Will someone please tell me the point??

[friesianrider]

I just don't get it; maybe I'm slow.

Can someone please explain to me why the spineless Dems in the Senate are compromising on judicial nominees? Exactly what are they hoping to accomplish by meeting the GOP halfway on Pryor and Brown? Do they actually think the Repukes are actually going to give a shit if the Dems want something? The GOP comes up with this off-the-wall scheme to ban the filibuster (which no one in America supports other than the ultra-right nutjobs - something like 75% supported keeping the filibuster), and the Dems in the Senate start shaking in their boots and decide they really must compromise. BUT FOR WHAT!? What the hell do they think compromising with those psychos is going to accomplish? I just want to know why we keep "meeting halfway" with these jackasses' insane and outrageous demands.

Someone needs to give Dean a Senate seat or something, because I'm very disappointed in the S/H Dems, not just for this but for being more vocal about Dean's "irresponsible" comments than, gee, the fact that Bush's people softened the global warming info. At the very least, Dean needs to light a fire under their ass to stop compromising with lunatics demands.

[David Dunham]

1. The Republicans have a clear majority in the Senate

They have 55 votes and enough to pass the nuclear option when they choose to. The Dems need to concentrate on winning seats in 2006.

[bryant69]

2. And, if the Republicans try the Nuclear Option

Which seems possible, than we have the advantageous position of having compromised, and then having been betrayed.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[atreides1]

5. Good Point

But I don't really think that the American Taliban who support Frist actually give a damn if the Repukes betray the Democrats.

Do you think they care?

I know we want to believe that if Frist pulls the N-OP, that it will
open some door to a land where the Dems will win Senate seats from
Frist and his allies.

Don't count on it, the elections are still a long way off, and the American public, at least some, have the memory retention of a brick.

[LightningFlash]

11. Irrelevant...

When the voting machines are rigged, whoever "wants" a seat on the senate will get it.

Meaning more dinos, nazis, etc. It allows ANYONE to get elected.

There's at least 20 states which still need to employ real voting reform and challenge the fraud.

[yurbud]

7. exactly--the choice was nut job Brown with compromise or WITHOUT

at least they got something, and it's a win-win from here.

If repubs break compromise, Dems look reasonable and honorable.

If repubs stand by compromise, that's even better.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[SmokingJacket]

9. That would be great, if people had memories longer than a gnat.

Having been betrayed won't count for much, I wager.

[bryant69]

12. Well it's hard to say

I think it depends on how the Dems in the Senate React. I get the impression that Harry Reid will make a big stink about it, but I can respect people who think he'll (and the other Senators) just go quietly.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ClintonTyree]

3. Soooo....

the Dems should just roll over and acquiesce to the twisted judges bush has proposed? OK. Business as usual is what you're saying? :shrug:

[David Dunham]

4. The Dems should wait until an important Supreme Court seat is open

The Dems should save the fillibuster until a Supreme Court seat opens that would affect the balance on the Court -- Stevens' or O'Connors' seat. If we fillibuster then, we might pick up 6 Republicans to defeat the nuclear option. If we tried it now with lower court judges, the Republicans would have the votes to pass the nuclear option and kill the fillibuster forever.

[friesianrider]

8. Exactly...

I dunno, I still don't see the point. I hear what y'all are saying, but seriously. I'm so sick of Bush nominating the most backasswards asshats in the country for the most important courts in the land...and we're supposed to be happy that we "compromised." What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and I think it was wrong to confirm any of these judges that were filibustered to begin with.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. I think so too, but...

the problem is that the majority has changed so many of the rules that there is simply nothing else to do unless we take back the Senate.

There was a time when any Senator could hold up a judge from his or her state, and the Republicans used that against Clinton at least a dozen times. Boxer could easily have used it against Brown, but that rule was changed just so no Democrat can ever hold up a judge.

The current crop of Republican leadership is the most ruthless and ideological in history, and any moderates or Democrats have to deal with them to get all that other stuff thorugh without losing everything. There's budgets, Amtrak, Social Security, PATRIOT II, tax bills, highway spending, base closings, and all the other crap going on that they have to worry about, too.

[Just Me]

6. Took "nuclear" off the table. Allowed moderates a chance to plan,...

,...for,....

Keep faith. If you lost it, find it, NOW!!! If you have none, get focused for battle. The next 12 months requires all hands on deck. Stay focused on winning.