The Democrats Got Rolled in the Compromise...But Don't Know It Yet! (VANITY)

Free Republic | May 25, 2005 | Gary L. Livacari

[Recovering_Democrat]

All the centrist Republicans who supported the agreement – including Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham – have likewise vowed to support Frist should it become necessary.

Where did you read or see that?

[2banana]

We will see - the IRONIC part of all this - When Priscilla Owens finally gets a full senate vote - it will be something like 80-20 - SO WHY WAS SHE FILIBUSTERED IN THE FIRST PLACE? Because the dems understand who to wield power...and we don't.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I heard the same argument on Jim Bohannan's show and don't think I quite buy it.

[don'tbedenied]

Flame me if you like but I generally agree with this analysis. The proof will be in the pudding but it looks to me like Graham is in the cat bird seat. We'll see.

[RobFromGa]

I agree with this sentiment and have been saying it as often as possible since the compromise was annouced. Just because we didn't get to humiliate the Democrats does not mean that we didn't whip them. If they start filibustering again, the Rules will be changed and no one will be able to say that the Dems weren't given one last chance to act like adults.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

The left have protrayed the three judicial candidates as "egregious nominees" in the past. This, and the new emerging role of advise (i.e. consultation of the President and Senate prior to nominee submission) that is the new mantra of the partisans will prevail. I predict a straight party line vote on the up-or-down.

Remember, they want "consultation rather than confrontation", and "mainstream jurists" for "lifetime postitions on the federal bench." The fillibuster is being saved for Supreme Court nominees.

[Terabitten]

When Priscilla Owens finally gets a full senate vote - it will be something like 80-20 - SO WHY WAS SHE FILIBUSTERED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

This will be a great piece of ammunition to use against the Dems in their upcoming elections. "My opponent voted against Judge Owens before he voted for her." It will help paint the Dems as power-hungry and unscrupulous (which, of course, they are). It'd make a great 30 second spot.

[Moose4]

If the Democrats were logical, and honorable, I'd agree with you. But the fact is, the next judicial nominee that comes up that Harry Reid and the Swimmer don't like, they'll filibuster him/her. Period. The media will NEVER call them on the hypocrisy they show, and the majority of the sheeple either don't care or don't understand the issue. Remember, according to the Gang of Fourteen, President Bush is supposed to "consult" with the Senate before sending them nominees now. They can simply say, "Well, the President didn't consult with us, so he broke the agreement, it's filibuster time"--never mind that nobody from the White House is even PART of this "agreement." The MSM won't care, they'll report what the Rats tell them to.

I don't think it's a massive defeat. I do think that it's not a victory, it's at best a postponement of the inevitable, which is a showdown over a judicial nominee that forces the Republicans to finally use the "nucular option."

}:-)4

[Air Conditioned Gypsy]

Yes, McCain sold us out. But I think we will be in a better position for confirmation of judges from now on.

Reminds me of the Clinton impeachment. Yes, the senate should have convicted him and removed him from office.

But on the other hand, I'm glad Bush didn't have to run against President Al Gore in 2000.

[BufordP]

I agree but will remain somewhat skeptical until the "4th" nominee comes up for a vote.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Heard on Jay Severin's show out of Boston that language was written into the agreement which states that under "extraordinary events" the agreement goes out the window. Yet there's no language that defines, exactly, "extraordinary events," so that means the term of art means exactly what each individual involved wants it to mean. I imagine for some, nominating a Supreme Court Justice would be an "extraordinary event."

I think the GOP got rolled.

[proxy_user]

I think this analysis is correct. Most of the complainers don't understand anything but a full frontal assault.

We can scuttle the agreement any time it suits our convenience, on the slightest pretext.

[Alberta's Child]

The most notable development in this "deal" is something that very few people have mentioned -- and that is the absence of Arlen Specter (one of the most radical liberals in the U.S. Senate, regardless of party affiliation) from that group of seven GOP senators who brokered the agreement.

Anyone who thinks George W. Bush came this far in politics only to have his executive appointments held up by an old, mediocre inbred like Robert Byrd is really delusional.

[Samurai_Jack]

I'll believe it when I see it!

[hflynn]

I agree with you. We don't know everything that occurred behind the doors closed by these Senators that produced an unenforceable agreement. What we do know is McCain and the others have been flushed out into the open and will pay a price down the road.

What is even more important is we don't know anything that occurred behind close doors at the White House or among other Senators who were not participants in the agreement.

.

[Misplaced Texan]

You know that I would like to believe that everything you say is correct and those prophesies will come to pass. However, there is a more important aspect to this entire scenario that although it receives lip service, I believe will play out in the near and farther future elections and events.

That aspect is disenchantment with the Republican Party. This will not result in a great switch of Republicans to Democrats, but what will happen is an increase in voter apathy.

"Why should I go vote when it doesn't do any good anyway?"

I may be wrong, but...................

[Alberta's Child]

Ping.

[GaryL]

Thanks for your reply. I'm sure we'll get flamed, but I think this was a huge victory for our side!

[clintonh8r]

80-20 for Owen? You're dreaming. The RATs will have very few defections.