home

Blogger Reaction to the Compromise

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue May 24, 2005 at 11:04:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'll be adding to this as I find other bloggers whose views I agree with on the Compromise:

  • Liberal Oasis:
    It is the same old conservatism with the same old centrist mask.
  • Maxspeak:
    I'm more interested in whether it is a victory for the Dems. The point of opposition is to obstruct outrageous legislation and appointments. As far as I can see, the Dems have failed to do this, in return for a vague commitment from the GOP to forego a procedural vote that they can always take in the future, in the event opinions differ on the meaning of "extraordinary." Ultimately, it is a recasting of the absurd deal we had heard about before: you retain the right to filibuster as long as you don't do so."
  • Skippy (R.J.Eskow):
    So now we learn that the democrats have achieved a "compromise" that is, in fact, a surrender. they avoided a shootout by throwing themselves face-down in the dirt. it's not their first "compromise." if there's one thing they've learned, it's how to compromise.

  • Joshua Zeist (Huffington Post):
    Over the past five years the GOP has weakened the independent judiciary; it has neutered the Senate as a check against presidential power; and it has violated a longstanding tradition of comity and consensus in the upper chamber. To be sure, Senate Republicans have been successful because they have the votes. But they've also steamrolled a weak and ineffective opposition. If the Democratic party cannot or will not safeguard the integrity of the courts, the separation of powers, and the key components of the New Deal and Great Society, then what use does it serve?
  • Avedon Carol at Sideshow:
    The thing is, no matter what happens, my instincts are screaming with the Retaliban in charge.

I may be done now. Like Avedon, I really don't want to talk about this any more. It's been a tremendous waste of energy and time.

Update: ok, one more.

David Corn at The Nation. I like his succinct description of the compromise:

Under this brokered arrangement, three of Bush's rightwing nominees for appellate courts--Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor Jr.--will not be filibustered. In return--so to speak--the filibuster will remain a weapon the Democrats can use in the future against other judicial nominees but only "under extraordinary circumstances." What qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances"? That was not defined.

His view isn't as pessismistic as mine, but he's right here:

But the Democrats did not walk out of the room with a hard-and-fast right to resort to a filibuster. With this compromise, they are only able to wield a judicial filibuster if seven Republican senators agree the situation is "extraordinary." In essence, a small band of moderate GOPers will now have veto power over the Democrats' use of the judicial filibuster.

Democrats and their allies in the judicial wars can point to the fact that one or two of the Bush nominees may be stopped and that the filibuster might be available in the future. But what they got out of this deal is more iffy than what the Republicans pocketed.

Go read David for the rest.

< ACLU ACLU Wins Photo Disclosure Battle | Radical Right Threatens Compromise Republicans >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Blogger Reaction to the Compromise | 17 comments (17 topical)
    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Paul, In re, Clinton: In the next 25 years, assuming the Republic survives, Bill Clinton will be recognized as one of the greatest presidents of the twentieth century, behind Roosevelt surely, but not too far behind Truman, if at all. 'Nuff said. In re the present: Agreed, Kerry and (some of) the others are among the best around. So what? There is no way they can be effective without a functioning party behind them. You and I cannot help except in one way, and that is by making it explicit that we will not tolerate incompetence and impotent strategies. That means voting with our wallets, ie, carefully funding those parts of the party that deserve support while simultaneously demanding immediate changes in the national party's modus operandi. How do we make that demand forceful? I suspect the only way is with money, by targeting our donations so that we fund the good guys and defund the dross. I suggest funneling donations through MoveOn right now. You may have better ideas. I hope so. But giving money to the Dems directly the way I did from 2000 to 2004? Never again. They wasted my money and I can't afford to have them waste it again. 2004 was theirs to lose,. And they lost big time. Voter fraud, shmoter fraud. It shouldn't have even been close.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    They totally caved. It's like... say you're a woman walking down the street, and you're accosted by a big guy with a gun who's going to rape you. But then your boyfriend appears, and he's got a gun, too. You think things have taken a sudden turn for the better. But there's a standoff, and then ... your boyfriend works out a deal - the guy gets to rape you, but he might not get to again tomorrow. So do you run around saying, ooh, what a glorious victory? Or do you do whatever you can to fight? Come on, we're getting screwed, and the sooner we admit the Democrats (with a few exceptons) aren't doing anything about it, the sooner we can start standing up to these b**tards!

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    I think we are being too hard on the Dems. It seems more likely then not that if we had taken the nuclear option to the mat, we would have lost. Reid can count pretty well, and I think if he thought he had the votes, the Compromise Dems would have walked from the deal. There is nothing more important than being able to filibuster a Dobson picked Supreme Court nominee, nothing! If we had lost now, we would have had a right wing nutball S.C. nominee jammed down our throats with no way to stop him/her. Now, we still have a shot. Even if the Repubs that are part of the Compromise group don't find a S.C. nominee filibuster appropriate as a result of their finding no "extraordinary circumstances", they will have to back out of the deal in a very public way, and not when the public has forgotten the right to filibuster ever existed. Although we will lose some battles with App. Ct. and Circuit Court judges, we can still win the war in the Supreme Court. Bush won't be able to help himself in nominating a SC judge. He's once again going to have to outdo his old man, and will nominate a complete nutball. It will be much easier for the Compromise Repubs. to vote against cloture, rather then voting against the actual nominee. We can beat his initial nominee, and force Bush to come up with a nominee that can win over the Compromise group. By bending over for the religous right, Bush will further alienate independents, something that McCain is counting on. Bottom line - this was probably the best we could hope for. Not compromising and losing would have damned us for decades in the Supreme Court. Now we have a chance.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Posted by tristero: "In re, Clinton: In the next 25 years, assuming the Republic survives, Bill Clinton will be recognized as one of the greatest presidents" I think that would have been true had he not left us undefended. That's why I brought up the Telecommunications Act. I find BC too jocular by more than half. True he presided over a period of great prosperity. He also screwed the pooch on several levels, not least of which is his total absence from the scene in 2000, when things went WAY wrong. Since I think the 22nd amendment is unconstitutional, I would have been happy to see BC in power for a few more terms, but he shot us in the foot, that can't be denied. "In re the present: Agreed, Kerry and (some of) the others are among the best around. So what?" So what? So if the activists are going to down these good people with fickleness and high-and-dry attacks on their (nearly submerged) character, then that won't be a successful strategy. "There is no way they can be effective without a functioning party behind them." I don't think the party is the issue. I think the party has shown REMARKABLE strength in the face of a violent coup. "You and I cannot help except in one way, and that is by making it explicit that we will not tolerate incompetence and impotent strategies." I don't agree with that thinking. I have no intention of backseat driving the DC Dems, yelling at them when they appear to take wrong turns. I believe that the burden is on the organizing grassroots, on the city and state-level parties, and on our positive ability to nudge our representatives when needed, mostly by our own organization. I think that people attacking the Dems are making a huge mistake. I've said it before: the thing I fear most is RETIREMENT. Beyond that, I support party discipline, even when the politics aren't exactly mine. And I have fought against the illegal invasion (for instance) as hard as any. I haven't said this here in awhile, but to be clear: I BLAME BUSH. I do not blame the Dems, Americans in general, our system, capitalism, or religion.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Find me the Conyers and the Boxer and the Feingold in the R party. EVER.
    Lowell Weicker, Connecticut senator. He was the closest thing in modern times to a decent Republican. And I, like a fool, voted him out in favor of Joe Lieberman in 1988. If you look at the median average of congressional voting records by party on almost any issue that progressives hold dear, from the environment to fair labor laws, the D's are way above the R's. But look at certain issues like globalization, and there has been a trend in the last ten years towards policies that are disastrous for the core consitiuency of the Democratic Party. This is the legacy of the DLCers and they are the ones responsible for the party turning into spineless irrelevancy.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    As for Bill Clinton, his pushing NAFTA through in 1993 was the beginning of the current decline of the Democratic Party.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    The powerful interests involved have been left out of your equation. It is absurd to assume that Bill Clinton or any individual in politics could stop globalization. They could fight it, but that's an implacable corporate force. It is equally accurate to think that the people failed the party. During Clinton's term, the good life reigned, and few turned to politics and political work to the degree that is obviously necessary. We're paying the price of our inattention -- they snuck in their Diebold BS, bribed some SecStates, and have ridden a five-year bubble to BILLIONS of dollars into private accounts. That's quite a scam. I recommend a BOYCOTT of any bank that uses Diebold ATMs. For what they have done to America, that company should cease to be.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    The truth of the matter is that Clinton and the DLCers not only won't fight globalization, they have/will aggressively push for it, since they are taking the big PAC bucks from the same people the Republicans are (Archer Daniels Midland et al). It's a race to the bottom allright. And that's a big reason why the Democratic core stayed home in droves in the 1994 mid-term elections, and the party has been languishing ever since.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#1)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    I'm reminded of Grover Norquist's characterization of bipartisanship as "date rape." The right cannot be trusted.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    The Democratic Party is almost dead. With every cave-in, they further justify the belief that the Dems are only the less conservative wing of the Republican Party. With a few exceptions, they are a buch of cowards, more concerned with their images than fighting the right and good fight.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    This is NOT a cave-in. The myth that the Dems = the Rs could not be more specious. Find me the Conyers and the Boxer and the Feingold in the R party. EVER. We are being brutalized by a dicatator, and if you expect it to get better by attacking your help, then you got a lot of pain coming. We all have a lot of pain coming -- but back when people were ignoring the vote fraud of 2004 in favor of nursing their anger at John Kerry (apparently for not winning rhetorically enough), the rest of us were fighting THAT FIGHT. And now that fight is in front of you, because we are sliding toward totalitarianism, and a few AWFUL judges isn't going to change that very much. Support the Dems, and especially the minority leader Harry Reid, who continues to show that he is the smartest man in Washington. Stop spreading lies about a false equivalency. Instead, spread the smoking gun that PROVES that Bush is a traitor.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    "In essence, a small band of moderate GOPers will now have veto power over the Democrats' use of the judicial filibuster." And a small band of moderate Democrats now have...what, exactly? Paul in LA, Agreed: Dems=Repubs is obviously specious. Disagree that the Dems are a capable second party. They didn't fight hard enough in 00 for Gore, and their support of Kerry was atrocious. The only question is whether an effective second party can be created before the final vestiges of the democracy are overrun. To be blunt, I doubt it. And this capitulation is simply one more nail in the coffin.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    Here are 89 more reasons why the Dems are not the Rs. Eighty-nine (all?) DEM House members who had the nerve to demand answers from the White House. Thats 89 out of 201 Dem members in the House, which is nearly half. So when you tar the Dems, you are tarring these fine FIGHTERS: "Members who have already signed letter:, Neil Abercrombie, Brian Baird, Tammy Baldwin, Xavier Becerra, Shelley Berkley, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Sanford Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Corrine Brown, Sherrod Brown, G.K. Butterfield, Emanuel Cleaver, James Clyburn, John Conyers, Jim Cooper, Elijah Cummings, Danny Davis, Peter DeFazio, Diana DeGette, Bill Delahunt, Rosa DeLauro, Lloyd Doggett, Sam Farr, Bob Filner, Harold Ford, Jr., Barney Frank, Al Green, Raul Grijalva, Louis Gutierrez, Alcee Hastings, Maurice Hinchey, Rush Holt, Jay Inslee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jessie Jackson Jr., Marcy Kaptur, Patrick Kennedy, Dale Kildee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Dennis Kucinich, William Lacy Clay, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Zoe Lofgren, Donna M. Christensen, Carolyn Maloney, Ed Markey, Carolyn McCarthy, Jim McDermott, James McGovern, Cynthia McKinney, Martin Meehan, Kendrick Meek, Gregory Meeks, Michael Michaud, George Miller, Gwen S. Moore, James Moran, Jerrold Nadler, Grace Napolitano, James Oberstar, John Olver, Major Owens, Frank Pallone, Donald Payne, Charles Rangel, Bobby Rush, Bernie Sanders, Linda Sanchez, Jan Schakowsky , Jose Serrano, Ike Skelton, Louise Slaughter, Hilda Solis, Pete Stark, Ellen Tauscher, Bennie Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Chris Van Hollen, Nydia Velazquez, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Melvin Watt, Robert Wexler, Lynn Woolsey, David Wu, Albert R. Wynn."

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#6)
    by skippybkroo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    hello, talkleft! while i am always pleased to get traffic from your way, i definately must point out that i myself don't subscribe to rj's doom and gloom scenario as he wrote (and you linked to) on my blog. here's my views on it. shorter skippy: anything that pisses off the freepers has got to be good.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    Tristero, I'm not claiming that the Dems are 'a capable second party,' if by capable you mean not a hidebound political party in the current age of America. I blame Clinton for the telecommunications act, always have, and I blame Clinton for capitulating to the (at that time upcoming) winger coup, and continuing to soft-soap the extreme danger of our situation, out of his own deluded sense of having been historically super-lucky (aka, I've got mine). But if you don't like the Dems acts, then you better fight for better Dems, and no way we are getting better Dems until the election system is UNfixed. So that's at least four to six years away. I don't hear people adapting to the FACTS very quickly, and certainly the Dem party didn't. Still, we are SO lucky we have people like Dean, like Reid, like Boxer, like Feingold, like Conyers, and like Kerry. We could have a caucus of imbeciles like Santorum. Instead, we have most of the finest PEOPLE in the US government such-as-it-is. We need to support them so they can get stronger, and we need to adapt to the facts, and see that our troubles are only just beginning, because help is not coming for at least four years (and I don't mean a 'new' president). We are well and truly screwed by the Diebolded elections. Otherwise, these wingers are STILL the minority, the Fringe, and they are being voted out in huge margins, which they are erasing with the complicit asses of 29 SecStates. Save Our System -- don't down the Dems.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    Skippy, that's why I put rj's name next to the post, so it would be clear it wasn't written by you. As to your views, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks, as always, for stopping by.

    Re: Blogger Reaction to the Compromise (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    The CURRENT 'decline' is due to outright vote fraud, Ernesto. I think you can count on your hands the percentage points lost due to globalization.

    Blogger Reaction to the Compromise | 17 comments (17 topical)