I don’t agree. In fact, I think it’s the day that GWB officially became a lame duck. Quack quack quack!

The moderate Republicans looked Frist and Bush square in the eye and said, Whoa There Tiger.

How can they “pull out” the nuclear option? Seven GOP Senators just said they won’t do it until after 2006.

Watch Lindsey Graham video over at Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/23.html#a3089 ). Read the pissed-off wingnut posts quoted at Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/23/201133/386 ).

With respect, the disappointed Democrats are viewing this through the prism of “but the wingnuts are unstoppable.” The whole point of tonight is that they are eminently stoppable. Without the RINOs, they’re not going anywhere — and they hate RINOs. The reason they’ve been going haywire for two months is that they understand very well that they have to act now — because they’re gonna lose seats in 2006. Everything that’s happened makes sense if you posit that the GOP is gonna lose seats in 2006. They’re desperate to put in their whole agenda before the clock runs out on them — and they couldn’t.

It’s very very big. The adults are in the room. That tone of weirdness we’ve had for the last few years is going to creep back to normalcy — starting today. Sure, the bad guys will froth and fight and it’ll be hard — nobody said it would be easy — but that tone of “man, do the wingnuts control everything or what??!?!” — that’s over.

Great points, Martin, and you’re obviously not alone. Chris Bowers at MyDD has a long take on why the compromise is a good deal, and why it will work.

I guess that I don’t buy what a lot of people are saying–that Reid would have lost the battle had it been fought to the bloody end–and I’m also wary, at this point, of relying on the honesty and integrity of Republicans for anything. Seriously, once I saw John McCain campaigning vigorously for the man whose people ran a digusting smear campaign against him in which they suggested that he was the father of an illegitimate black child, I lost faith in him as a “maverick.” I can’t imagine what kind compromises a person would have to make with his own moral compass to do that, but it shows what Presidential ambitions can do to a person. And that’s why I find the “unwritten rules” of the compromise a little disturbing.

Look, I do hope that this all works out for the Democrats and the Republican moderates. I hope it signals a new era. I hope that we can trust that these moderates will stay true to their words.

But after seeing all of the crap that those moderates have signed onto over the past five years, yes, I’m a little worried.

So, McCain was on Morning Edition today, saying that the Dems have promised not to fillibuster “except under extraordinary circumstances.”

Let’s say that Bush nominates Alberto Gonzalez for the Supreme Court.

What do the Democrats do? If they don’t fillibuster, they allow a vote on the man who circumvented the Geneva conventions and created legal justifications for torture.

If they do fillibuster, do you think for a minute that the moderate Republicans aren’t going to say that that is a violation of the agreement?

The *only* way this can work, it seems to me, is if McCain et al stick to this move as a power grab away from Bush and Frist….but we’ll just have to see how long they can hold the line.

Or, as Atrios puts it, “my take is that its value depends entirely on whether the group of compromising senators thinks it’s more fun to kick George Bush and Bill Frist around every now and then than it is to walk around the senate halls with a “kick me” sign on their own backs.”

I think you’ve hit on the single strongest argument for the premise that this was a bad deal: essentially, “extraordinary” has now been defined as somewhere more extreme than Priscilla Owen. That’s pretty darn extreme. As I understand it, though, de facto it lets the Democrats filibuster whenever they want (this is the main reason the wingnuts are so upset). Basically the moderates have let it be known that they see the filibuster as consistent with the Constitution. When you think of it like that, the stakes become clearer, as does their inability to backtrack.

I hope that the moderates continue in this vein. Since the public approval ratings for Congress are so low right now, one would think that there is plenty to be gained by being perceived as a centrist who can compromise, make deals, be a leader etc. So I hope these moderates begin to like the taste of moderates — because if they do, then it’s bye-bye to the wingnuts, effectively speaking. There’s now a third rail in the GOP.

I share your qualms about McCain — I think he’s overrated and very conservative, also more partisan than people realize. But he knows how to hew to the right (or more bipartisan) position on very visible issues, and that’s what he did here. We owe him thanks for that.

Remember — the GOP controls the WH, Congress, the SC — that kind of means they have the right to put 3 shitty circuit judges in. We stopped them from getting 5 or more, which is good. It’s like saying you’re annoyed because you beat the Yankees 8-6 instead of 11-0. They’re the Yankees — they’re gonna score some runs. There’s a reason they called the alternative “nuclear war” — the fallout would have been devastating for the GOP — but it might have been pretty bad for the Dems too. If Reid is to this as JFK was to the Cuban Missle Crisis (speaking of nuclear options), then he deserves as much praise as JFK did.

I continue to be a bit peeved Matt, reading the same takes from the same group of A List Lefty Bloggers on too many blogs sites, as if they’re the Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and/or Charles Barkley of our community. Just as Kos’ hysterical shrieks of capitulation don’t represent a consensus among us, MyDD’s Bowers’ pragmatic assessment has plenty of holes.

I’ve insisted all along, Frist was leading the Dobson crowd on, killing time and making it look legit - because he never had the votes!

He was going through the motions hoping his act would lessen the Evangelical blow back, when the likely compromise was struck. Meaning, Frist has no effective threat in reserve and the social Conservatives ain’t going no place.

Like the floor vote on Owens, Brown and Pryor, the deal left enough to interpretation and speculation to give Frist & Co. face-saving talking points, and a Conservative Echo Chamber enough fodder to spin it their way.

If the leading Liberal blog pundits were to tempered their instant gratification/self-importance jones for a minute, maybe they could see the enormous benefit of credibly spinning this as the psychological, moral, and all-important, victory of perception - which makes smarter politics.

At least, that’s what the Conservatives would do.

nice to have you on the site, tcf.

Can I ask you to elaborate on your penultimate paragraph? I’m not sure what you mean. What’s the “victory of perception” that the liberal blogs should be spinning?

Matt,

It not only was the Evangelicals with a ‘win or go home’ mentality, it was a desperate, petulant CEC too, who thought Frist had the votes as well. The increasing number of Right bloggers now calmly trying to spin the compromise their way, are the same ones screaming on Thursday nite for the heads of Frist and McCain!

Yet, the perception of defeat remains with them, only reinforced by our assertion then of a clear victory. It works to strengthen the formability of Reid & the Dems against the GOP and the Bush White House. And, it increases the likelihood that the Right will continue to protect Tom DeLay, oppose stem cell funding, scapegoat the Liberal media (which exposes the administration’s abuses), and demand confirmation of the most unqualified, embarrassing UN Ambassador nominee in recent history.

Follow?

Let’s get a couple of things straight, just so that we’re on the same page. Spindentist at ASZ summarized the full range liberal blog reactions like this:

“. . . there’s no concensus or conventional wisdom. Opinions are running all over the place:

- Spineless Dems sold out
- It was the best the Dems could do under the circumstances
- A smackdown of Frist and the GOP”

I think I was confused by your original comment because I saw Kos in category three, while you seemed to be saying that his “hysterical shrieks of capitulation” put him in category one.

But I think you’re mistaking other people’s diaries on Kos for his own. Here were Kos’ own pieces:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/24/112930/966
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/23/21552/1503
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/23/201840/027
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/23/19469/6395

All of them reinforce the notion that this was a clear defeat of Frist, Dobson, and Bush.

Now, it’s true that other diaries appeared on dailykos.com that complained about the compromise, but that’s due to the nature of a community-driven site — you get all sorts of opinions and feelings popping up. It’s not surprising to me that responses from categories one, two, and three all made it to the front page.

It seems to me that you are saying that liberal bloggers should be of one voice about the compromise–and that the message they should be conveying is that the other side lost, and we won. And you think this because reinforcing “our assertion then of a clear victory” is the “only” reason why “the perception of defeat remains with them.”

But doesn’t that conflict with your previous criticism of too many bloggers “reading the same takes from the same group of A List Lefty Bloggers”?

I want to be clear that, like you, I think that the battle of perception is the most important battle the Dems have to fight. It’s a battle that Democrats have lost repeatedly over the past five years, and they have lost it repeatedly because they did not speak with a unified voice in the way that Republicans did.

Reid’s war room is an important step towards achieving a unified Democratic presence in the media. And the fact that Frist and Bush didn’t win this battle (even if I don’t believe they completely lost it, either) shows what can happen when the Democrats remain unified.

But I completely reject the notion–if it is indeed what you are suggesting–that I, as a liberal blogger, I should be in lockstep with Democratic Party (or liberal blogger) talking points. I am not a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, and I don’t want this blog to serve simply as an echo chamber of A-List bloggers.

Am I still misunderstanding what you are saying?

No Matt,

You’re batting a .1000!

Thanks for calling me on my assumptions as to Daily Kos, and let me fess up to my agenda as to the ‘A List Lefty bloggers’ missive.

TCF was angry that his perfectly reasoned spin on the compromise - surely shared by many on the Left - was conspicuously absent from the roundup. Therefore hinting, that mine was the most strategically appropriate and politically shrewd response.

I can understand your vow not to be mouthpiece of the party, but I respect the decision more by knowing you recognize the importance of speaking in a unified voice, as the Right successfully has.

But, I firmly believe not enough of us on the Left have acknowledged the formidable political team Harry Reid has put together, and that too many in the Lefty blogsphere have become reckless, drunk with power.

So, let’s define what we each see as ‘lockstep’.

My definition, is a party that shields and defends a mounting liability, refusing to acknowledge the wealth of evidence exposing his arrogant corruption. My definition, is continuing to do the bidding of a radical minority against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of Americans or supporting the most embarrassing and unqualified Cabinet nominee in recent history.

Therefore, to advocate that we must be disciplined and unified behind Dem Party leaders, I need to believe that never will such cooperation and compromise ever reach a similar point of self-destruction.

Thanks for continuing the conversation, TCF–which is already (to me, at least) one of the best ones this blog has seen.

I agree with almost everything you wrote above, but I would qualify things slightly.

First, I think that there is a difference between politicians, newspapers, and blogs.

I believe that it is the duty of Democratic politicians to be in lockstep with the Party leadership right now. You can’t wield minority power effectively in the Senate if you’re not unified. That’s why the whispers I’ve heard of some “moderate” Democrats thinking about compromise Social Security solutions are so wrong-headed, and so potentially dangerous to the cause.

As I think we both agree, the growth in Republican power is due to its ability to keep itself unified, to have all of its members hitting the same talking points. They have been aided, in this respect, by the influx of money and ideas from conservative think tanks (something that should not be underestimated).

I believe that it is the duty of newspapers to effectively report the news, and NOT to be in lockstep with the talking points of either party. I assume this pretty much goes without saying.

I believe that it is the duty of bloggers to write whatever the hell they want. Unlike politicians or journalists, most of us are not being paid for doing this (I appreciate the 71 cents I’ve earned through Google’s adsense program, but come on!).

Furthermore, I would argue that the vibrancy of blogs stems from their variegated, personal, and passionate nature. I expect to find diverse takes on the issues when I visit different blogs. That’s what makes them interesting.

And that’s why corporate blogs (and, I might add, most “official” political blogs) are so incredibly boring — their very purpose is to be in lockstep with whatever institution is supporting them. So what’s the point in reading them?

So, as an individual blogger (and for me, the most interesting issue of this thread is what responsibility individual bloggers have towards repeating party talking points), I reserve the right to publicly voice my disagreement with party actions when I think they’re wrong-headed. Maybe that will prevent me from becoming a politician or an officially endorsed blogger, but I hope it will keep The Tattered Coat interesting and provocative.

Matt,

I thought I made it clear that I do not advocate tempering the independence of your blog’s right to disagree with anyone on the Left, including the Democratic Party. I am just making the point that your view will be weighed along with everyone else’s, but we should trust party leaders to make the right calls that we all can get behind and support - in sharp contrast to what is happening to the Republican Party, right now.

And yes, I agree there’s a difference between politicians, newspapers and blogs. However, since Democrats are at a severe disadvantage in getting their message through a partisanly filtered news media, the Lefty blogsphere is becoming increasingly pivotal in filling the void.

Awhile back, I was contacted by a young man from Sen. Harry Reid’s office who is serving as the Dem leadership’s liaison to the Lefty bloggers. I will give him your email address.

Unlimited Music Downloads…

…