Redstate

Something Senator Graham just said worries me. He said "some of them will pass, and some of them won't." It wasn't clear he was specifically talking about the 3 judges subject to the vote deal (Brown, Owens, and Pryor), but I am suddenly very worried that part of the "trust" they keep talking about means trusting some of the McCain crowd to vote against some of those 3 nominees.

I have not followed the debate all that well, so please excuse what may be a silly question.

So why is this deal a bad deal?  Other than for Frisk or for Reid?  Seems like both the far Left and the far Right will be unhappy, is this a bad thing?

My worry was the filibuster would become a dead issue and worthless, this seems to have solved the problem in part.  I guess we'll now find out how trustworthy these guys really are, though.  I have no problem seeing the far left and the far right squirm on something like this.

I suppose I'd be considered "far Right."

And I am furious.

The Dems have succeeded in dragging out these nominations for years.  They now retain the ability to drag out subsequent nominations for years.  Among other things, this guarantees that there is no feasible way to stop the Dems from barring any Bush judicial nominee after early 2007 from ever getting a vote.

Which if any of the 10 now 7 judicial nominees that your Democratic colleagues whom you trust so much were filibustering do you consider to constitute "extraordinary circumstances" and why?

[D's:] Ok, it's settled then. We let the two women through, and then we're back to square one on the white males, right?

[RINOs:] Deal.

[R's:] <crickets>

Not. One. Dime.

Ever.

. . . up in my diary for any who are interested.

quite frankly must be stopped. I'd sooner see a Democrat from Arizona - they'd vote against my interests just as often, and wield less influence over the squishies in my party. When is he up again? Would I be charged with heresy to suggest contributing to his Democrat opponent?

a list of the signatories?

By all means do so :)

Some weren't going to get approved anyway? So what is the problem with that? Just vote them down. Makes no sense. I doubt the veracity of that statement, it sounds like cover for something else we don't know about yet.

I see this as nothing more than a delaying action. Same as if the candidates that are up for a cloture vote got dims to vote for cloture.

The deal is a myth. The real fight is still on.

BTW: If in the same position, the losing side, this is exactly what I would have done, move the goal and try another day.

The dims blinked -- they didn't have the votes.

But I was really asking the question of any REPUBLICANS from RedState.org.

I appreciate your support, though.

just not any members who signed this deal...

From the linked text:

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

So...the Democrats agree not to filibuster except "under extraordinary circumstances".

And Republicans agree to oppose any rules changes (i.e. constitutional option) except....well, there are no exceptions.

Am I reading this wrong? Why is this a good deal?

worth a try!

Now get ready for your two minutes' hate!

(someone stop me before I become a Democrat - I mean, unhinged)

The other 48 Senators have immense influence over the squishes IF THEY HAD BOTHERED TO USE IT.

Threaten their pork.  Threaten their pet issues.  Threaten their pet bills.

We were told that Judicial Nominations were "the number one priority" of the Senate Republicans.

But not more important than mythical Senate comity.  Not more important than pork for RINOs.  Not more important than John McCain's presidential run.

The Republican National Senate Committee, and Bill Frist, LIED.  Period.  ** them all.

The "Republicans", (and I use the term very, very, loosely) have once more shown that they can not accept being in the majority.

I've had it.  I fought my way through everything from Dick Nixon and Gerald Ford to Reagan and GHW Bush.  All in the hope that someday....ah, yes....SOMEDAY...we'd have a majority and be able to do some things right again.

And now, this.

I've had all I can stands, because I can't stands no more.  I kept being a Republican for all those years because it didn't seen that there was any choice, but now I can see that it wasn't a choice anyway.

I'm done with them.  Time for a new Party.  I wonder if the Constutition Party would like my money in return for some honest representation of my interests.

(HeHe.  Right now, the Socialist Party is probably as likely to get any of my money as those "soi-disant" Republicans are.)

RINO's rule, and I'm out of it.

Barf!!!!

From NRO's "Bench Memos":

McCain, DeWine, Snowe, Warner, Graham, Collins, and Chafee

threw up a little in my mouth when McCain praised Byrd to start the newsconference. So McCain can't work this hard on a deal except when it suits him and the Democrats most. That said, I don't want to lose the war to win this battle. Nothing has changed, this has only delayed the showdown. When an opening comes up on SCOTUS, that's the final battle on judges, a compromise at this point should be acceptable. This might (probably) close the door on Saad and Myers (the smearing of them is disgusting), but as those 2 are thrown to the wolves in this deal, let's not lose sight of getting 5 constructionalist appellate judges through and paves the way for Associate Justice Brown (she can't be 'extraordinary' anymore).

I take a dimmer view of the effect of this compromise. You see, this gives plenty of wiggle room for those who were previously fence sitters like Hagel and Warner to come out flat against the Byrd Option, because darn it, they had the Democrats' word, and they've got to respect the conscience of their colleagues on this. They come out smelling (to the media, at least) like roses no matter what, and with a palatable bone to throw the party in modestly red states like Virginia and Ohio.

That's why I wanted a list of the signatories of this deal. I will never ever forget the moment they sold out their party. I may forgive the GOP in general, given enough time, but these seven will never escape.

I'm completely stunned - though I shouldn't be - to find out that our much vaunted 55 seat majority in the Senate is absolutely worthless.  This may as well be a vote of no confidence for both President Bush and Senate leadership (especially Sen. Frist).

This deal is a total victory for the Democrats.  "Extreme circumstances" can mean whatever Nan Aron, Ralph Neas, etc. tell the Democrats it should mean and the Republicans have tied their hands by taking the threat of "nuclear" retaliation out of their bag.

I couldn't disagree with Krempasky more on this being worse for Democrats.  Reid has just scored a major victory...each of these nominees deserved an up or down vote.  We have a Republican president, a 55 seat Republican majority, and that should count for something other than the chance to fill the chamber with hot air before the minority does.  I agree that there was justifiable concern that the filibuster could have been removed as a legislative tool at some point in the future when Republicans are in the minority, but who really thinks the Democrats won't play that card anyway?  The Ds play to win and the Rs don't know how - it's just that simple.

Conservatives and Republicans alike need to send a message to the wayward Republicans.  For Senators Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins there is little we can do.  But I think Lindsey Graham needs a primary challenge in 2008 (how about Tom Ravenel folks?) so that we can get the conservative we deserve from S. Carolina.  Warner is most likely in his last term so little can be done there.  As for Mike DeWine, I'd love to see John Kasich make a return to national politics.  And for the ringleader himself - the gentleman from the mainstream media - well, John McCain has just sealed his fate when it comes to the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

This "compromise" should serve as a wake-up call.  Conservative and party activists can't afford to let it happen again.

"Henry Saad and Bill Myers probably won't get cloture. (Lindsey Graham had hinted yesterday that one nominee would be voted down by the Senate, and my guess was that that one was Saad.)" (From Mark's initial Diary).

We're going to hear that it's no big deal that, say, Saad is being thrown overboard in this deal, since he would have been voted down by the Senate anyway. I for one don't intend to buy it.

Frist, and many conservatives, have been making the following argument all along: "Vote for them; vote against them; but at least give them the courtesy of a vote." That's been our argument, and it's a good argument.

Saying that it's no big deal to deny ANY of these contested nominees a vote just because they wouldn't have been confirmed undermines that argument. It should be, and is, alright if the Senate simply votes down someone like Saad. It's NOT alright to deny him a vote in the first place and then discount the importance of that move by saying that the result is the same either way.

That's not what Republicans have been saying all along. And we were right the first time.

Harry Reid just announced the Dems. will filibuster Myers. Trust and "faith" lasted all of 5 min.

are you?  Maybe he decided to try and offset the damage done to his hold on the leadership of the Senate Dems?  

for this thread. But I guess you can still go to Washington after tonight!

"This deal is a total victory for the Democrats.  "Extreme circumstances" can mean whatever Nan Aron, Ralph Neas, etc. tell the Democrats it should mean and the Republicans have tied their hands by taking the threat of "nuclear" retaliation out of their bag"

You should read the Democratic reaction, not just NRO's.  It's just as unhappy - Janice Rogers Brown (and arguably Priscilla Owen) is as extreme as it gets - if she can't be blocked, who can be?  I don't think the Democrats won too much.  I'd say Republicans got 90% of what they wanted - but I guess when the base is frothing for all or nothing, maybe in that far-out world it's a loss.

Seems crazy to me.

The dems got exactly what they wanted.  Carte Blanche to pack the SCOTUS with more Souters.  Great deal!

Beg pardon.

And I hate to go on a rant here when I'm new and all.

But I've been a "Conservative" back when I had an AUH20-64 sticker on my bloody bicycle back in '64.

I've been a "party activist" since I got old and financially capable of being so.

And what have I got to show for it?

RINOs, and no party discipline at all.  And another wimp out compromise that sells us out to the socialists and judicial social engineers.

"I'm mad as you know where, and I'm not going to take it any more"

That crash you just heard was me throwing my allegiance to the Republican Party off the roof.

is powerful, but it only hears a tiny amount of cases.  The Circuit Courts decide the vast majority of appeals, and have the final say there.  Janice Rogers Brown deciding federal law on the DC Circuit is scarier than any Supreme Court of 9 Tony Scalias.

"Some of you who are looking at the language may wonder what some of the clauses mean. The understanding is - and we don't think this will happen - but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that's not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option."

Looks to me that the nuke still on the table, just that the ante upped. (not that I have full confidence that these 7 senators have the 'stones' to do it)

vote to break Reid's cloture. That will be the true test of "faith."

. . the writing really reflect that if that was their "understanding"?

Also why are only Graham and DeWine saying that this is their "understanding" rather than Chaffee, Collins, Snowe, McCain, and Warner?

Sounds to me like someone just realized he's up for reelection in 2006 and that he just **ed off the base of his party big time.

but I'm betting that was part of the deal. I mean, the Democrats have to get something, right?

No. It isn't.

At least it shouldn't be, for those who consider themselves left-of-center, that is. Though I for one happen to find the thought of 9 Scalias on the Supreme Court not scary in the least.

I believe I understand the point you are trying to make- the importance of the Courts of Appeals- and it is valid as far as it goes. But I do not believe for one second that if I offered you a deal right now, where in exchange for keeping Justice Brown off the D.C. Court I got to put 9 Scalias on the Supreme Court, that you would take it. Or that you should.

Then I can't undertand for the life of me why Kos is so pumped up.

As per my user name, "Mr. Smith" used a real filibuster to stop graft in a piece of legislation.  He didn't walk away from 200 years of precedent and filibuster a judge like Janice Rogers Brown who was reelected with 76% of the vote in that bastion of conservatism, California.  When it comes right down to it, Peter Kirsanow is right, Howard Dean's Democratic party can't stand the thought of a black woman thinking the way Janice Rogers Brown does.

for the common sense of the moderates.  

IMHO Frist is the big loser in this.  He looks like even more of an ineffectual leader now.

The left will be ticked off about Pryor, Owens and Rogers-Brown, and the right will be ticked off that the filibuster is still around.  In my book that is a total win.

That nominees should only be filibustered in extraordinary curcumstances, that usually takes more than 5 min. to get to. Its kinda like impeaching a President. extraordinary. I'm not saying I didn't expect it, just saying that we got sold down the river.

however, I just don't think the war is over. To me, this is a battle that ended in a draw when we could have (should have) won. And the blame for that rests on the gang of 7.

the stuff that Rogers-Brown will be considering is generally more esoteric federal/administrative questions, not the stuff that geeks people up enough to give money to Moveon.org or Focus on the Family.  The D.C. Circuit does very important work, but not the same type of stuff that the SCT does.

they're also trying to block priscilla owen, a white woman who thinks similarly.  perhaps they hate white women too.  or maybe it's just women - or christian woman, yes that's probably it.  after all, there's got to be racism somewhere, and if not that, anti-religion or sexism at least - since nobody really considers ideology and precedent - they're too busy being prejudiced!

are you on?  How exactly does this deal give the dems carte blanche to do anything?  They can't exactly pack the court with anyone so long as the republicans hold the white house.

3 more years.  Then he'll go out to pasture with the other old soldiers.

I admire his dedication in Vietnam but I think that what he's calling "courage" today is nothing more than grandstanding.

McCain won't run for re-election.  He'll run for President in 2008 and get thumped repeatedly by the base until he hangs it up and goes home.

I'm starting to get excited about Giuliani.  But George Allen works, too.

Democrats have already killed three appellate court nominees and this deal reserves for them the right to try to kill four more while allowing only three of the original ten to come up for a vote.

Meanwhile at least five of the seven GOP signators have agreed to unilaterally disarm.

The submarine base in Connecticut?  Gone.

The base in Maine?  Gone.

Screw these squishes.

I'll give props to Thune for not signing onto this crap.

so long as Bush has the power of appointment, the dems ain't gonna be putting anybody on the court they want.

I'm sorry to say that I also have had it with this mamby pamby, feel good, MSM loving, so called Republican group of losers.  I'm so mad that if I do vote again, it will NOT be for this party!

of the dems that signed on?  I know Ben Nelson is one...any idea who the others are?

Those bases affect more than just political careers.  I realize you're kinda p.oed, but think about it a little more.

If they can keep anyone off the court that they don't want, what's the difference?

I guess my bifocals don't work too well on seeing the difference when it's that small.

Interest-group supporters of the Democrats will demand opposition to whatever nominee Bush puts forward for the Supreme Court. Fealty and finances mean the Democratic Senators will accede to this demand.

To justify their opposition, these Democrats will be forced to create the "extreme circumstances," even though none exist.

So this "compromise" is not a step-down, but rather an invitation to maximize the character assassination, the borking of Bush's nominees. We will hear more and more and more about "extremists" nominees "outside the mainstream." In their self-aggrandizing, self-congratulatory push for moderation, the Republican compromisers have encouraged radicalization.

If only they had stood on principle instead of ego.

that Arlen Spectre didn't sign onto this

the sigs on dkos.

Pryor

Salazar

Landrieu

Byrd

Nelson

Couldn't quite make out all the chicken scratch though.

if I were a far right conservative, I would actually be ticked off if Bush picked someone that the PFAW/AFJ-types could easily smear.  At the end of the day, there are the perennial names on the short-list (Luttig, Garza, Wilkinson, etc.), but it really shouldn't be that hard to find someone who is qualified to be a SCT justice, who doesn't have an obvious paper/work trial and who could be vetted in such a way to ensure his/her ideological stances on the important issues.  I know Souter didn't work out so well, but Pryor is a fav of the right and he's not going to work out as well as everyone thinks.  IMHO it's better for Bush to get a stealth candidate or someone akin to Thomas who doesn't draw the heavy ideological fire, than someone who is obviously vulnerable on ideological grounds.

First, they don't get to choose gets put up, so they have no power in that regard.  Second, they may be able to politically swing filibustering one SCT nominee, but two or more will get far too dicey.  Third, the Bush admin has plenty of candidates that will be hard for the left to oppose (even with PFAW and AFJ screaming their fool heads off) and imminently qualified.

It is not a small difference between having the power of nomination and having the ability to filibuster.

The right long-term result, albeit at the expense of short-term gain.  

Especially in light of his comments about not agreeing to a compromise unless all judges got an up-or-down vote.  Seems he took a principled stand and stuck to it.  Surprising, yes.  Nice to hear, definitely.

I have to admit, I wasn't a big fan of changing the rules. There is no guarantee we'll stay in power and what goes around comes around.

In chess, there is a saying that "the threat is stronger than the execution". The Democrats have used the threat of a filibuster to essentially block anyone they didn't want. Ok, let's take the ones they gave us and put them through. When one comes up they didn't agree to and they say, "this is an extreame case, we are going to filibuster", tell them: go ahead, make my day.

Newt took serious damage from being willing to shut down the government. Let the Democrats filibuster and just go on saying, "If you don't like the nominee, vote no. But do your job and vote." Make it clear to the public that we are eagar to move ahead, they are the ones refusing to do their jobs.

The threat of a filibuster is very powerful in the back room, but the actual one will leave them standing on the floor, day after day, holding up progress. There will be a price.

Of principle, that is.

I welcome this deal depending on how "extraordinary circumstances" turns out.  I am heartened that DeWine (and it seems Graham) understand that if Dems start using the filibuster as a partisan tool (as they have in the past 3 years) then they can invoke the rule change.  With those two votes, we have the 50 necessary votes.

If Dems actual restrain themselves to "extraordinary circumstances" then we have a good long-term result.  So we'll have to see if they try to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in the mainstream tradition of Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist.

As in currently not before the senate...

is a perfect illustration of the fact that a majority, and the power that ostensibly goes with it, are meaningless unless they can be exercised.  The Republican Senate majority is essentially worthless as a vehicle for the realization of most conservative goals.

And in this case, the leadership ought to be held responsble.  Not the RINOs, although take out any frustrations on them if you wish.  No, the leadership should be blamed because they did essentially nothing to twist arms or otherwise force the hands of the RINOs, and, in consequence, the liklihood that a change in the judicial culture of the nation can be wrought has fallen to a few tics above nil.  

Not. One. Dime.

We're likely go get a nominee more in the tradition of Souter.  The message has been sent.

I'm so discombobulated, I didn't notice that you already had Pryor.

The compleat list of Democrats, as nearly as I can decipher them:

Pryor

Landrieu

Nelson

Lieberman

Byrd

Salazar

Aaaand...

Aaaand...

Be darned if I can decipher that last one. Can't make out mystery 14 from the video either.

Hey, be pissed at the moderates if you like, but President Bush nominates judges and he learned not to make the mistakes of his father.  No new taxes means no new taxes.  And "I like judges like Thomas and Scalia" is a signal worth heeding.

After all, he did assure us that McCain Feingold would never see the light of day - and signed it.  Even if he does nominate a worthy to the SCOTUS, what's to stop the moderates from "finding their voice" again?  

I'm all out of faith in this bunch.

If someone with a proven conservative record like Luttig gets through without a filibuster, I'll show as much faith in the deal as you, and I'll end my "Not One Dime" chant.

I frankly give this deal a shelf life of less than a month.

...that declared that the Democrats would oppose every Bush nominee based on the same set of talking points.

I suppose that's why Scalia got confirmed just as easily as Thomas.  Oh wait, that's not right...

That's my perspective.  Although as I just posted on RedHot, President Bush should nominate Rogers-Brown (56) or Owen (51) for Rehnquist's seat if he steps down.  They can't filibuster those ladies without the hypocrisy being laid bare.

If they can keep anyone off the court that they don't want, what's the difference?

I guess my bifocals don't work too well on seeing the difference when it's that small.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but, I don't think the Democrats will be able to keep "anyone off the court" if 50 senators disagree with them on what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances".

I think the subjective nature of this deal merely postpones the nuclear option. Sooner or later the Dems will either reneg, or they'll decide to refrain from dealing with a nominee in good faith, and they'll label the nomination of a jurist whose philosophy they disdain an "extraordinary circumstance".

Meanwhile we get Pryor, Rogers Brown and Owen (There's much to rejoice about here!) Not a terrible day for conservatives, I'd say. Not a perfect day, but not terrible. When the day finally comes for a rules change, it will look like the Democrats are the deal breakers, because  GOP action will have been taken only as a consequence of a fillibuster by Democrats who said they would refrain in the future from denying up or down votes to judicial nominees.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where I think the Democrats are weakest. For the Republicans, after all, are merely trying to allow the president's nominees to be voted on. And in a democracy, voting is usually considered a good thing. There is, at the end of the day, no guarantee that a truly extreme choice by the president couldn't garner enough opposition from his own party to lose a confirmation vote in the full Senate. A full senate vote is by no means a formality or rubber stamp.

According to the replay on CSPAN2 (did I just say that), Sen. Inouye is the 6th Dem but was not in attendance (nor was Sen. Chafee).

Dems:

Salazar

Byrd

Nelson

Landrieu

Inouye

Pryor

Reps: (anti-Constitutional Option)

McCain

Snowe

Collins

Chafee

Reps: (pro-Constitutional Option)

DeWine

Graham

That is the breakdown.  And those two at the bottom actually control it entirely.  If they believe it is violated, they can invoke the Constitutional Option with the support of the other 48 Republicans.

in this deal is that it includes faith that Specter and Hagel remain on board with the Byrd option. I'll bet as the notSpecter movement fades from his memory, as does the promise surely wrung out of him by Frist/Bush, he becomes more and more wobbly.

What we need here in Arizona is NOT another dem, we need a Republican with a spine to replace McCain- How about JD Hayworth?  Meanwhile, he was just re-elected in 2004 - with NO Republican challenger!!

I think what we witnessed in 2004 in Pennsylvania was the final nail in the coffin of the dream that liberal Republican Senators can be replaced in primaries with more conservative counterparts. The national party apparatchik is just too averse to taking risks with incumbent seats, no matter how unreliable they are.

. . . Senat Democrats are probably keeping closer tabs on those sorts of memos.

...internally the Dems have been hauled more toward the middle because more moderate Dems have gained leverage and therefore power. Not the same for the good guys though because Frist has basically taken a "wait-and-see" attitude. Ried has temporarily capitulated.

This push to the middle inside the Dem camp (though perhaps only temporary) is going to infuriate the Libs way out to the left (MoveOn.org goofs). They will apply the pressure needed to force the non-moderate Dems (the Reid/Kennedy bunch) to move back to that silly "judicial extremist" position.

When that happens they will re-engage the battle (as 10ksnooker suggests). The moderate Republicans (and perhaps a few of the moderate Dems) who signed onto this deal will smell the stench of betrayal and (or at least should) move immediately into the camp of their cohorts.

This will further damage the already enfeebled Dems.

The Libs keep on destroying themselves. Poor things. They just can't help it.

Lamar Alexander gave a speech on the floor yesterday (I think) where he offered to support this kind of deal... I think he wanted more back from the Dems, but I am not sure he isn't left off just to keep the numbers even.

I know you must be upset, but do you think nominating anyone to SCOTUS out of spite is a good idea?

I hope Rogers-Brown and Owen are not the best the R's can come up with.  

My guess is it will be Alberto Gonzales who gets the nod.  

We may disagree with him on this move, but he is a moderate to conservative Senator.  His politics and votes are not in line with Chafee (an actual liberal) or Specter who is moderate to liberal.  It would be impossible and fruitless to unseat McCain in a primary (see: Kos vs. Lieberman for an example).  We should be knocking off Conrad, Nelson, Nelson, Stabenow, Dayton, and Byrd so we can just ignore the squishy middle on issues like this.

My proposal is not out of spite.  Spite would be nominating Saad or Myers or one of the 3 who already withdrew due to a filibuster.  Rogers-Brown or Owen would be strategic, not spite.  They can't be opposed as "extraordinary circumstance" now without the Dems looking hypocritical.  They aren't necessarily my top choices (I haven't taken the time to make a list), but they are strategically the best choices.

The conservative base would not be happy with him and the hard left would be livid, why would they nominate him?

Here I thought you were in the squishy middle, DP.  Alas.

In my view, a candidate who can offend the hard right and the hard left at the same time sounds pretty damn good as non-partisan jurist.

If I may post the coments from another Republican blogger:

The far right, far from deserving our respect and support, are showing themselves to be a bunch of hard-headed, short-sighted, mean-spirited stooges who want what they want when they want it, the rest of us be damned

Had the Republicans won, it would have been a Pyrrhic victory. The balance was screwed when Hatch decided to take it upon himself to drop the blue slips. The president should NEVER be entitled to a fasttrack nomination for a lifelong post. There is no telling at any one time who holds the reign of powers. If a judge here and a judge there is lost but the country still runs smoothly, I can sleep with that. The more balanced a decision on lifelong appointments, especially where the courts you and I are at the mercy of, the better for the country. I prefer an independant Judiciary and we would have most certainly lost that had the filibuster been killed.

By the way, this is my first post on this site. I hope I am welcome to join in.

I agree with you to the extent that as a voter, McCain clearly is more desirable than just about any Democrat in the nation. What makes McCain different is the bizarre sway that he holds over other squishies.

One unreliable vote I can tolerate. A man in command of 7 unreliable votes I cannot.

Although as I just posted on the front page, it is really Sens. DeWine and Graham who control this group.  McCain would have more say if the margin in the Senate was closer.

but who do you think it was who got DeWine and Graham on board with this crockery anyhow? Graham was on the radar (albeit low on the radar) as opposing the nuke over the last few days, few seriously considered that DeWine would defect. Be honest, we were all worried about Specter and Hagel far more.

So how do you suppose it came to be that Graham and DeWine are the two who actually defected? I smell McCain all over it.

That's true, they weren't "on the radar."  But they also both said they would have voted for the Constitutional/Nuclear Option if it came to that.  I think many on both sides wanted a compromise somewhat like this: keep the filibuster for extreme situations and step away from the showdown.  I'm just glad it's Graham and DeWine instead of Specter and Hagel that we're relying on to keep the Dems honest.

We are still relying on Hagel and Specter - we're relying on them to be consistent. As we know, that's not a very good thing to rely on.

Today, Hagel sounds like Orrin Hatch. Specter has been duly humbled. Six months from now? If you can guess, you're smarter than I am.

How about Graham's comment to Chris Matthews

re Social Security?

My worry is that we are looking at a cabal here!

(PS: I'm new to the site and virtually computer

illiterate.  However, I went to the trouble

of listing the 'gang of 14' and getting an

in-state address to use for each so one can

circumvent their constituent-only email forms

(courtesy of the usps).

It seems to me that when they hijacked the

Senate, they subjugated us all to their whims

and gave up all rights to screen and accept

emails from their state residents only.

If anybody is interested, please let me know

how best to do this.)

residents

how likely it is now that we can overturn Roe v Wade now as a result of this deal. That is the one issue that I REALLY care about.