This is from a New Republic blog by T.A. Frank:
So a deal has been struck on the filibuster. Republicans will allow Democrats to keep the filibuster as long as Democrats never use it. This way, both sides win (except for the Democrats).
Once again, the Republicans have shown their skillfulness when it comes to resetting parameters. Until recently, the perception had been that Bush had consistently filled the courts with extreme conservatives, with only a handful of truly batty nominees failing to meet the standards of Democrats. Now, facing the threat of the “nuclear option,” Democrats have backed down on these as well. Thanks to the “finest traditions of the Senate” (Robert Byrd’s words yesterday), there’s a new agreement under which, presumably, only the certifiably insane can possibly be blocked–or, to put it as the senators did, nominees can “only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances.” That way, if Bush’s pick for a judgeship finally goes too far even for Republicans–if he nominates, say, an Irish setter who, during confirmation hearings, runs up and bites Orin Hatch in the leg, then Democrats will be allowed to play the bad guys and employ their filibuster. Otherwise, they’d better hold off, since, if they don’t, Republicans might have to take the filibuster away for real.
Of course, if Democrats had been filibustering half of Bush’s 200-some nominees instead of only a handful, or if, for example, they had spoken endlessly of “maintaining balance on the courts” and insisted that Bush also nominate some “centrists” and not only “extremists,” then a compromise position would have looked very different. But by bracketing the debate between two right-wing extremes–confirm every nominee except for a handful or confirm every nominee through use of the nuclear option–the Republicans had won before they’d even begun.
Meanwhile, skilled negotiators that they are, Republicans have been wise enough not to gloat over their victory. “It has some good news and it has some disappointing news, and it will require careful monitoring,” says Bill Frist, admirably feigning disappointment. Meanwhile, Democrats, who must now back down and allow the confirmation of some truly radical judges, don’t feel humiliated. In fact, they speak as if they’ve won. “In a Senate that is increasingly polarized, the bipartisan center held,” Joe Lieberman proudly announced. And here’s Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin of Illinois: “There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot at and missed.”
Exhilarating indeed. Can somone please resurrect the Whigs?
–T.A. Frank
So Bushco gets to have his cake and eat it too. Frist acts like he has been thwarted and the Dems come out losing, because the three most extreme nominees get a free pass. Does anyone really think any of the Republican moderates are going to vote against Bushco’s nominees. I see that happening like I see Bushco getting a Conscious or really getting religion. We the People get screwed once again, we the people will have to live with extremists demolishing our rights and protections from the corporate raiders and pillagers. Consumer protection laws will soon be a thing of the past if any more of these extremists get appointed for a lifetime. Great Spirit I beseech thee, please put a back bone in the Democratic Senators that are supposed to help protect our great country from these maniacs that have corrupted our nation.
I hestate stepping into this fray over win or loss issue, and after seeing the acrimony that ensued on DK over this, more so.
To me the point is this and remember this is my two cents only, so don’t attack me please.
This whole struggle is not over the judicial nominations in particular, it is over the fillibuster in general. If the Reps, had there way and voted for nuclear option, next would be the fillibuster in legislation and nominees. That would mean an end to all viable checks and balances in the Senate, Congress, anywhere. Majority would rule. Period.
While the compromise was not perfect, it did one good thing. It brought forward these 14 men/women, most especially 7 Reps. who said in effect to their party and their President, we are no longer toeing the party line. That is extremely important to the prevention of total takeover of the country by the Reps.
Not saying its over and we can all rest now, but this was one tiny gesture that is of primary importance to our future.
This is a new block in the senate, 14 members, moderates, which will have the voting sway over the congress simply by virtue of there willingness to stray from party line.
To me there is great hope here.
If we had lost the battle on the floor, then in the future when we gain control again this whole thing could be viewed as illegitimate – and we could have the power to reverse things – with a bit of backbone, of course. We have prevented that by giving legitimacy to their choices – we are now stuck with these judges.
Stuck with these judges is not as bad as stuck with majority rules in the Senate. Do not kid yourself, if this had come to a vote and we lost that vote, the Reps. would have full power. How are you going to change the Full power back to not full power once it has been done. I doubt we would ever be able to gain power again, once it is lost so completely.
Please Hanni have faith. All is not lost here, in fact a little has been gained.
I think that the power in the Senate should lie in the moderates, they can contain the extremists in both parties by uniting and forming a voting block and compromising which is what the Senate should do IMHO. Watch the centrists, they are going to emerge as a force to reckon with, I just have a feeling.
The right wing extremists have been cut off at the knees, watch for the fallout on this one.
And if we had lost? We would have shown courage and backbone. We would have told our voters, and the world that, yes, we do stand for something, we will fight for what is right. What will we compromise on next? And next? There will be nothing left to compromise on.
So now it’s extremists in both parties? The more we fall to the right, the more extreme we will look, and the less extreme they will be.
extremists in both parties
Who exactly are the “extremists” in the Democratic party? Pro-choice, Blacks, Gays, Unions???
Parker – not to cross the line – but your comment to Diane was really unecessary. If you’ve participated at this site for over 5 minutes – which I know you have – you know far better than to throw out allegations of that nature toward someone such as Diane. (Meaning kind-hearted and lacking in mean spirit) I’m not one to enter frays, but I found your comments over the line.
If you’re seeking a fight, please don’t do so with Diane, or with other gentle members of this fine community. You know damn well you’re picking apart her use of words, and I respectfully ask that you discontinue doing so.
And again – with all sincerity – I wish you peace.
Anomalous it seems to me that Diane is quite capable of speaking for herself.
The only “allegations” are that there are “extremists” and “far” leftist in the Democratic party. If you think that is crossing to line to ask for clarification then… you have a problem not me.
Who exactly are the “extremists” in the Democratic party? Pro-choice, Blacks, Gays, Unions???
Diane most certainly is capable of defending herself. To that, we most definitely agree.
My objection related to the unecessary comment above. If you were genuinely interested in finding out Diane’s perspective, you wouldn’t have added the second sentence. That comment was completely unecessary for civil discourse. But you know that.
And yes – I do have problems – so again I find myself in agreement with you.
Good day!
Who are the ‘extremists’? How about those who assert, say, that the Bush administration in cohort with regional allies are deliberately seeking to depopulate Africa through AIDS?
Recognize this thread? Possibly the most surreal argument I’ve ever had on any progressive board.
Do you have any idea the extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
I guess not… because anyone who even dares to suggest abstinence and discourages the use of condoms is deliberately seeking to depopulate Africa through AIDS… it is an outright promotion of mass murder.
Southern African countries have “official” AIDS rates of 25 to 30% but the unofficial rate is closer to 50%.
Have you been to Africa? sure not … or you would see the miles of buses lined up on Saturdays carrying family members to funerals. Saturdays are now funeral days.
Have you ever spoken to a doctor in Africa? obviously not. I have… Doctors told me that they have never had a negative AIDS test come back.
So you want to see surreal go to Africa… then come back and I dare you to not say that that the Bush administration in cohort with regional allies are deliberately seeking to depopulate Africa through AIDS?
Only, let me see, five times.
As for the rest of your utterings, I will say just this: I rest my case.
(Others who are interested will find more substantive rebuttals of Parker’s theory of genocidal conspiracy in my comments on the diary entry I linked to.)
Well then you were blind if you even stepped foot in Africa in the last 4 years.
What is happening with AIDS is 100 times more devastating than the TSUNAMI. Bush’s stipulations for AIDS funding would be like telling all the people in the tsunami affected areas to go down to the beach and let the Lord save you and we will give you millions of dollars in aid.
Their policies are so hideous that Brazil refused funding of over 40 million dollars because following directives from the Bush administration would only cause more death by AIDS not decrease death rates like the Brazilians are successfully doing and what Uganda had done before taking funding from Bush.
So get your facts straight before calling someone an extremist.
Politics and Policy | Brazil Refuses $40M in U.S. AIDS Grants To Protest Policy Requiring Groups To Condemn Commercial Sex Work
[May 02, 2005]
Brazilian officials last week said that the country has refused $40 million in U.S. AIDS grants because of a Bush administration requirement that HIV/AIDS organizations seeking funding to provide services in other countries must pledge to oppose commercial sex work, the Wall Street Journal reports (Phillips/Moffett, Wall Street Journal, 5/2). Under the Bush administration policy, even groups whose HIV/AIDS work in other countries has nothing to do with commercial sex workers have to make a written pledge opposing commercial sex work or risk losing federal funding. In addition, the Bush administration might refuse to fund HIV/AIDS groups that do not accept Bush’s social agenda on issues such as sexual abstinence and drug use. The new policy stems from two 2003 laws, one involving HIV/AIDS funding and another regarding sex trafficking (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 2/28). Brazilian officials last week wrote to USAID to explain its decision to refuse the remainder of a $48 million HIV/AIDS grant that began in 2003 and was scheduled to run through 2008. According to some HIV/AIDS advocates, Brazil has been a “model” for combating HIV/AIDS with its “accepting, open” policies toward commercial sex workers, injection drug users, men who have sex with men and other “high-risk” groups, the Journal reports. Brazilian authorities said that the Bush administration requirement that groups receiving funding must condemn commercial sex work would hinder the country’s efforts to fight the disease, according to the Journal. “We can’t control (the disease) with principles that are Manichean, theological, fundamentalist and Shiite,” Pedro Chequer, director of Brazil’s AIDS program and chair of the national commission that decided to refuse the grants, said, adding that the commission — which includes cabinet ministers, scientists and AIDS advocates — viewed the Bush administration policy as “interference that harms the Brazilian policy regarding diversity, ethical principles and human rights.”
Brazilian Strategy
Brazil’s national AIDS program, which is considered to be one of the most progressive in the world, includes HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment services. The program manufactures and distributes generic versions of antiretroviral drugs, providing them at no cost to all HIV-positive people in the country (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 3/16). Although Brazil’s HIV/AIDS prevention strategy emphasizes abstinence and sexual fidelity, it focuses more on condom education and distribution, according to the Journal. Commercial sex work is not a crime in Brazil, and advocates for commercial sex workers have been “among the most active” in the country’s fight against HIV/AIDS, according to the Journal. The U.S. grants were to include $190,000 for eight groups that advocate for commercial sex workers in Brazil, according to Gabriela Leite, coordinator of the Brazilian Network of Sex Professionals. Leite said that she had “lengthy” discussions with USAID to assure U.S. officials that the grant money received only would be used for HIV/AIDS education and prevention and not for commercial sex worker rights issues, according to the Journal. However, despite a 50-page agreement between USAID and Leite’s group, talks “broke down” when Leite’s group refused to condemn commercial sex work, according to the Journal. “Why should we adopt a different orientation if we have been successful for the more than 10 years?” Sonia Correa, a Brazilian AIDS advocate and co-chair of the International Working Group on Sexuality and Social Policy, asked. Although experts in 1992 estimated that 1.2 million HIV-positive people would live in Brazil by 2002, the country’s epidemic has been “far less serious” because of its prevention efforts, and by 2002 there were only about 660,000 HIV-positive people in the country, according to the Journal.
Reaction
“Obviously, Brazil has the right to act however it chooses in this regard,” Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who has been a leader for “conservative cause[s]” in Congress, said, adding that he hopes the grants can be redirected to other countries with policies that are in line with the Bush administration, according to the Journal. “We’re talking about promotion of prostitution, which the majority of both the House and Senate believe is harmful to women,” Brownback added. USAID spokesperson Roslyn Matthews on Sunday said that the agency is “still reviewing” Brazil’s decision, adding, “We are in the process of determining next steps.” The U.S. grants were only a “small part” of the amount Brazil spends on HIV/AIDS programs, and Chequer said the Brazilian government will increase spending on the programs to make up for the lost funding, according to the Journal (Wall Street Journal, 5/2).
x
Now that is surreal
I see your point.
However, the same argument can be taken that pulling the trigger would have meant certain death to the GOP. We would be in stronger position to win in 2006 since ALL the polls were on our side and we could have drove the nail in their coffin until 2006 and won bacl more seats.
We lost.
Our hands are tied.
…and we look like cowards.
We are no in worse position for 2006 than before. This is why Kerry lost …he should no balls against the Swift boat liars.
Clinton always said the strong and wrong wins over weak and right every time
We lost not because we were wrong…we lost because we were weak…
check out my new diary…this nightmare is not ending. This is what happens when you give in an inch they take to whole damn highway.
We were weak to start with, we were not majority in any sense of this government so by that criteria we came at this from a point of inherent weakness , so our only hope was for this compromise. If a vote had been taken and had we lost, we may have had some benefit down the road, but power lost can be very difficult to regain.
The fillibuster was the last remaining vestige of power we as minority had. I do not belive Frist or others will be able to call for the nuclear option so easily or readily in the future.
Retaining checks and balances was the important issue in this whole matter and once again, this is in MHO.
our only hope was for this compromise
No it was not.
Every single poll said that the American people were on our side. To the point that the majority of American said that a Democratic Congress was preferred over a Republican one.
I havent’t a clue as to why you think that is weakness.
I just wrote a whole comment and somehow clicked something and poof it was gone and by then you had posted this comment so I will answer two questions in one.
Poll says American People want a Democratic congress, well they may want one, but it is not one now. My point.
Apparently you and Hanni took exception to my usage of ‘extremist’, in reference to Dems, please, I am not calling the extremists equal on the different sides, and perhaps that was a bad choice of a word, but really referring to Far left and Far Right…
I am a moderate on most things, willing to compromise, maybe you are not and that’s where we have a difference. So in view of my postion I am happy to see moderates come into view. That does not mean I do not fully support choice, Blacks, etc. and others issues you mentioned above in another comment, it just means that I think there are many areas in which compromise is the only thing that works.
If you don’t agree with me that is fine. All these words I have written are merely my opinion, be they right or wrong to you or others, but that is my view.
You choose to see bad, I choose to see good and what we can do with that little bit of good.
So should we agree to disagree on this one.
I don’t understand why everyone is so angry in this party at anyone who doesn’t agree with the doom and gloom assesment.
but really referring to Far left
I am happy to see moderates come into view
I do not understand at all.
Who is the “far left” and who are the “moderates”?
Are you trying to draw me into an argument, I am not going to go down a list of who I think is far left and who is moderate, that is not my point at all. If you don’t think far left exists, then fine, I am not going to define it further.
I really don’t know how much more I can explain my views, apparently they are not clear or understandable to you, so I will leave it at that.
I was just asking about your rhetoric.
If you start labeling people “far leftt” and “moderate” just the words in themselves with out references to actual people are devisive.
“far” left sounds extremist and
“moderate” sounds practical, the norm
I know of no “extremist” or “far” leftist in the Democratic party. In fact everyone seems to hold temperate views.
This is why I do not understand who you mean when you try to classify Dems as extremist and “far” left.
I mean “far” right Repbulicans want churches in school and their children not to be taught about evolution… I can not find any thing vaguely similar in the Democratic party to be considered “far” left.
Why I am making a point of this because some Dems not you because you have not defined these labels… but some Dems are now trying to push the central tenets of the Deomcratic party to the “far” left and as they embrace the doctrines and principles of the conservative right… and then call themselves “centrist” and “moderates” whereas I would consider them “Conservative” and “far” right.
However, if you wish not to clarify your labeling of dems that is your perogative.
We’re angry at the party, not you. This is a discussion, which we feel strongly about. I like to reserve the word extremism for those that choose violence, brute force and bullying as an option. The right wing, by far, has more.
If we had lost the filibuster, something that has historically been a safeguard against extremism, then the extremists would have floated to the surface and shown the American public that they need to pay attention to the issues. That they cannot go through life, voting on charisma or the price of oil, but that it’s a responsibility they need to take seriously. It is a lesson they need to learn.
I will for sure ease up, for a minute there it seemed like I was being attacked. Interesting side note, this poll was taken last night on DK, and something else about DK last night and maybe today, a lot of comments agreeing with compromise were zeroed out on DK. People were troll rated for agreeing.
Perhaps that made me a little defensive when commenting on this subject.
Do you agree or disagree with the Senate “Nuclear Option” compromise?
· Agree 46%
· Disagree 29%
· Not sure 23%
Votes: 107
I think that the power in the Senate should lie in the moderates, they can contain the extremists in both parties by uniting and forming a voting block and compromising which is what the Senate should do IMHO. Watch the centrists, they are going to emerge as a force to reckon with, I just have a feeling.
This is what I have a HUGE problem with. The last person I want making decisions and taking over the Democratic Party is Joe Lieberman and his DLC ilk.
Just as this Filibuster deal only weakened the Democrats so will anything else this man and the DLC touch.
It was not a win.
That poll on DK was not very scientific… however, proper polls taken of Dems and Republicans clearly showed that the majority of Americans did not agree with Frist. Also real polls (I think they where even posted on the front page of DK) showed that the majority of Americans did not like what the GOP were doing in Congress and preferred a Democratic Congress.
Life is tough enough being in the minority…it ges even harder when we have people like Lieberman backstabbing Reid and sell us out for peanuts.
I’m not going to troll rate anybody for disagreeing with me, which is not to say I am not angry. Of course the population will favor this – see, we’re all happy and can get along, probably a lower percentage at DK. But that is not the truth – we don’t get along – our government is in the hands of politicians, not the population.
Where do you fit in – take the poll.
I took the test and surprise, I am a Liberal and proud of it. Interesting link, you supplied. Others should take the test. Just in case they do not know where they stand.
I didn’t mean to imply that you would possibly troll rate me, was just referencing something, and I know we are all happy and can get along. Maybe I was just a bit sensitive.
Me too. You see, somehow I thought you would come out on that end. That is the point – you are an extremist by your definition. The center is not going to be to your liking.
Perhaps you are right, I may be an extremist, but then I do not expect to get everything I want. Since I cannot have all that I want, I am willing to compromise where possible.
I guess I would rather see ‘middle’ than ‘far right’ be in control if I cannot have all that I wish.
Maybe I am naive, but what can I say, it’s me.
Hanni, if you haven’t already, check out my tell me about you diary as we have two new members from China who are posting on this site. Thought you might be interested.
Anyway hugs from me to you.
Alright, final word on the subject. The difference between them and us: When we’re in power they loose nothing, they can go on with their lives as they have been. When they’re in power we loose our rights – they want to control how we lead our lives. When abortion becomes a thing of the past, and only then, America will pay attention.
Matter of fact they thrive when we are in power. They have jobs, the economy is good, no senseless wars, children are priorities not burdens…
Gopers lose NOTHING but only gain.
That is true for all but the upper echelon, who suddenly become deprived of all they hold dear. The neocons remind me of a cartoon I saw once – of some sort of rodent waking up in the morning with maniacal laughter saying: “today I will conquer the world”.
I don’t know, must be some sort of masochism for the rest.
and they EXCELLED when liberals were in charge. Unions thrived… the weekend was invented, National Endowment of the Arts, Department of Education, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, NASA… what came under the conservative… the Depression
I respect your opinion, as you know I do. My biggest problem with this is “assuming” we can trust the Republicans to honor this agreement. They have given us no reason to believe that they can be trusted. And we see today that Mr Frist has already said he will “test” the agreement later this week.
If the Republicans that signed this agreement, even one of them, feel that our refusal to pass on their nominee is “Not an extraordinary circumstance” then the whole deal is off. So it will remain to be seen if there is any “honor among thieves.”
If this were a true bi-partisan agreement to work together, I would be ever so hopeful myself. Right now I am just wary, and will wait and see how it develops.
I am certainly hopeful that you are right and I am just too sceptical.
Just as I was stepping out of the thread, I had to go and read your comments. (Darnit, anyway) But yet, I’m still leaving the thread with the positive kharma imparted by Diane.
No – you can never be too wary, and you can never be too skeptical with that crew. Ihave some bad feelings that Frist is going to do something horrendous, to publicly prove that he does, in fact, have his balls intact.
But for this very brief little moment in time, I’m going back to Diane’s “happy land”. Fa. La.
I’ve stayed out of the fray as well – and I appreciate the warning about DK. (Not that I’d find the time to visit the site, but . . .) I’m also choosing to read no further than your comments, because you left me with a good feeling about the matter.
Yes, I received the “Rah, Rah” e-mails from MoveOn and Boxer and the DNC, et. al., but there’s so darn much spin on everything that I’d prefer to read the friendly, kind perspective of a BT community member.
And, as promised, I now must leave this thread in case someone types profoundly accurate reasons as to why the Dems got screwed in the deal. For the moment, I’d like to live in my own private Idaho and depart the thread on the tone of your thoughtful, generous words.
Peace to all
Ya know what, I went against my word and stuck around and skimmed through the comments. I knew something was going to go awry, and it certainly did.
Diane repeatedly stated – in many different ways – that she was only expressing her opinion. Yes, I tend to lean toward the sensitive side, but it seemed as though it was demanded of Diane to provide links and definitions and whatnot just for expressing an opinion. Her. Own. Opinion. (And a nice little opinion that fit into my personal needs for happiness at the moment :^)
And with that, peace and prosperity to all.
Thank you so much for all your defense of me and I truely do appreciate it. Can’t be bad for others to come to your aid, can it.
I think all was resolved satisfactorily as far as I am concerned, previous to your comments and I take no offense at any comments above.
I admire you Anomalous for being so bold and forthright in all your comments and you do have a way of writing that takes the sting out of things and generally brings buckets of light and joy.
I’ll end with this line lifted out of Alohaleezy’s comment, “I am seeing the glass as half full rather than half empty.”
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Diane. Parker was definitely right when he mentioned that you were perfectly capable of defending yourself.
My comment directly above was meant in peace. But then, a funny thing happened when I was leaving the site. I ran across the other comment further above, and something in me snapped. (Which was clearly the intent of the comment, so Parker 1, Anomolous 0) In retrospect, I would not have positioned my comment as I did. Sensitive flower that I am :-), I was genuinely offended by the accusatory tone, and the obvious attempt to pick a fight. Parker’s comment just happened to be in response to a comment you had made – and I had just spent the last 14 hours writing an emotion driven letter of legal defense on behalf of someone who had done nothing wrong and was being accused of the most heinous financial crimes.
With that in mind, I had gallantry and justice in mind. But I should have presented that comment on behalf of myself, not you. Just a tad bit jumpy and reactionary, I was – with two hours of sleep under my belt at a very late hour. (And I know you’re well aware that I find you perfectly capable of presenting your position on any topic. But I was also really, really tired, and all I could think of is why should Diane have to expend the energy to respond to such a comment.) But alas, as has occurred many times before, I realized after the fact that the whole discussion had taken place, like about 200 hours earlier, and there I was, all by myself, a lone figment, reacting to comments that had been resolved long ago. (And – oh my – I even said “damn” 🙂
But now, the best thing I can do is be at peace with myself, and say: Fa la 🙂
Good night! (And this time, I really, truly mean it!)
to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
IMHO…I went through the feelings of defeat over this and then had a marvelous discussion with my son, who is an attorney for consumer law. I was feeling utterly defeated at that point. He explained some things to me about the future of the judiciary that made this “compromise” a little clearer to me. I won’t even go into that so here is my point.
I think the majority of us on sites such as Booman and Kos have been hurting, stinging since the election. At every turn, at every sign of this is the one that will bring these wingnuts down, we have been disappointed. I feel part of my problem is that as each ISSUE comes up, that and only that has been my focus. And there have been so many times I have felt betrayed. It is time for me to focus rather on the big picture and see things more in the long term than the short term. Am I frustrated? You bet your sweet ass I am. But it is time to see the glass as half full instead of half empty.
If this compromise achieved nothing else, we are starting to see the Republican party fracture. They are fighting amongst themselves and this is a very good sign. They are starting to eat their own and what a fun thing this will be to watch.
We all have our opinions and are not always going to agree. No one says we have to. But let us not attack one anothers opinions but we can respectfully disagee. I can see both sides of this issue more clearly now. What ever your opinion on this may be the most important thing is to look towards the future and stay focused on the upcoming elections. We have a good chance at gaining some seats, especially if the wingnuts like Dobson start telling the rabid right to vote against the repubs Dobson feels have betrayed their own. Ah yes, let the show begin.
And Very interesting you put this prayer in, as I was thinking the same thing last night in regards to this diary, thread and subject and was going to put it in this morning, you beat me to it. I am going to repeat it here as I think it is so pertinent:
“”God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.”””
Yes the Republican party is fracturing and down will come Bush, company and all.
Besides I had a dream about Brad Pitt last night and I’m feeling really happy today.
Very good comment Aloha and I am glad you are seeing the glass as half full as I do also. A positive attitude will go a long ways for getting our party up and running at full steam for the future.
If this compromise achieved nothing else, we are starting to see the Republican party fracture. They are fighting amongst themselves and this is a very good sign. They are starting to eat their own and what a fun thing this will be to watch.
That is about the sum of it. We have yet to see how damaging the sell out will be…
Frankly, LIEberman is the last person in the Democratic Party I want leading us at this moment. Reid has turned out to be much better than I had ever expected, he is the Senate Leader not LIEberman.