Nathan:
> 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.
-I believe that their capitulation on the judicial nominations was -plainly a very bad strategy that showed their weakness and handed a major -victory to GOP. The Democrats would have been much better off if they did -not pick up that fight at all. It would have looked like they picked their -battles wisely and passed the ones that offered them little gain.
Are you arguing that the Dems shouldn't have tried to filibuster any judicial nominees at all? That would have been an even larger capitulation. The problem was that the Dems now have only 44 Senators, so the defection of just four of them means they couldn't sustain the filibuster, which gave the moderate Dems the ability to cut this deal.
So be more specific. What should Harry Reid and the Dem leadership have done given the defection of these moderate Democrats? You have the votes or you don't have the votes.
I agree it's not a great deal, but who are you criticizing? The moderate Dems who made the deal or the main Democratic leadership?
Nathan NEwman