>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.
But it means that the three horrors are going to get confirmed, and almost certainly that Bush will get his way on SC nominations. How's this good for moderate Republicans?
Doug