Daily Kos

View Story | 258 comments

  •  And? (4.00 / 2)

    How does this outcome leave the GOP base unrallied? They've been told they can't get everything they want, and when they're told that, they get mighty angry.

    My guess is that this will simply motivate them to redouble their efforts and that next time they'll be even more organized.

    Heck, the mere fact that there will be a "next time" shows how fleeting this "victory" you claim we have actually is.

    And mark my words: the Republicans to suffer won't be Frist and Dobson. It'll be the moderates. The wingnuts are gunning for them now. And if they succeed, we're fucked.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
    Neither is California High Speed Rail

    by eugene on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:17:19 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  They *are* rallied (4.00 / 3)

      ...but against each other.  The extremists now go on the warpath against the moderates.  The moderates defend themselves by attacking back.  Goodbye, lockstep GOP, hello democracy!

      When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

      by RequestedUsername on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:20:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Primary fights (none / 0)

        I'm hoping the New England Repubs field some knuckle-draggers in the Primaries against Chafee and  Snowe, wreck their party and get us a shot at those two seats. I think Santorum will get beat in '06 so maybe we just increased out take on Senate seats.

        I think this helped Nelson in Nebraska, which I like -- not Nelson, but that the seat has a fighting chance to stay Dem.

        Boulanger

        by Boulanger on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:11:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Extremists (4.00 / 4)

      If the Republicans lose their moderates, they will never control any branch ever again. So I say let them cannibalize their moderates.

      by Bald Peanut on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:28:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course that's what (none / 1)

        a lot of conservatives say about the Dems, too, which is why they say Dean is bad for the party. I still like Dean as DNC chair and like how he is trying to get the DLCers to be not so GOP-lite. It remains to be seen, though, which party will lose (or gain) more by leaning on its moderates.

        Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Well, come on, doesn't anybody know!?!?

        by Erik the Red on Tue May 24, 2005 at 05:58:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  True - Dean is a moderate, tho (none / 0)

          in terms of policy. So he's likely to foster moderates who can win as candidates.

          The only thing that makes Dean seem extremist to Repubs is that he has a spine, uses it and doesn't back down...

          I really, really like what's going on with the Dems. I would have liked for not one single prejected nominee be nominated - but the GOP took a beating in the polls for weeks, Frist is foiled, this smokescreen for now is done, and on to - Social Security! Where the more the public hears about the plan, the less they like it.

          God bless Dean, Reid, Boxer, et al.

          "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

          by jbeach on Tue May 24, 2005 at 09:35:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed (none / 0)

            We can't succumb to using the right's definition of what a "left-wing extremist" is --- I mean, what they don't get is that 'liberal' and 'extremist' are not the same thing.  I mean, really.  We need to be putting some concerted effort into informing people how mainstream the Democratic party is and how far to the right the Republican theo/neocon leadership has taken theirs.

            Dean is not extreme.  He's just very committed to his principles.

            War is NOT a preventative measure.

            by demandcaring on Tue May 24, 2005 at 10:44:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Think about this (none / 0)

      It was the Dems all along who said they were defending the Senate. The moderate Repubs crossed over to help them. That means the Dems were right from the beginning and the Repubs who kept calling it a "constitutional option" were dead wrong.

      by Juno on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:28:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Remember this... (none / 1)

        ...the Democrats did NOT promise NEVER to filibuster Bush's appeals or SCOTUS nominees.

        They simply promised not to filbuster the nominations EXCEPT in cases of "extraordinary" circumstances.  So they left themselves an out, AND avoided the nuclear option.

        Sounds good to me!

        John McCain will end Roe v. Wade if he's president.

        by Phoenix Woman on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:45:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you really think... (none / 0)

          ... that the Republicans will ever agree that something is "extraodinary"? This pisses off the freepers and someone like Dobson, but what did we really get? The three worst nominees that were held up will get put through. In the future, these three will become the "baseline." Tough to think of nominees that would be further right, although I suppose it could happen. IE, pretty much any right wing judge is game. And we have a filibuster right that we can't ever use, because the other side would never recognize "extraordinary" and would instantly launch the nuclear option if we tried to use it.

          And we caved in on principle when we were on the side of right (and the country agreed). Doesn't sound quite so good to me, but we'll see how it plays out. IMHO, we missed a real opportunity here.

          by cafeoz on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:24:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  without this compromise (none / 1)

            Janice Rogers Brown would be headed for the Supreme Court. That isn't going to happen now and that is a big deal.

            Moreover, pay attention to the language in the deal that emphasizes the advise in advise and consent. This is a strong signal from these repubs that bush should consult prior to a nomination. In their press conference, the compromisers said that they would be talking with each other, especially if the Dems thought there were "extraordinary" circumstances.

            As a result of that, if bush were to nominate a Brown or Owen or Pryor, without consulting, I think you can expect several of these repubs to be mighty irritated.

            They've all worked their ass off for this compromise. They didn't do it for it to mean nothing. And bush can violate it by not consulting with both repubs and Dems.

            This administration will give you plenty of reason to be dispirited and angry. Let yourself enjoy a moment when we stopped their radical agenda. Because, no matter what you think, that is what has happened.  

            Turn the Mountain West blue! Support Gary Trauner for Wyoming's only House seat!

            by kainah on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:46:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Extraordinary (4.00 / 4)

            Here's the thing. Wargame it out. Wingnut X is nominated for the Supreme Court. All we need is 41 Senators to fillibuster him/her. So the Rethugs cry "this isn't an "extraordinary" case!" But if they make that claim, we have them right where we want them.

            "Oh yeah?" We respond: "what about [insert stubstantive causes for outrage]!" The MSM, in reporting the question of whether or not the case is "extraordinary," pretty much HAS to focus on Dem complaints, whether than on process (as in the current media coverage of the nuke option).

            Put differently: if the Rethugs try to go nuclear, they won't be able to do so on the rationale of "every nominee deserves an up or down vote"--they've just conceded that principle. It will have to be on the rationale that Wingnut X is not out of the mainstream. And that is a debate we'd love to have. Bring it on.

            It must be said though that because of this compromise Scalia is the next chief justice. No way that elevating a major sitting justice can be considered "extraordinary." Then again, since it actually would be extraordinary, the argument may be made ...

            by Ottoe on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:01:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Aren't SCOTUS nominations always "extra- (none / 0)

              ordinary circumstances" by definition?  You know, not things that happen at all, ordinarily.  Add 'extremist' if Bush doesn't line up his votes before hand -read 'advise'- and puree the Rethugs in the media spin.

              Maybe....

              by chrismorgan on Mon May 23, 2005 at 11:32:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  These nominations weren't extraordinary? n/t (none / 0)

          noli, amabo, verberare lapidem ne perdas manum -- Plautus

          by fritzrth on Tue May 24, 2005 at 05:22:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Heh (none / 1)

        Real fun was at the press conference when the deal was formally announced - one of the moderate Repubs, forget which one, called the destruction of filibusters the "Constitutional option", then said he opposed it because the option was bad for the Senate.

        So, the "Constitutional option" was bad for...the main creation of the Constitution.

        Then he handed over the mike to someone else real quick.

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

        by jbeach on Tue May 24, 2005 at 09:38:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I doubt it (4.00 / 3)

      And mark my words: the Republicans to suffer won't be Frist and Dobson. It'll be the moderates. The wingnuts are gunning for them now. And if they succeed, we're fucked.

      The GOP won so much by appealing to mostly centrist sympathies.  Less government intrusion.  Less taxes.  Stuff that most people could nod vaguely and agree with.

      After hiding their true agenda under a bushel until they gained an "unstoppable" majority, they then whipped the sheet off their Frankenplatform and revealed an ugly, bolted-together wish list of 1920's-era thinking that completely turned off an overwhelming majority of the electorate.  Starting with Schiavo and Social Security, everything they have done since the '04 election has either directly offended the sensibilities of the middle, or will impact their bottom line in fairly short order (think about the horrible bankruptcy bill -- what a dead, stinking albatross to hang around their necks!).  Without their centrist appeals, all they've got are a bunch of raving crazies whose true aims for the rest of us are apallingly backwards.  Frist and Dobson are fucked, and all they've got to cling to now are each other.

      I keep having to remind people -- these guys are not geniuses.  Right now the GOP is acting like a bunch of fucking babies who want to take their ball and go home.  But there's nowhere to go.  This is our nation, and they have to keep playing this game, and by our rules.  It's time to remind these biatches what democracy means.

      Joe Scarborough

      by slippytoad on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:03:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, but... (none / 0)

        Aren't they now appearing like they are not owned by the radical UberReicht Wing?  I dunno...I think most Americans don't care enough to watch except if they see something completely out of bounds...The Rethugs were on the verge of doing just that...I think win lose or Cheney, Dems were going to win this one.  Yes, they would enable a majority vote for SCOTUS nominees...but Bush doesn't have that many left in him...only likely replacing Rehnquist and putting Scalia as Chief.  It would be nice if Scalia had to take over the administration functions, frankly.  Might have to spend less time ranting and more time socializing with the other more moderate judges....

        I think it was a draw, and when you're out numbered 55-45, that is an accomplishment, but I don't think it was a win by any stretch.

        TexasDemocrat
        Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire

        by TexasDemocrat on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:24:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's the Republican Sister Souljah moment (none / 0)

          and as such, a huge, huge win for them with self-described moderate voters.

          "See? We gave the finger to all those crazies that worried you at the start of '05. We're the regular folks, so thanks for voting us back in in '06."

          by Smallbottle on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:04:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Predicting the next SCOTUS vacancy is tricky (none / 0)

          Stevens (God bless him) is old enough that his every day on the court is a gift, Rehnquist is sure to be quitting at the end of this term, and O'Connor would like to retire.  Several others have had various other health problems.  As unpopular as he is, Bush has nearly four years left to his term.  My guess is that this gives him a fair chance at two or three appointments, before he is a true lame duck.

          Even if O'Connor is no liberal, she is part of the majority keeping abortion rights constitutionally protected.  So a scenario on which Buch has a chance to shift the balance is not all that unlikely.  Keeping the ability to fillibuster when it really matters seems worth a few bad appeals court justices, especially when one of them goes onto the Fifth (I think it is the fifth? The one that includes TX.) Circuit which already thinks it can overrule the Supreme Court.

          When the focus is the Supreme Court and the Right Wing tries to change the rules again, it will be more difficult than now.  So this is a win.

          by mvr on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:52:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  A recent convert's perspective (4.00 / 15)

      ...I'm a former GOP moderate who "Migrated" during the Schiavo outrage. Allow me to offer my perspective.

      I always considered myself a "Libertarian" Republican/ Constitutional Fundamentalist, rather than a theocrat. I don't think that my viewpoint was unique, particularly among the more educated/secular Republicans (the poor, South is NOT the "traditional" Republican base (as you well know- I'm not trying to talk down to you)).  Schiavo terrified me because it demonstrated how seperate the "Libertarian-Friendly" Republican rhetoric is from the reality of their practical politics. The "Nuclear Option" is another example of the lengths that the party will go to in order to promote its own adgenda over the traditional rule of law and the protections instilled for minorities (a concern to those of us in the "My Rights Stop at the End of My Fist Camp).

      I think that the "deal" upsets the Theocrats too because, rather than viewing themselves as "Republicans" I think Dobson et. als. smugly believe that they have "bought" the Republican party, and that the Republican Party ought to be able to get them everything they want and deliver it with a smile. Like pouting toddlers, they are going to be FURIOUS that they didn't get this lollipop and looking for someone to blame.

      As others have pointed out, this leave NO ONE in the GOP happy.

      The Republicans who "crossed party lines" will upset their Theocrat base (if they have one- I've only skimmed the list, but it looked more likely to break "Libertarian" than "Theocrat" to me) but they've also taken a lot of ammo away from potential Dem challengers in the future. It's the Republicans who weren't part of the deal who are going to bleed.

      by lexlawgirl on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:03:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  welcome over (4.00 / 7)

        from one ex-moderate/libertarian republican to another. the republican party has betrayed the ideal of civil and individual liberties, and i hope my party, the democratic party, will continue to stand firm for these fundamental constitutional principles. i would be very happy to see the libertarian wing of the repiublican party win this civil war; i am not confident that they will, but i hope they do. it would be great to get back to having honest political debates again without the threat of theocracy or unrestrained autocracy.

        surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

        by wu ming on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:17:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Welcome (4.00 / 2)

        and thanks for your perspective. This really is a win for the United States of America. I hope you see it that way, too.

        John McCain supports Bush's Iraq policy

        by Alna Dem on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:18:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  ANOTHER moderate convert? Awww, man. (4.00 / 2)

        Oh, okayyy.

        You can play.

        But you have to bring the pie for a week.

        -9.63, -7.03 Rage, rage against the Lying of the Right

        by Maryscott OConnor on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:31:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Glad to have you (4.00 / 2)

        by missmann on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:34:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Welcome (4.00 / 4)

        and make yourself comfortable. We believe in individual rights here.

        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

        by sidnora on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:44:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hididy Ho Convertireno (none / 0)

        Glad to see the libertrain Republicans are waking up to what's going on. Hope to see you around :-)

        I Am Hussein and So Can You

        by Goldfish on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:23:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good Observation (none / 0)

        The Republicans who "crossed party lines" will upset their Theocrat base (if they have one- I've only skimmed the list, but it looked more likely to break "Libertarian" than "Theocrat" to me) but they've also taken a lot of ammo away from potential Dem challengers in the future. It's the Republicans who weren't part of the deal who are going to bleed.

        Upon hearing the news of the agreement, my first thought was, now I have to pay attention to Mike DeWine and his challenger(s) in the future. If the Ohio Dems can't muster a decent candidate, I'll have to seriously consider whether DeWine deserves support - if a Republican has to hold the seat, I'd rather it be him than any of these other raving theocrats that are taking over Ohio.

        Very astute observation, lexlawgirl. Welcome to the neighborhood.

        by GuyFromOhio on Tue May 24, 2005 at 05:41:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A Dem in Texas (none / 0)

          I face the same problem in Texas, where the Rethugs are going to win every race for the foreseeable future.  I'm thinking of changing registration simply so I can vote for the lesser of two evils.  

          A good case in point is the coming Governor's race here.  Many establishment Rethugs are putting enormous pressure on Kay Bailey Hutchinson not to challenge Rick Perry for the spot.  Perry's approval ratings are in the 40's and Hutchinson's are high.  Perry has done an abysmal job but that doesn't matter to the establishment.  Just give Perry a pass, screw the people of Texas -- who will elect a dead armadillo if it has (R) by its name.  

          I don't like Hutchinson, but I'm hopeful that she at least would be competent.

          Boulanger

          by Boulanger on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:29:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Welcome aboard (none / 0)

        We hope to get some sanity back in the branches soon, and then to have some sane, balanced discussions between mutually respecting outlooks, on how to make things work for all our citizens.

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

        by jbeach on Tue May 24, 2005 at 09:42:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 258 comments