Tuesday, May 24, 2005

The Deal: Maybe, God help us all, the pessimists are right 

Anyhow, reading this story by Ron Brownstein gave me the chills:

Some participants in the talks expressed hope that the agreement would create momentum for compromise on other knotty issues such as Social Security and immigration.

"Watch this group [the Dealmakers] when it comes to major problems that the nation faces like Social Security," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the deal's supporters. "I think we have created momentum for the idea that if you constructively engage each other, the political reward is high."

Please. Stop. Could the Democratic 7 Dealmakers possibly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on Alpo Accounts? Am I really ever going to have to watch Whiney Joe sell FDR's legacy down the river so Bush can plant another fat wet kiss on his tiny little head? Oh nooooooooooooo....

When your enemy's drowning, throw him an anvil! With Bush, that's the responsible thing to do!

But the deal, in which seven Republicans agreed to oppose the filibuster ban while seven Democrats agreed to use the procedural tool against judges only in "extraordinary circumstances," could prove short-lived if future court nominations provoke the same partisan conflicts as the judges now under dispute.

If Bush chooses a highly polarizing nominee for that vacancy, the seven Democrats on the deal would face enormous pressure to support a filibuster — and that would instantly pressure the deal's Republican supporters to reverse direction and back the filibuster ban.

Both Graham and Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), another of the deal's supporters, indicated in interviews today that they would support a filibuster ban if Democrats launched a filibuster they did not believe met the "extraordinary circumstances" standard.

With the arrangement balanced so precariously, the critical factor in its survival may be Bush's reaction to the group's request that he consult more closely with senators of both parties on his future court appointments, especially any choices for the Supreme Court.

"It totally depends on Bush," said Ron Klain, who helped guide two Supreme Court nominations for President Clinton as deputy White House counsel and Justice Department chief of staff. "If Bush picks someone for the Supreme Court who is middle of the road ... that person is going to get confirmed easily and then this agreement will hold. If Bush chooses a different course, and picks someone of an ideological stripe like these more controversial appellate court nominees, this agreement ... will unravel very shortly after that."
(via LA Times)

Well, one thing we know: Never give Bush the benefit of the doubt. He will certainly fuck us, and in an uglier and more damaging way that we can possibly imagine (no matter how hard we try).

Bottom line, though, for me, is that The Deal has no strategic significance at all. It does give us some minor tactical advantages, and that's good. Still, it's hard for me to believe that the filibuster would have been the right ground for a strategic battle; not enough people understand it. I do think that the Dems need to stop respecting [cough] Frist's ability to run the Senate immediately, drop the comity, and start pushing our own agenda. Let's make the Republicans vote down what the majority of the country wants. Very visibly, and starting now.

corrente SBL - New Location
~ Since April 2010 ~

~ Since 2003 ~

The Washington Chestnut
~ current ~

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]


copyright 2003-2010

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?