wailling and gnashing of teeth and threat of losing their place.

Guys, even if you did have the 50 votes to pull the trigger the Dems were unlikely to give you the opportunity to do so before a real hot button Supreme Court nominee to replace a swing/liberal justice fight came down the hall.

Well, maybe that is being overly generous to the Dems, they might have played stupidly, wouldn't be anything like the first time.

It's interesting to see how similar the partisan reactions are to independent thinking on both the right and left. Each side denounces in extreme language the cowardly R/DINOs and the biased media that supports the deplorable status quo.

Being a moderate does not mean that one is not a conservative or liberal, just that you aren't an extremist of any color.

One thing nobody is acknowledging is this:

The two judges thrown overboard did NOT have the votes. They never would have been confirmed. Never. They were always toast.

So the Repubs did not lose. What just happened is exactly what would have happened anyway.

The five judges that would have gotten in are in. The two that would not have got 50 votes are gone.

Relax, people. This means nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Yoda would be disgusted at all the hysterics here. "Thinking straight you are not!"

VonK: This is about the Supreme Court where every "moderate" justice has become liberal and no "liberal" justice has become conservative. There will be fillibusters and they will not be overcome now. Thus, a "moderate" will be appointed and turn left so that people will talk to him/her at cocktail parties. This was the chance to seriously change the direction of the country. The only good news is that Hillary will never get anyone passed.

Whiners! Far Right fanaticism the Republicans can do without.

This is chess, people.

The Democratic moderates have real problems with Bush's arrogance and lack of consultation with the Senate, but will go for SCOTUS candidates they get a voice in. The dealmakers include John Warner, who is one of the most trusted and respected Republicans out there.

This is an opportunity for the Dems to work with the Republicans. But the chess players like Graham, Warner, and Cornyn are counting on the inability of folks like Reid, Schumer, Boxer, Teddy, and Durbin to restrain themselves. Already Reid was unable to resist business as usual with a nasty partisan attack launched as news of the deal reached him. Ignore that McCain was acting like his usual camera-hungry strutting peacock..

Assume that as part of this, Bush ends his inept attempts to decree candidates without consulting his Party leaders, and the Reps act like the reasonable ones in the Senate....just waiting for the Christian-hating Schumer or moron Boxer or Dirty Harry to walk right into their web......that makes for a good situation.

So let's say the Dems overstep again....and find "extraordinary circumstances" in future mainstream conservative nominees.

Then the Reps can say we tried, Dems broke their deal, time to end filibusters.

It's all an intricate Kabuki dance.

:)

The principal is being forgotten and that is when the president nominates somebody for a judgeship they should get an up or down vote. Period. You may be right Dogstar but I want a vote anyway. I think I have the right to know what my Republican Senators (if only I had some!) think of a nominee by their vote for or against confimation. I don't think this is an extreme position, vonKreedon.

IF, IF, IF, IF. The reality is this. The Supreme Court stays left and the status quo stays.

The three did not have the votes for cloture. Saad accidentally emailed a nasty note to the heavy set Democratic Senator whose names escapes me. he was toast.

And McCain is a preening pain in the ass. Of course, he hugged Bush on the trail, and gave him critical cover on the war, and he's with us 75% of the time.

So let's eat him.

And pepys, if we're so bleeding principled, why do we fear the bigger stage? At that juncture, the seven - hell, even Voinovich - may feel that a filibuster is such a slimy act, such a knife in the back, that they'll be more emboldened to go nuclear.

I don't fear this fight later. We just didn't have the guns today.

All this anger pointed at our own heads?

Asinine. And bad aim to boot.

Also, people, we'll be closer to midterm elections next time. This is more pressure on Democratic moderates like the Nelson boys.

Not less.

Start scouting the terrain instead of shooting your weapons in the air (or at your feet) like some angry Arab street mullah.

Pepys - It is an interesting thing that the Repubs have been nominating judges for 17 of the last 25 years, but to hear it the judiciary is completely overrun with left-liberal jurists. Your statement that:
every "moderate" justice has become liberal and no "liberal" justice has become conservative.
might say more about the nature of the Constitution and the law than about the nefarious nature of everyone who gets nominated.

The judges fight has seen equal dicking, just by way of different weapons. In the main, however, most folks get through. Some - a very small minority - haven't.

My only prediction is that whoever winds up getting a nomination for SCOTUS gets filibustered.

And I'll bet a paycheck on it.

I was away from the television for most of the evening, and just saw that jerkoff McCain preening in front of the camera.

If that moron thinks he's ever going to be president, then he's truly living in a freaking dream world.

It's a win for the Dems. No way around that. Neither side may have known whether they had the votes. Possible. We can be sure, though, that the Dems would never have done this deal if they knew they DID HAVE the votes. Allowing the other two nominees to be filibustered essentially establishes the right to filibuster court of appeals nominees.

I heard that the two remaining (Saad and one other I can't remember) nominees wouldn't have been approved anyway. If that's true, then the only reason to maintain the filibuster on them rather than allow them to be voted down is to guarantee the enshrinement of the new precedent: filibusters of appellate court nominees is okay and has bipartisan support.

As to the proposition that Brown can be nominated to the SC because the Dems let her get a vote now, I would refer you to the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. He had unanimous support to the appeals court, but was voted down as too extreme for the Supreme Court. I hope none of the GOP "leadership" was thinking along these lines. If so, they're more naive than I thought.

Some issues are "vote your conscience" issues. Some issues are "vote with your President or else" issues. Frist's "or else" clearly doesn't pack much punch. It's also pretty obvious that no one on either side of the isle has much respect for Frist, or this debacle never would have occurred.

Larkin, we'll never have the guns until the Constitutional Option is pushed all the way to vote. This is because there will always be a group of centrist deal makers threatening to do what they did today. The only way to encourage them is to say, "No." Get their votes on record.

And maybe waiting until an election rolls around is a good idea. But getting this shit out of the way now is also a good idea. Soon it will be the Supremes we're fighting over.

The judges fight has seen equal dicking, just by way of different weapons. In the main, however, most folks get through. Some - a very small minority - haven't. -- Jeff Larkin

Excellent Jeff. I see you've got the Dem talking points down pat.

I don't blame Frist, he can't honestly force somebody to vote a certain way.

I did, however, politely rip DeWine a new asshole in a letter a few minutes ago.

Let's remember the responsible parties for this fiasco and punish them appropriately. I think a primary challenge next election for DeWine would put the "skeer" into him the same it did Specter, even if he beat it.

McCain is a joke. Frist is milquetoast. I don't like this deal with the devil. But, I will still never vote for any of the Demoncrats again, this not withstanding. I just hope at some point in time the Republican majority will stand up to them and say "Get thee behind me, Satan"

Do the math: Bush previously had 35 appeals court judges confirmed. Ignoring the Michigan judges (which Reid says will be confirmed other than Saad) and just looking at these five, then we've just gone from 35 of 40 to 38 of 40.

What you want for nothing? A rubber biscuit?

Frist could have pushed this to vote, Alex, Larkin. Frist decided not to push this to vote. Behind closed doors, he doesn't have the sand to look McCain in the eye and say, "John, we're going to vote on this." He can't sell it. In fact, he's never sold any. fucking. thing. We haven't won any of these critical battles. A leader can push and win on these things. That devil-familiar Byrd had no problem pulling this shit off.

We need a majority leader who knows how to play poker. NOT CHESS, Cederford.

Right, Scotty?

I left a verb out. Oh, well.

Excellent point, rdbrewer. Frist doesn't have what it takes to lead the Senate. Plain and simple. Someone else with more backbone and leadership skills would have effectively twisted arms behind doors to keep the troops in line.

Frist is as cowardly as that president on "24."

Cripes, what a wimp.

Exactly. Cutting a deal is Poker and not Chess. Frist and the Republicans failed to grasp the main chance. Now, despite what Larkin says, the bigger stage will ensure a sucessful fillibuster. The press has already created the narrative "these noble moderate senators SAVED the grand old senate from the radical and far-right Republican party. It was a showing of rare courage and independence for these Republicans to buck the fierce Republican leadership and angry republican base." Do you honestly think these senators are going to put the lie to that? A later vote to end the fillibuster is going to be seen as craven capitulation to the forces of evil. The only Supreme Court nominee that can make it now is a Kennedy.

Yeahp. And a precedent for capitulation has been set. Frist won't want to have this fight again.

Where is that fucking Larkin, the only adult in this joint? We need more adult input.

Frist went all in. He's finished. McCain controls the Senate for a little, until the Dems fillibuster and the magnitude of what he did and what the Repubs lost sinks in and the base and punditocracy abandon him.

Larkin, tell us how good a job Frist did in light of page two of the "compromise." You too, Nick.

No excuses for Frist. If he and Delay had switched places two years ago, the filibuster would now be toast and Frist would be out of Congress on trumped-up ethics charges.

You know it, I know it, and Bob Dole's cock sure as hell knows it.

I love this version of senatorial intrigue, like it's Coppola's The Outsiders. Frist is a Greaser. McCain a Soc.

Frist just doesn't have the stones, the sand, the grit, the moxie, the Cohibas.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Meanwhile, after a battle with casualties on both sides, the sissies on this blog threaten . . . . emails and decreased donations of their $25 to the RNC!

That's some fucking stones.

When is everyone going to wake up and realize that McCain is a pompous asshole only out for face time. He can kiss the Presidency goodbye. Damn Im pissed.

DaveS: Like I said on the other thread, you still hadn't written off McCain after his (continuing) attempt to repeal the First Amendment?

His Presidential aspirations have been dead for a long time. That may be the problem.

Hey manly men.

Sign a petition to remove one of your balls in protest.

"Why, I'll never, ever, ever, Evuh even look at John McCain again. He's a beast."

I though Andrew Sullivan was the object of ridicule on this site.

It appears he's a fuckin' role model.

tell us how good a job Frist did in light of page two of the "compromise."

Which is Frist's fault how?

That's more indicative of senatorial ego (and thus what Frist was up against) than anything else. As I posted at TPW the other day, for the senate to kill the filibuster under these specific circumstances would have been for senators to willingly transfer some of their power to the executive branch. Why would they want to do that?

And why should they want to help Frist?

Frist gave it his best shot, and he didn't arrange the compromise. (If Lott had still been leader, we would never have come to this because the Democrats would have given him squat.)

Frist still comes out a loser, but an honorable one.

Y'all would have kicked R.E. Lee for not winning the Civil War, too.

And while Im at it Linsey Graham is a wuss. I had hopes for him and he has turned out to be a spineless McCainite fighting for network face time. I hope he enjoyed his 5 min kiss fest with Chrissy Mathews. DAmn Im pissed.

Then by all means, sign a petition.

Let it out.

SOMEONE, I have never liked McCain. I am so extreme I dont consider him a hero. Just an unlucky pilot with a famous daddy. He is a pompous asshole, sorry if I repeat myself.

P.S. Do I regret that he spent 5 yrs in prison camp, YES, hero status? NO.

I love this version of senatorial intrigue, like it's Coppola's The Outsiders. Frist is a Greaser. McCain a Soc.

Hey manly men.
Sign a petition to remove one of your balls in protest.

You really gotta thing for the fallacy of the excluded middle, pard. Let's just recharacterize each other to the extreme for the rest of the debate. Let's see. While we're being He-men, you can be... Jesus. Okay, Jesus?

While I don't agree with cutting off support to possibly the only viable GOP candidates in some areas, some do deserve hardball treatment.

But this debate does not boil down to people who want to shoot their own feet off--as much as you would like it to. It's about Frist's inability to make the big play, because he ain't a negotiator; he's a DOCTOR.

Get a fucking lawyer in the backroom. Anyone but this medical genius.

McCain. Traitor.

Graham. He is light in the loafers.

Colllins and Snowe. Weak women. Snowe is up in 2006. Get her.

Warner. Dark father to Mark.

Chafee. Worse than Lowell Weicker.

DeWhine. Up in 2006. Go Springer!

Grow up, Jeff. If you want to re-analyze this, go ahead. I -- and everyone here, I think -- certainly wouldn't mind being cheered up.

But calling us stupid and parroting Democratic talking points is only going to piss away whatever credibility you started this exercise with.

Snowe is up in 2006. Get her.

I'm from Maine. Consider it done.

Behind closed doors, he doesn't have the sand to look McCain in the eye and say, "John, we're going to vote on this."

And then John says, "No. Not really."

If you wanted tough, you should have stuck by Trent Lott.

You think Rick Santorum - who cut a deal with Specter in the GOP primary - would have been any tougher?

Who is this fantasy senator who would have googly-eyed McCain into towing the line?

Right, Nick. Page two is throwaway language. It's pointless, Senatorial ego. So WTF wasn't Fearless Leader able to at least get rid of page two?

Thinking he had to cave and work a deal is one thing, but page two is proof we got our asses stomped. Page two demonstrates Frist's true weakness. Page two is spit in the eye, salt in the wound--to mix and match metaphors.

Eliminating page two should have been his last bargaining chip. A good chisler easily would have eliminated page two.

At least.

I have reanalyzed it.

But now I have to compromise and call people who panic and kvetch and talk political suicide (not rd - he's been consistent - Frist wears panties) smart in order to gain credibility?

That's so . . . Fristian.

I am beginning to miss Lott.

Damn.

Larkin, that's $25 (or $100) the GOP isn't going to see. Small change, maybe, but I imagine that I'm not the only one doing it. The GOP is supposed to make its bank on small donors, I wonder how funny they'll think it is if I'm not the only one. Besides, it's my damn money. If I decide not to give it to the DeWine reelection campaign, how is that some empty, chest-pounding gesture? I don't give money to a lot of people, and Voinovich and DeWine are now among them.

I'm not real happy with either of my senators right now, and I'm not under some sort of contract to vote for either of them. I'm well within my rights as a constituent to write them and tell them they are losing a voter with this nonsense they are double-teaming me with. Don't give me some sort of song and dance about it being some beer muscle posturing to tell my elected representatives they are fucking up. If I am being ill-served by my senators, I'll damn well fact them some facts.

As far as the "half loaf is better than none" sure, but these clowns I'm writing are the ones who lost us the other half of the loaf.

I'm with Alex.

$25?

Multiply that a few times and you get about what I gave the GOP last year.

They won't get that next year, nor will Olympia Snowe get my vote.

I have a long memory, so neither will Susan Collins.

If we all band together to get DeWine, Chafee and Snowe, we can sink all three. And is Santorum loses to Casey, and the Dems pick up 2 more, we'll be in the minority and then, man, we can really get nuclear.

Larkin's right about one thing: We can't get our own Senators.

That is why it's so crucial to have a majoriy building majority leader. We need a bricklayer, not a DOCTOR. Jim.

Larkin,

DeWine and Voinovich are as useful as tits on a boar hog right now. I don't have to support anybody with an "R" after their name just so the Republicans can get nothing done as the majority instead of the minority. My previous votes are starting to look an awful lot like charity.

Maybe, if we all ban together we can get rid of Larkin.

And is Santorum loses to Casey, and the Dems pick up 2 more, we'll be in the minority and then, man, we can really get nuclear.

At this point, what's the difference?

American Conservative Union ratings, liftime

Graham - 91
McCain - 83
DeWine -82
Warner - 81
Collins - 57
Snowe 51
Chafee - 41

(Voinovich is a 79)

Graham - 91 DeWine - 82

More's the pity to piss it all away.

Unless by some miracle these two flip yet again this congress, their national careers are over.

crap, forgot the / before the close-blockquote.

Let's pitch them and pick replacements

For Graham, John Spratt (D-SC) - 26

For McCain, Ed Pastor (D-AZ) - 3

For DeWine, Ted Strickland (D-OH) - 17

For Warner, Rick Boucher (D-VA) - 15

For Snowe and Collins, Tom Allen and Michael Michaud (Ds-ME) - 4 and 28

For Chafee, Jim Langevin (D-RI) - 12

Go get 'em gang.

Larkin: The issue most of us have is that this is a huge OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE LOSS. Objectively, this means there is no chance Bush can nominate future Judges that are as conservative or more conservative than Scalia et al without incurring a fillibuster whose support is more strongly entrenched. That is the bottom line. Not only did we lose a vote, we strengthened the conventional wisdom in favor of the fillibuster. Now, when Reid fillibusters a conservative nominee he is on stronger ground becasue "the cool heads of the senate have approved the necessity and appropriateness of the procedural device". Subjectively, a lot of us find this issue important and have invested a lot in this process. As you know, many conservatives believe that the Left has in effect controlled the culture of the country through the courts and has imposed minority, and we believe immoral, postions through it. We felt this was the chance to put the country on the right track. It is gone and we are in many ways in a weaker position than before the fight started. Agree with us or not. We have plenty to be mad about. And calling us names is not getting anyone anywhere.

Arbitrary ratings don't matter. Snowe is going to lose next year, or she will retire when she realize she's going to lose.

The problem with moderates is that they play both ends, thus pissing off everyone who might be inclined to vote for them. Snowe irritated her Democrat voters (of which she has quite a few) last year and irritated Republicans with her refusal to take a stand against the filibuster.

Add in the fact that independents will probably vote against her when bases close in Maine, and it all equals a lost campaign.

There is such a thing as a primary challenge, Larkin. That is what scared Specter straight. The conservative rating is all well and good, but this was a big fucking conservative deal too, and where was DeWine? Riiight.

You can wave those numbers around, but that doesn't prove that these guys are the best we can find.

No one gave a crap about the filibuster or the nuclear option. It was all inside ball. It would have been nice to do it now, but the votes weren't there. So, we get the 3 (and probably 5) through and regroup. Not great, but certainly not catastrophic, and clearly not worth the kind of self-destructive sentiments expressed here. I don't fear the fight again, when people are watching, and the Democrats try and filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. I relish it, and look forward to wielding any obstruction against Dems up in 2006 like Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Conrad (ND) and maybe even Cantwell (WA).

I just feel like I'm in the huddle, it's the first quarter, we're down two quick scores, and my teammates are whining about how we suck and we need to fir the coach.

[sigh]

I'm listening to Joni Mitchell's Night Ride Home. Sorry, I guess that's completely off topic.

"You want my head, and you'd eat your young alive..."

Guess not.

Oh, yeah. Specter was terrified. He got Santorum to bail his water, won, and immediately announced he wouldn't rubber-stamp judges.

Ever think he didn't sign on to the deal because he thought it was too conservative?

If he was so scared straight, why was he coy about how he'd vote on the nuclear option?

That as much as anything emboldened the dealmakers.

And if you puds can't take a few mild names, no wonder you're peeing your pants when we're down 14 pts.

On that note, gentlemen, ladies, fleeing troops, fellow Republicans . . .

I bid you goodnite and better sense for the morning.

Larkin: Your position has been clear for some time. The thing is I and others disagree with you for the reasons already stated. I would like to know why you think the fillibuster is not more entrenched now than it ever was and why it will be easier to get our message out later when the press realizes that mean conservatives coul dget on the court if the fillibuster is broken. It seems to me this was the best chance and it will be next to impossible to get a conservative justice through a fillibuster now. Why do you disagree or are you just a natural optimist?

The poker analogy is dead wrong. In an evenly divided country, and a Senate designed to preserve minority voices, in a country at war with a dozen major issues requiring Congressional action.......you don't destroy all other legislation to get "All the Chips" on judges unless you are so obsessed with abortion politics you don't want an energy bill, a defense bill, a 1st step on Social Security, immigration reform, trade issues, fixing Bush's exploding deficits, beginning to address the health care crisis, or any tax reform to pass.

The "game" is a long-haul one. Not a high stakes bluff draw showdown. Not with a President that has pissed even Republicans off on several fronts, especially failure to consult his Party leaders and who has very low approval numbers and a bulk of the country thinking he is going in the wrong direction on all issues but terrorism. Not with an evenly divided country.

With a wildly popular President and the country satisfied with Iraq and Republican domestic performance - they could afford a confrontation - but more and more Reps think they are in serious trouble in 2006 and the Presidency is in trouble in 2008, so they went with an incremental, vs. final solution.

This is simply a set-up for the 1st or 2nd SCOTUS nomination, and a trap for who "breaks the deal".

Yes, pepys and rdbrewer, a very complex game of Chess.

On Janice Brown - I was ready to puke when John Edwards was described as sexy, a good speaker, and a poor millworker's son. Which trumped Gephardt's being a milk truck driver's son, I guess. All total non-sequiters,having nothing to do with his qualifications.
Same with Janice Brown, who we all know from endless repetition is a "sharecropper's daughter and black and female.....ergo by biography worthy of Appellate Court, even the SCOTUS. Maybe Appellate, but not SCOTUS. She is not in the ABA's top "well-qualified" ranking like Estrada or Owen. She is listed as "qualified". And will not be on SCOTUS while Thomas is there.

Reminds me of how Affirmative Action Conservatives say Condi Rice must be the next nominee despite never being elected to any office and never holding executive office until her recent appointment to State "But she's black! She's Female and pretty! She might be Gay! And she's smart!" OK, BFD. A 4-fur. Maybe with a little seasoning and a little more chance to show she can lead.

"She might be Gay!"

Oh, CF, don't tease me like that...

I do not think politcs is poker. I think dealmaking like we saw over the last few months is. Neither side had all the information, as you do in chess, and there is a significant part played by luck and human emotion. I also do not think politics is like chess. Nothing is like chess. In politics there is no best move and the definition of winning varies from person to person.

Cripes, Larkin, now whose thumpin' their macho, he-man chest?

Far as I can tell, you seem perfectly content to keep this sort of thing going. "Frist did the best that could be done, all these guys who undermined him in the bargaining with the Dems are ultra-conservatives, gotta suck it up and keep runnin' the ball, etc. etc." There is nothing keeping this from happening again, and you seem perplexed that we don't like that and maybe ought to do something about it. How many shit sandwiches are you willing to swallow before you decide that this strategy isn't working?

We have a majority in the Senate & House that I doubt will be increased, or maybe even maintained, in the elections coming up. This was possibly our best chance and these clowns couldn't pull it together.

I see nothing to applaud about the compromise except if (or when) the Democrats resume the filibuster it gives these "maverick" senators a chance to strike some righteous pose before maybe condescending to vote with their party.

Tell me this, Jeff: if these guys couldn't pull off the Constitutional Option now, what makes you think they'll do it when the Democrats weasel out? Furthermore, what use is a party that can't get this stuff through with a 55-44 majority?!?

That's a huge majority. If you can't do something with that, you can't do anything. Period.

And don't say that nobody cared. I care. This may be the chance to start undoing 202 years of Judicial Treason.

PP: I agree. Jeff has never addressed the source of his optimism. I think it has no basis in fact. However, if he has an actual argument I want to hear it. He is fairly sharp.

Alex_fs: I disagree; I think we're likely to pad our lead somewhat in '06.

Or, rather, we were; a demoralizing failure on judges (while this isn't it, it's a very bad sign) will cause the base to stay home and we're fucked.

Bush has been nationalizing the judge issue for a couple of elections now, but he needs a win on it this term to keep picking up seats with it.

Man, that deal re: Janice Rogers Brown kinda got the ol' heart a pumpin'. Would be a classic Rovian trick -- point the Hack-o-tron/mind-control device at the Demo side of the aisle and say ... "She wasn't extremist before, and she's not now."

Make the Demos filibuster a black female nominee to the SC day and night. The public will eat it up. And then they will chew up the Demos. I like this idea.

If my simple mind can think of something this dastardly, who knows what treasures the Great Rove has hidden in the Senate chamber to be discovered by right-thinking Senators.

Don't send E-mails or make phone calls. The Senators have grown immune to that type of contact because there are so many "programatic" calls and E-mails.

WRITE A LETTER. OLD. SCHOOL. STYLE.

Put a letter in the mail with a stamp. Don't cut and paste. Write a personal letter.

The Senators are not used to receiving thousands of angry letters from the post office.

MUCH. HARDER. TO. DELETE!!!!!!

Show effort if you want to get their attention. Snail mail does that.

The RNC isn't going to see one thin dime from me unless they try to salvage something out of this sack of horseshit deal.

The only way I see this getting turned around is if the Republicans turn on the Democrats the nanosecond they break the deal. It is very simple - if the Democrats cannot treat this as an honest deal (which they won't, given their behavior in the last five years), the Republicans ought not have to be beholden to it either. You only get respect if you give it at the same time. If the Democrats want to keep playing games, the Republicans are just going to have to change the rules to make it harder for them to do that. I say treat them like children, treat them like they deserve to be treated. Anything less, like this deal, is suicide.

I'm not so sure about that letter-writing suggestion, Birkel. The last time I wrote to a Senator (a few months ago), all the information I could find specificially discouraged snail mail because of heightened postal security.

Anybody know if this is still good advice? Will your letters get through in anything less than 6 months?

PlacidPundit,

Hadn't considered the anthrax issue. Thanks for questioning my loose sh*t.

But still, 37 cents ain't gonna break my bank and I ain't banking the crazy blog money ACE is.

So scratch my initial suggestion.

CALL. E-MAIL. AND. SNAIL MAIL.

Give 'em all a go.

Megan wrote "I'm listening to Joni Mitchell's Night Ride Home"

See, this is part of that 99%! I always thought Joni's best work was with Tom Scott and the LA Express. Miles of Aisles is my favorite album of all time. But this is a good album too!

"The explicit language of the agreement reached tonight by a group of senators rejects the nuclear option, preserves the filibuster and ensures that both political parties will have a say in who is appointed to our highest courts....The unprincipled nuclear option has been averted. This is a major defeat for the radical right."
People for the American Way

“This is really good news for every American tonight. … Checks and balances have been protected, the integrity of the Supreme Court has been protected from the vocal influence of the radical right wing.”
Harry Reid (D-NV)

Conservatives lost, Big Time.

Senate Democrats, MSM and "RINO's" won.

Questions? If a Democratic Prez with a 55-44 Dem edge in the Senate nominated a liberal, would the GOP Senators filibuster?
If the GOP did filibuster(I know, I know - humor me), would the Dems hesitate to change Senate rules?

The above info and the following are gleaned from Confirmthem.com , who have no doubts as to who got spanked.(As to who is bent over, grabbing their ankles, and yelling"Please, Sir, May I have another?", they can come here and see Larkin's and Cederford's comments)

"The fates of two of the other nominees are apparently decided: “Democratic officials said an unwritten aspect of the pact was that two nominees not named in the deal - Brett M. Kavanaugh and William J. Haynes - would not be confirmed and would be turned aside either at the committee level or on the floor. ” (NY Times). With these two down, two others mentioned explicitly in the agreement likely going down, and three others already down in Bush’s first term, it looks like 7 successfully blocked by filibuster, 3 allowed by an ever-so-gracious-and-humble minority party to be given votes."

A question for all you bitchers.

Assume 3 of 7 get through NOW. And assume that the GOP did not have the votes to go nuclear.

a) Do you take the deal and take the time to persuade the wavering so you have the votes next time, getting 3 judges in the process?

Or.

b) Do you go down, thereby setting the "No" votes of your caucus in stone, all on principle?

This is a Dunkirk. A defeat with a heck of a silver lining.

Yes, yes, it sure sucks to have to deal with moderates. A clambake full of Sam Brownbacks would be so much nicer.

Now, come back from Lollipop Lane and answer the question.

(and stop with the whining about the terms - this is very simple; it is a recess. The fight is forestalled until the Democrats determine that another nominee is deserving of a filibuster. When that happens, the GOP says "bad faith" and off we go again, right back where we started from)

Dear Dumbshit (Cedarford): Brown is known by her work. It would never occur to an idiot like you to actually read it. Now, be a good boy and keep your big fat yap shut. It will raise your IQ by a hundred points.

"b) Do you go down, thereby setting the "No" votes of your caucus in stone, all on principle?"

Jeff Larkin,

Well thats an easy one. Of course you still call the vote and make these 7 cast their votes with the 'moderate' Democrats. There is no unity in the Republican majority anyway. Its apparent that nothing on the conservative agenda is going to happen anyway so why not call these people out? Your contentment with Senators who have a 50+- conservative score is laughable from my point of view. So what if they get replaced by Democrats? How is that going to make one bit of difference to how things are now? I'd rather the RNC throw some money at real conservatives in these states and at least we could make a show of living out our principals. And spare us anymore of your name calling and sarcasm, please.

A large assumption, but

"b) Do you go down, thereby setting the "No" votes of your caucus in stone, all on principle?"

Let's stop covering for the disloyal RINOs - let's smoke em out. Let them stand naked(figuratively, Oh Lord) before their constituents.
Betraying fellow Republicans and jettisoning Constitutional principles is no way to build a lasting political movement.

Brew

Your response is resigned "we'll never make it . . ." moan. You've given up. Accordingly, a Pickett's Charge seems reasonable to you. Though, you're not going to get very far with that thin skin of yours.

You gotta' be tough.

Bill Frist tough.

I'm beginning to think Larkin is Bill Frist. More seriously, as some other people have said before, I'd be interested in hearing what makes you a glass is half full kind of guy.

Jeff,

You're very good at name calling and ridicule but short on substantive thought. So, on the assumption that communication with you has to be at your level, let me just say you should pull your head out of your ass. Now, isn't that better?

Now lets try this one step at a time: Do you feel that presidential nominees should receive a confirmation vote by the whole senate? If your answer is no, then we'll leave it at that and you should apologize to everybody here you have insulted because your comments have been put forth under false pretenses. If your answer is yes then tell me why those 7 Republican senators should be allowed to dictate the policy supported by the other 48.

Since when is picking up your toys and going home "substantive thought"? That's the essence of your analysis.

Whereas, mine presents you with the two options, explains the current terrain, explains the options for the future, and underscores the necessity of taking half a loaf now. I also explain the real downsides of going down guns blazing.

And yet you "substantively" say "nothing . . . is going to happen anyway" which informs your childish position.

As Ed Koch once said to someone, "I can explain this to you, but I can't comprehend it for you."

Jeff,

The fact you wouldn't answer the question tells me all I need to know and explains why you're satisfied with the outcome.

As for your analysis:

"It's a good deal. It means the votes weren't there, and if you can get 5 out of 7 and a pledge - which is worthless save for p.r. value when the big fight comes - do it."

Looks like we'll get 3 out of 10, and you're right about the Democrat pledge being worthless. Some deal, huh?

"It also mean, for sure, Frist didn't have the votes."

I think he would have had the votes if he'd called the vote before these yahoos had a chance to make this 'deal'

"Now, you get the judges, you get the "pledge" and you have a press on your own people when the Democrats go back on their pledge and you go through this all over again. "

This is your idea of a successful compromise? You obviously have no idea of how good a position this puts the democrats in when they filibuster the President's nominee for the SC.

I know that in worse straits, the GOP got Clarence Thomas through with yeoman's work from, or all people, Arlen Specter. I know that on setbacks, I don't go crying like a bitch to my Pat Toomey towel. I know that it is easier to get GOP waverers to go nuclear if they aren't on record as having voted against it in the past, and I know that this go 'round, we didn't have the votes.

I know that demanding a vote that you know you will lose is borderline retarded.

In Larkins posts know=assumes. Simply, we do not know who had the votes yet. Though I think it most likely that we had the votes until the very end and someone rolled. But I don't know that. Finally, the vote analyis is only imporatant as to who gets blamed for the weakened position the Repubs find themselves in. And make no mistake, the Repubs are in a weaker position now that the battle will take place on a huge stage with the press actively against them and 7 senators on record as supporting the fillibuster in less important circs.

As to Thomas. The straights were not worse. The fillibuster had not become ordinary course and enshrined by teh press and all the "reasonable Republicans".

There are currently 19 appellate vacancies and 11 nominees

Owen, Brown and Pryor get in.

Saad, Meyers, Kavanaugh, and maybe Haynes jettisoned voluntarily.

McKeague, Griffin, Boyle and Neilson are coming up and should win confirmation.

So, the GOP gets 7 of 11, and the 4 are dispatched without filibuster (or, as we say, GOP style)

If the Dems filibuster another appellate nominee before a Supreme Court vacancy, they're retarded.

They need to hold their powder until a Supreme Court nominee.

Which is what is valuable about the deal, but also, where the GOP lost. It would have been better to have the nuclear device detonated before the next Supreme Court vacancy.

But as that was not to be the case, this ain't a bad deal at all, and certainly not worth the histrionics exhibited here.

Jeff, I don't think anyone here is "taking their toys and going home." But any party that would let it go this far has already declared that they are not interested in winning. The fact that we didn't smash this fillibuster flat as a pancake after the 2002 midterms demonstrates a stunning lack of desire to rule.

Look, we know the Democrats are treacherous. Why would we be so afraid to simply change the rules 2 years ago when we finally won a clear majority? Only because the Senate Republicans are not really dedicated. They are reluctant to fight, and that is what is truly worrying here.

As far as what we can do about it, clearly we can only try to:

1. Replace these 7 Republicans with senators who understand how to play hardball.
2. Work to change the Republican leadership. We need people who can maintain party discipline.

Mega Beach, Chris Lutz, The Warden, West, opine6, Alex_fs, Sublog, College Pundit, Barbula, and even Brew Fran have suggested some variation of taking the ball and going home. You want to replace 7 folks with the following American Conservative Union ratings:

Graham - 91
McCain - 83
DeWine -82
Warner - 81
Collins - 57
Snowe 51
Chafee - 41

You want a new leader? Fine. I have no objection.

I do object to whining and threats to defund and "it doesn't matter" and "we're all dommed" and "not one thin dime."

Larkin: Proof that the compromise was made does not mean that the Republicans did not have the votes. Why do you think the Republicans are in a better position to defeat a fillibuster now than they were before this started? Why do you think it is more likley that a conservative justice will make it to the SCOTUS after this episode?

"If the Dems filibuster another appellate nominee before a Supreme Court vacancy, they're retarded."

It won't be the Dems. The 14 in the middle will make the call. So long as Bush puts in someone who they approve of, no problem.

If Reid or someone else goes off the reservation and filibusters on a candidate the 14 moderates think should pass through, they will vote with the rest of the Republicans to break the filibuster (not change the rules, just end that particular one).

If the 14 moderates think the candidate is too extreme, they'll allow the filibuster to continue, with the 7 Republicans saying, more in sorrow than anger, "Well, we gave our word" and refusing to vote for a rule change.

Result: Bush's nominations must meet the approval of the men and women in the middle in order to get through. That's why the agreement explicitly tells the president it's what they want to see.

Fine if you're a moderate. Frustrating if you're a conservative.. I'm not the political animal that Jeff is (I just like watching the game) but that seems pretty obvious to me.

BTW, I can't tell if my esteemed colleague has pimped his article Frist's Hail Mary, but he called it very well over a week ago.

"Proof that the compromise was made does not mean that the Republicans did not have the votes. "

Say you're a moderate Republican. Odds are, you don't want all those conservative judges, for starters. Then, the only power you have comes from your ability to break logjams.

Why would you vote for a rule change? You make yourself irrelevant, give away your bargaining chip, and for what? Judges you don't really like all that much anyway?

Of course Frist didn't have the votes. The 14 in the middle, and the 7 Republicans in particular, are now the legislative equivalent of O'Connor and Kennedy. Why would they give that up?

Obviously, I don't think the deal is bad for everyone. The "moderates" have collected a significant amount of leverage and will play an important role for a while. However, as you pointed out, the conservatives are pissed and will try to exact a price for what they see as betrayal. However, you are also assuming that Frist did not have the votes. You may be right and Larkin may be right, but we don't know. I think it more likely that the votes were there until the very end and someone rolled. Why else would Frist or any other senator put so much on the line and get the base so riled up if they couldn't deliver? Finally, the real question is "are the conservatives in a better position now w/r/t conservatives and SCOTUS"? The answer is that they are not. THAT is why "conservatives" are mad and see this as a big loss. THAT is why "moderates" are OK with it and why "liberals" are happy. I am a "conservative" on SCOTUS and am therefore pissed.

I use "However" alot, don't I. Sorry.

Larkin: assume, assume, assume. Why not 'assume' the reverse? There's no less evidence for that. Fact is, the outcome of the vote was within the margin of error -- or worry -- for both sides. That's the exact situation where leadership counts. Frist blew it. End of story.

You people are MORONS! Do I make myself clear, or do you need an explanation?

Seig Heil!

Please respond, I need to puke a few more times to clean my system, after reading some of the shit on this "site".

Hey Ace (and friends)!

I still don't have a taker in the Wine for Winners Challenge.

What do you say? Are you game to have some fun with this dire prediction of yours?