Basically it seems like the democrats can keep the filibuster so long as they don’t use it. :dubious: It seems to me their interests would have been better served by ditching it in hopes of being in the majority later ( you know the republicans will use a filibuster if they need to).
At least one person disagrees with me though.
From the above article:
"Dr. James C. Dobson, head of the Focus on the Family, one of the conservative groups that had made an end to judicial filibusters a top priority, said the agreement “represents a complete bailout and a betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats.”
The nature of compromises is that both sides win a little, and lose a little.
That said, the Republicans are coming out of this with a few more judges to be confirmed - ones the other side had caricatured as a group of extremist wackos. That has to be considered a plus on their side in any honest accounting.
The Democrats are in the same position they were in before - they can obstruct, but cannot actually move move nominations or legislation through unless they team up with Republicans. It’s a sign of weakness, and they probably cut the best deal they could.
I just can’t see what the republicans lost if anything. Unless the vague language about being able to use the filibuster in “extraordinary circumstances” actually means something. I have a hard time picturing the coalition holding should it actually be put to the test.
Yeah, I’d say both sides came out roughly even, with maybe the Republicans a nose ahead.
But the Democrats had to move very carefully on this issue. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, there could (who knows?) be a Democrat in the White House one day and Republicans have long memories.
This issue was presented by the Republican leadership as an earth-shattering moral issue (despite the laughable hypocrisy). Compromise is not exactly a pleasing end for most of the people who started and fueled this fight, and they are indeed screaming bloody murder. That’s what happens when you use shamelessly over-the-top rhetoric to whip up the flames of your base, and then have to come down to a more moderate reality. The Democrats had little power to exercise here, and the rumor is that one of the nominees will actually get voted down in the Senate. We’ll see if that pans out, but at least in terms of the whole point of this struggle, which was to solidify Frist’s power and Republican’s absolute control over the Senate (having previously done away with nearly everything else they could), this seems like a win for the Dems.
The Dems took the best deal they could get. It just further magnifies the importance of the 2006 elections. Should the Dems pick up a seat or two, they would likely prevail in any attempt to change the rules. Should the GOP gain a seat or two, they would possibly scuttle the agreement and try to change the rules.
It’s a bit early to speculate on who will win or lose in 2006, but if I’m the Republicans I’m uneasy about running with Iraq around my neck, plus having seniors now worried that I’m after their SS check, plus running as the party of uncontrolled deficits. We may well be past the zenith of Republican power in the US.
Well, you touched on part of the problem…its up to each senator to decide exactly what ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are.
The republicans gave up some things also…and the extremists on the republican side are fairly unhappy about it too, though myself I think it was a good compromise.
As has been pointed out already, what is good for the goose is good for the gander…and that goes for filibusters. The republicans were probably being short sighted here in wanting to do away with them, as you never know when the democrats might regain some ground and actually win some elections…it COULD happen someday after all. However, don’t make the mistake of thinking that this doesn’t mean that there are some unhappy republicans over this deal as well, and that they gave up, in their own minds, as much or more than the democrats did.
As to ‘who won’, I’d say the moderates did…and perhaps the rest of us as well, as this deal will perhaps allow the government to actually get some things done and move on instead of implode over this issue.
No ‘scuttling’ needed – the agreement is only operative for this Congress. It ceases to bind anyone to anything after the 2006 elections.
No, it’s not too early to speculate. The only reason I didn’t make my prediction sooner than I did was my waiting until March of this year to see how the new DNC chairman was going to be. Because it’s Dean, I am absolutely sure there will be a net gain of at least one seat each in House and Senate for GOP.
John McCain won. He controls the Senate now. The negotiations that led to the Gang of Fourteen could be the basis for a new coalition of moderates. If he can hold that coalition together, nothing controversial can get done in the Senate without talking to them first. Some on these boards and elsewhere have talked about the possibiltiy of a “revolt of the middle”. This could be the beginning.
Coalitions in Congress often cross party lines. They are situational, issue driven, and temporary. Efforts in the past to build them into more than what they were always failed.
In the 1960’s and 1970’s there was talk about a permanent coalition of conservative Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. This never went anywhere past the talking stage.
The parties, on the other hand, represent something real compared to this ephemeral coalition, and they’ll still be around when this coalition either fails, or recedes into history with the issue it formed around.
Oh yes it did. The conservative Southern Democrats became Republicans.
Maybe this won’t be the beginnig of the Third Way, but Frist’s leadership took a big hit, and while Reid can go back to his party with a partial victory, he wasn’t the one who called the shots this time. 14% of the Senate have just rejected their party leaders’ instructions. When the Supreme Court nomination comes down the pike, Bush can’t just call up Frist and say “Get this done.” He’s got to talk to McCain, too. The entire dynamic of the Senate is different this morning than it was yesterday morning. And I for one think it’s a good thing.
I heard that one of the provisions of the compromise was that the Bush Administration must consult with the Senate before sending up any future nominees – and if he doesn’t, that gives the Democrats free rein to raise the filibuster again. Anyone have the dope on this?
As for me, I remain suspicious, since the current Republican leadership has already shown that they have no regards for keeping promises or respecting the rights of the minority.
I head that this group was going to submit a list of potential candidates, but not that the president had agreed to use the list.
As I pointed out in the Pit thread, this has **nothing **to do with the leadership of either party. This was an independent group of mostly senior Senators who made the agreement. It’s neither binding nor contingent on the actions of the leaders. Period.
Bingo! This result is good for all of us, but McCain is the BIG winner. Unless he has some major health issues, that guys is running in '08. I’ve seen him interviewed a few times in the last week or so, and he is running for president. No doubt about it. This was a shot across Frist’s bow, if not one dead center of the hull.
However, don’t make the mistake of thinking that this doesn’t mean that there are some unhappy republicans over this deal as well, and that they gave up, in their own minds, as much or more than the democrats did.