-The 'Memorandum of understanding' does seem to essentially be a hands in the air -while frantically waving a white flag maneuver. -But I suppose a Dem theorist might describe it as a strategic retreat, a falling -back for now until Dem majorities are regained and there's no need to worry about -this current unpleasantness. -I'm curious to read what Nathan Newman thinks about this...if he's monitoring the -lbotalk channel.
I'm actually quite critical of the deal. See here: http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/002897.shtml although I was actually rooting for the filibuster to be eliminated, since in the long run the filibuster serves conservative interests.
But the statement that "the Democrats lost" is exactly the kind of reductive analysis that makes me despair of this list. People can analyze the nuances of the crimes of the Soviet Union, but can't even notice that this deal involved only 7 out of 44 Democrats. And once those Dems swung to the deal, there was little the rest of the caucus could do since they wouldn't have the votes to sustain a filibuster.
This deal was the triumph of the more moderate Republicans who end up in the drivers seat. Eliminating the filibuster would have made them irrelevent, so this deal basically lets them control which nominees get a vote and which ones don't.
To analyze this deal, you have to recognize at least four factions in the Senate, and this deal screwed the main GOP leadership, screwed the regular Democratic leadership, and gave new power to the swing Senators of both parties, although far more to the GOP group than anyone else.
- Nathan