OK, first of all I hate to disagree with many (if not most) of the people here on this issue, but let me explain why I think we won this fight.
I know the fillibuster deal analysis diaries are a dime a dozen right now (with many from much more knowledgeable people than myself) but I'll add my $.02 to the debate after the fold.
When I was growing up and my brothers and I would fight over x (a toy, the TV or anything in general) my mother would often step in and settle the dispute (as all mothers do). Of course 99% of the time neither person got what they wanted. These settlements led to both me and my brother/s complaining that it wasn't fair (for whatever reason). My mother would tell us 2 things:
- Life ain't fair (but that doesn't fit into the fillibuster deal, at least not the argument I'm trying to make)
- If you're both upset it must be an even deal. Live with it.
I think that second statement pretty well sums things up over the deal reached today. Pretty much it's an agreement that benefits neither side.
The freepers and dobsonites have their panties in a tizzy about the leadership not having any balls to follow through with the nookular option.
We're upset because there was a fighting chance we'd win this vote, thus making Frist (and by extension the prez) look incredibly weak.
Both of us lost. By definition a good start for a good compromise. (And by the way, I like to win every time like everyone else, but I'm a realist. As such I know you never get everything you want.)
Now that I've got that off my chest let me explain why I see the deal as a win for us.
First, this is a warning shot across the bow of the administration. Remember, they nominated these judges not just in an attempt to pack the lower courts with right-wing idealogues, but also with the intention of having Frist press the nuclear button (and win the right to further pack the courts).
Guess what? It didn't work. They got three judges floor votes out of the 5. Not bad, but not what they wanted by sending the whole lot back to the Senate. In essence the Repubs made themselves look weak (especially to their hard-core base) by parading this issue around for so long and losing
And hence the whining from the other side about the deal today.
Second, people I have talked to about this (Let me pause to say I'm not sure their party affiliation, but let's just say their working class white folk in GA...probably moderate repubs, but again I'm not sure) are pretty pissed at congress right now because as they (rightly) see things there's a bunch of more pressing issues to be tackled that this crap. This is good for us since congress is held by the repubs, so they get the majority of the angst over this (which would not likely be true if we resorted to the nuclear winter...virtually shutting down the Senate in retaliation of a potential loss).
So now you've got the hard-core wingers pissed and the moderates unhappy. That's a good start for us.
And finally, the repubs have branded us as obstructionists for so long (and it has stuck for the most part) I would argue it's good for us to come off as able to make a high profile compromise, such as this one. It's hard being all piss and vinegar all of the time, and most people don't appreciate it when we are. Even if we ARE right on the issue, I would argue that sometimes its better to be willing to compromise to save face rather than piss people off by making a firm stand. Call it a tactical retreat if you will.
I mean what did we lose? 3 more radical judges to the 200+ radical judges W's already gotten through the Senate?
That's just a drop in the bucket. It may be a greasy, rancid drop that will poison the water for years to come, but it's a drop nonetheless.
(Plus these judges very well might go on to piss off enough people in the future that it was worth letting them on the bench. If just for the animosity they could bring to the enemy.)
Anyways that's my long-winded $.02. Flame away.