Skip to main content

View Diary: Get over it, we won (258 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In an obvious manner. (none)
    It's not his/her problem if you can't see it.
    •  Sure it is (4.00)
      We still live in a reality-based community where people have to explain their arguments if they are to be taken seriously.

      If it's obvious, then explain it to me. If you can't do that, then I have every right to believe you have no clue what you're talking about.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:11:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's why (4.00)
        Frist wanted to get this done when fewer people (ie only the political junkies) were paying attention.  It will be a LOT harder to pull the nuclear option on a Supreme Court nominee without getting a LOT of public backlash against the Reps (and from looking at the latest poll, that's the last thing they need).  So, now the filibuster remains, and it will likely not become an issue until there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court.  Frist wanted to trigger the nuclear option now so that it would have blown over by the time there was an opening on the Supreme Court, and Bush could push through any nominee he wanted for that post with only 51 votes.
        •  Here's why I think that misses the point (none)
          When Dems do use the filibuster again, what's to stop the Republicans from saying they promised to only use it in "extreme" circumstances and now they are going back on their word? It doesn't even have to be true, so long as some Dems have apparently now used this language and Fox is willing to serve as a happy tool to relay the message to the masses.

          Or, even if this tactic isn't used, the Republicans still get to complain about obstructionist democrats. Yes, their base is upset with Republican leadership in the senate right now, but this same base agrees that the Democrats are obstructing, unfairly, their holy warrior judges. It doesn't take any new convincing in 6 months to gripe about Democrats blocking the way. The claim will be that we are "abusing" our right to filibuster, which the Republicans so graciously allowed us to retain. Their magnanimity rewarded with our ungraciousness.

          Wanna bet that's what happens? And when it does, Repubs will be able to use the filibuster as a club against us and we'll use their attempted dismantling of it against them, making it a wash in the long-run.

          We, on the other hand, would have made the filibuster into a huge club against them if they had trashed 200 years of tradition for the sake of a few radical judges.

          I don't think we lost, I just think we missed an opportunity to win big. We would have been sacrificing a pawn to get the queen.

          the spirit is restored by wounding

          by jd in nyc on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:28:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  extreme (4.00)
            When Dems do use the filibuster again, what's to stop the Republicans from saying they promised to only use it in "extreme" circumstances and now they are going back on their word? It doesn't even have to be true, so long as some Dems have apparently now used this language and Fox is willing to serve as a happy tool to relay the message to the masses.

            What's the problem with that? Rhetorically, you just start saying "extreme circumstances" as much as you can, and "extremist judges", and then "extreme", "extreme", "extreme", "extreme", "extreme", ...

            It's your* new favourite "frame" - one that seems to be getting traction - and this deal just set you up to use it a whole lot more. Doesn't seem like too much of a problem to me.

            * the royal 'you', by which I mean american democrats.

            I have a delay pedal and I'm not afraid to use it.

            by droneboy on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:56:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  framing problems (none)
              For a number of reasons, Democrats are not at all in a good position to be constructing frames out of thin air in which to control the debate. We can't just keep repeating something like the Republicans do and expect it to stick. We need to rely on the good rhetorical terrain, like that provided by doing away with two centuries of American political tradition just for the sake of a temporary advantage in getting a few judges through.

              The reasons we can't do what Republicans do are that (1) our spin-meisters are mostly still not as good as the Republican ones, although I think Reid and Dean are making progress.
              (2) There are conscious and unconscious allegiances held by American media (by which I mean the lowbrow media of evening news, CNN, Fox, and most daily papers) which make them tend to dismiss our spin points and parrot theirs as fact. If it looks like spin on our side, it gets called such in cynical terms almost universally. If it looks like spin on their side, a large majority of the reports will use it to set the stage for discussion, which if we're lucky an acute interviewee or talking head will then challenge.
              There is almost never the sneer of cynicism in reports from the "objective" American media when mentioning Republican spin, but this quite frequently happens with Democratic spin.

              the spirit is restored by wounding

              by jd in nyc on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:15:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  probably not in terms of substance (3.83)
        the repubs didn't lose that much. But when did substance ever matter to this rotten country?

        They lost in terms of expectations, and in terms of looking foolish. They overreached, and in not getting what their putrid grubby mouths were gobbling for, they now look weaker.

        Looking weaker often means becoming weaker. Less confidence. More second guessing. Less assertiveness. This is a strategic opening for the dems to plant a flag and develop their own powerpolitics. But you're right, in terms of substance, we didn't get that much.

        But I don't care: Harry Reid is our savior, imho.

        All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

        by SeanF on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:28:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Wingies WANTED this (4.00)
          They really, really wanted it.

          You have no idea how hard they've been pushing Frist not to even THINK of cutting a deal over this.  Hell, they've been attacking Trent-Friggin-LOTT over this -- and seriously pissing him off in the process!

          In fact, I see Trent Lott's fine hand in this arrangement.  He's a loyal Republican, all right -- but he's also a believer in the idea that the Senate should not be an adjunct of the Executive Branch.  

          Remember, Rove gleefully went along with forcing Lott out of his Majority Leader job over the Thurmond flap because it meant that Rove could then move a BushCo puppet, Bill Frist, into the job.  Lott, I suspect, has been waiting patiently for the right time to remind Rove that he's not fucking Augustus Caesar.  This is apparently it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site