The Buzz Blog calls it a sellout.
This so called "deal" was a retreat from earlier claims that Democrats were willing to approve five of the seven filibustered nominees. Talk about bad negotiating tactics - McCain and company actually lost ground when the GOP held all the cards.
Patterico makes a pledge:
The next time John McCain runs for any elective office, I pledge to support his opponent. I will use my blog to encourage others to vote for his opponent.I am singling him out because of his fascist campaign finance law, which will not stop me in any way from using this blog to oppose John McCain for the rest of his days.
Captain Ed deconstructs the deal:
it appears that we have returned to status quo ante with an implicit admission from the GOP that filibusters are legitimate, and a matching one from the Democrats that they abused it.
Mitch Berg, former GOP Contributor has an open letter to Bill Frist.
Infinite Monkeys is not surpised by the compromise.
I have two words for those who are surprised at the Republicans' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: Well, duh.
ConfirmThem.com, not surprisingly, is irate.
It is not compromise, but capitulation. And I say that as somebody who did agree that a certain form of compromise was acceptable. But this comrpomise treats a couple of nominees, Saad and Myers, as pawns. It makes them not people, but expendable objects. And that is unconscionable.
Beth from MVRWC is dumbfounded by the blog reactions.
Will someone please explain to me why it’s a BAD thing, when the three nominees the Democrats were shrieking about so much will get a vote now?I know, they said they’ll only filibuster under “extraordinary circumstances.” I know, the Democrats are “The Party of No.” But to me, if they do pull this filibuster nonsense with the remaining judicial nominees, they’ll pay a heavy price politically, and lose the argument anyway. Do you really think the American people will look favorably upon bald-faced partisan shenanigans that break a commitment?
Stephen at the Politburo agrees with Beth.
I don't mean to get all Rodney King-ish, but why must ALL commentary, from both politcal parties consist of "We won and they lost. Yay!" or "We lost and they won. Boo!" ??? Is that it? Has there been a new civil war? Do we now have the Red States of America locked in a twisted, hateful, unfortunate geographically-required embrace with the rival Blue States of America? Is that how it works? Is there no possibility that (whatever your views, or whoever might have gotten a 51% advantage), perhaps a compromise is a good idea, you know, strictly from a 'civil war avoidance' perspective?
Article comments
1 - Convex
Am I the only one that sees this as a straight loss for the democrats? Look to the beginning to put this in perspective: if you accept that the fillibuster SHOULD be there, than the democrats have effectively approved 3 controversial nominees in order to preserve power base. Nothing is lost by the GOP. Sad day.
2 - Mark Saleski
yep, i think they caved (again)....knocked over by the republicans endless stream of "up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote"
3 - Dave Nalle
It's a loss for the Dems, but not because of the three nominees. There's nothing at all controversial about the people that are getting confirmed. All 3 of them are more moderate than some of the judges Clinton appointed. If you think they're controversial you've been reading silliness from moveon.org.
The reason it's a loss for the Dems is that they've basically agreed to give up the filibuster on the next supreme court nominee, so now Rehnquist can retire and Bush can appoint a moderate Republican from the appelate court and they have to shut up about it.
And it's not a sad day. It's a victory for reason and compromise over partisanship and greed.
Dave
4 - Convex
I find your definition of the word "basically" amusing. In this case it means "not". If Bush tries to appoint a moderate (which is unlikely) then they may not fillbuster, just as they haven't for several of Bush's other appointees.
But if not, it all comes down to the definition of "extraordinary circumstances".
And who is saying Clinton's appointees haven't been controversial? As I recall, some of them had been stopped by republicans.
Stop building up these straw men that you can knock down. Stick to the issue.
5 - RJ
Oh, just great.
The GOP, in complete control of the Senate, the House, and the White House, blows its one and only opportunity to get actual CONSERVATIVES on the USSC.
Souter as Chief Justice? Maybe. Because the Dems sure as hell won't allow Scalia or Thomas to get that position...
6 - diamond heart ring
As such, it is imperative you do not allow the dazzling pictures of the diamonds to blind you to wise shopping practices. Diamondphd has a collection of beautiful affordable diamond jewelry set in 18k gold. Ashford has come a long way since we began reviewing diamond sites in 1999 diamond anniversary rings. We like the improvements in the search engine, especially in the sorting options offered. diamond heart ring http://www.natalia-diamonds.com/Engagement-Rings/Engagement-Ring_ItemTag_ER-002.aspx
7 - 2 diamond ring settings
The worlds biggest display of priceless diamonds has been abandoned by the Natural History Museum after police uncovered a plot to steal the jewels. The museum has permanently closed the display - billed as the 'largest and most spectacular diamond exhibition ever staged' with immediate effect diamond and rubber bracelets. This site also provides length-to-width ratios for fancy shapes. 2 diamond ring settings http://www.gold-custom.com/