Nomination Likely to Please G.O.P., but Not Some Democrats

Thanks for your kind reply, but it appears that you have a "glass half empty" attitude about the deal whereas I have a "glass half full" attitude. What I do know for sure is that Brown, Owen, and Prior were confirmed without a fuss, and Frist can still go nuclear anytime he wants, only now with a more reliable vote-count thanks to the deal. So help me out here - - what did the rats get out of this again?

Thanks for your kind post.
I would urge you to review the following older thread for more information. Naturally, the Republicans can't gloat about trapping the rats, but they did almost let the cat out of the bag last June. Check it out:

Frist blows Graham's and DeWine's cover on judicial nominations deal

Regards,
LH

I have been itching to post my theories on whats been going on.

1. President Bush got his #1 man in, but was promised trouble on anyone else.

2. Trying to be a nice guy, he threw the Dems a bone with the Miers nomination.

You see, she could have easily been approved had the democrats been willing to negotiate and avoid a huge partisan debate.

While there were not major portions of the republicans on board for Miers, there theoretically could have been enough votes (had the democrats tried to get what they say they wanted--IE an middle of the road nominee)

BUT, the democrats decided to play @__hole so hence we now have the current nominee.

Basically President Bush gave them a 'peace offering' in Miers but they slapped it down, despite what they say they want.

Thus President Bush says, "OK, lets then try it another way...."

In any case I think this guy will be a better merely because all the previous gridlock needs to stop.

gogeo: The agreement allows the Repubs to define extraordinary circumstances for themselves. It doesn't allow RATs to define it for everyone.

The text doesn't define it for anyone, true. Don't be so naive, though. We all know that, to an unfortunately high percentage of Americans, the liberal media will define "extraordinary circumstances."

Thanks for your kind reply, but it appears that you have a "glass half empty" attitude about the deal whereas I have a "glass half full" attitude.

I do not have a glass-half-empty, glass-half-full, glass submerged in water, glass struck by lightning or glass anything else point of view. I have simply analyzed the situation and given my predictions. Now I will grant that having Brown, Owen, and Prior confirmed (wasn't it too late to say "without any fuss"?) was nice. However, that does not have anything to do with the problems that could arise.

So help me out here - - what did the rats get out of this again?

The Democrats got an "agreement" from the Republicans that they can twist into a promise not to use the "Constitutional Option." Furthermore, they have not restricted themselves with the "extraordiinary circumstances" clause as any filibuster at all implies "extraordinary circumstances."

I guess I fail to see how the "rats were trapped."

Check this out:

DeWine Says He'll Back Ban On Filibusters In US Senate

Of course he will - - this was the genius of the "Gang of 14" deal. Seven Republicans, including DeWine, promised not to "go nuclear" in exchange for seven Democrats' promise not to filibuster. If some or all of those seven Democrats break their promise and support a filibuster (which would have to happen in order for a filibuster to succeed) then the seven Republicans have all the cover they need to get righteous and vote to "go nuclear". They will clearly be left no choice if the Democrats break their promise.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.