The GOP complains and complains and screams and bitches on their way to the next win, and the next, and the next.

(I know, I know, "Vermont's different." But still.)

Correction - the wing nut Senators & Bush/Cheney know when they are kicking ass and they are with both feet at once al al Bruce Lee... only their mindless fly monkey supporters don't know it...

The GOP machine need some more red meat for the '06 fund raising session and the Dems delivered to them... on a platter. A meaningless compromise that gives the GOP almost everything they wanted yet makes the rabble madder than hell so they keep fired up.

We gave a text book lesson on how to remain a powerless minority party.

Yes, I love it.

Guess what?  He caved.  So he's toast.

This, in fact, is Trent Lott's making himself felt as Shadow Senate Majority Leader.  

You all remember Trent Lott, right?  Buddy of Strom Thurmond's, associates with Council of Conservative Citizens (aka White Citizens' Council)?  

Lott lost his job as Senate Majority Leader when Karl Rove decided to use the hoo-ha over Lott's Thurmond eulogy to replace Lott. Lott, while a loyal Republican, was not inclined to kiss Rove's ring.  So Rove replaced him with Catkiller Frist, who was far more subservient to BushCo and far less likely to see the Senate as independent of the Executive Branch.

Lott has been spending the past two years looking for a way to remind Karl Rove that he's not Augustus Caesar.  In wrecking Rove catspaw Frist's 2008 chances, I think he just found it.

Frist's chances look hurt.  The fundies will likely go for a more "pure" player in 2008, either a Governor (Owens? JEB?) or some real nutcake like Santorum (if he survives) or ...(pull a name out of the hat).  

I don't know if this fight will get either base revved up for 06.

And yes, GW Bush looks lamer and duckier by the minute.

Hmm, so they support the theocracy but are voting libertarian.  They support the GOP ideals, the majority of which have led to the most intrusive government in history, yet they will vote libertarian who despise this administration.  WOW! I knew some of these guys were wackos but...
I bet these are the guys who think that all blacks are on welfare and lazy (Howard Stern played some of the racist songs out there.. Amazing the stupidity and the stereotypes that are still out there and believed).

On the bright side, at least it isn't a vote for the GOP.  As many wingnuts as possible want to vote 3rd party is fine with me.  COngress and WH by 2008.

The most puzzling comment of all...

idiots

Look at it this way.  This is a good fight to fight but it's the wrong time.  Next year. . .

Bush, Frist and the wingnuts can't possibly stand by this deal over the long haul.  They'll just nominate more ayatollahs and kick and scream if the Dems resist.

But -- polls are overwhelmingly opposed to the Gops on this one.  If we'd had (and lost) the showdown this week, voters would have had 16 months to forget it.  If we have the same showdown a year from now, the primaries and elections will be on us and the GOP moderates will have to sh*t or get off the pot.  If they uphold the filibuster and lose the renomination to an ayatollah, it's good for us.  If they kill the filibuster to win renomination, it's also good for us.

Myers and Saad weren't important to them, and they're going under because of legal problems anyway. Pryor, Owens and Brown were what the fight was all about. They got them ... three lifetime jurists who are corporate whores, who don't recuse themselves from cases involving people they have relationships with, who don't believe the government should protect women, minorities, workers or the environment.

The losers here are the American people, especially the Democratic Party base, betrayed once again by feckless traitors who care only about their own perks and keeping the corporate money taps open.

 Regarding the compromise "deal" that has (so far) diverted the "nuclear option": I just don't get it. I mean, I just don't get the anger of the Left/Progressive side. (I do get the outrage of the Right/degressive side and I welcome it; it validates the idea that this is more a benefit to us Libruls than to the FreekRepugnants) Virtually all of the voiced disappointment from the Left is on the order of "the Dems caved, they should have stood and fought, we gave up the "right" to filibuster Owens, Rogers Brown, et al."

Say what? Hasn't 2 weeks of bloviation in the print and electronic media, along with endless lectures from all locations on the ideological spectrum penetrated anyone's consciousness? What filibuster? The whole point of the "Nuclear option" is that under Frist's strategy, there would be no filibuster - of Owens, of Rogers Brown, of the impending Supreme Court nominations and so on. When cloture was invoked, Frist would turn the Senate over to Cheney, Cheney would rule that 51 votes were all that was needed to change the rule on cloture. Dem leader Reid only had 49 votes (if that) in his pocket. Result: no filibuster. No debate on ANY nominee, now or in the future. Period.

Frist ( and Bush, Dobson, Perkins and the rest of the Freekin Right) had this won.A bi-partisan group of dissidents done him - and his puppetmasters - in. If you think the Extreme Right is an arrogant bunch of self-righteous, bullying blowhards now, imagine what they'd be like after very publicly sending Frist off to the Culture War with the warning that he'd better win or die trying.
Much talk has ensued about how this will damage the ability to block the Bolton nomination. Some suggest that this would be a test case of the "extra-ordinary circumstances" that should trigger a filibuster of his nominations. In  LaFollettes name,why? Bolton is an asswipe. Hardly unique in anyone connected  with this administration. Every President pretty much appoints a truckload of hangers-on, coatholders and other midlevel hacks to essentially high visibility,low responsibility positions precisely because they are "owed" something for their loyalty, but they are pretty much unsuited for anything like a real job.(All hot about Bolton to the UN? Name the Ambassador to Great Britain. To Japan. To South Korea.) That pretty much describes Bolton. Many of my fellow Progs/Libs are wringing their hands over how much damage Bolton could do to the USA image in the UN. (Assuming our image could be even more tarnished than it already is.) Personally, I think that's kind of insulting - not to mention patronizing -  to the members of the UN. At this late stage of the post-colonial age, I think they can handle Bolton on their own.

At any rate, IMHO, the Bolton nomination is just one of many examples of Karl Roves' stink bomb in the classroom tactics. Y'all remember, the classroom disrupters set off a stink bomb in the back of the room and rifle through everyone's desk while the rest of us are running about in panic. This adminoccupation and it's knuckle-dragging supporters have already demonstrated their complete contempt of the UN. Does anyone seriously think that the Bushies have a vested interest in which particular asswipe they send there? While the Left has put the revolver to the temple and threatened suicide over Bolton, the Bush Leaguers screwed the people on the Bankruptcy giveaway, advanced even closer to trashing the ANWR and drained even more of the peoples lifeblood out of the budget. Score? Another one for Rove.

Finally, the fear and anxiety of the possibility of the Gang of 14 Compromise precluding the use of the filibuster during the current session against Supreme Court nominees is already beginning to gain traction amongst my progressive Comrades. I understand this, as I feel that the "extraordinary" circumstances alluded to do indeed refer to the potential Supreme Court battle that is imminent. But even there, I have to wonder if anyone takes the time to apply a little rational thinking to these issues. Within two or three different tv stories conducted by the pundit monkees, the example posed to the usual duo of left-right representatives was presented as the question of "what if?" for example, Scalia was nominated to Chief Justice (Rhenquist is very ill; it's only a matter of time); would that count as "extraordinary" circumstances? Would the Dems try the filibuster and Frist push the nuclear button? Of course, the leftists immediately offered that "yes, indeed" , such an occurence WOULD call for the filibuster and the righties pounce and state that this will immediately result in the destruction of the Compromise and "allow" Frist to nuke the whole deal.

Again, why? Scalia is already on the Court, he's already a right-wing jerkoff and he's on for life. It makes little difference in the long run whether he attempts to subvert democracy as a Chief Justice or as an Associate Justice. (Same holds true if, say, Thomas were to be nominated by Bush for Chief Joker - although if that happens, then it's clear that the last 6 years has been a giant collective delusion and we'll all wake up and find out that Gene McCarthy was elected President in 2000 and the shock of such an occurence immediately put everyone - Left and Right - into a 6 year fugue state.)

At any rate, I believe that the above scenario is what the "extraordinary" circumstances refers to: i.e, the vacancy that occurs when a current conservative member of the Supreme Court is nominated to Rhenquists position. By vigourously fighting - but not filibustering - Scalia/Thomas, the Dems look good without giving up the chance to filibuster another extremist, potentially nominated to the resulting vacancy. By fighting the good fight to defend the nomination of a Scalia/Thomas ( a moot point, since they are already on the Court and Rhenquist would be gone = zero sum) the moderate Repubs have cover to honor their Compromise if/when the Dems filibuster the resulting nominee for the actual vacancy.

Frist knows this,but can't do anything about it without looking petty,  tyrannical and "unstatesmanlike", which is why this is a loss for him. Reid also knows this, which is why he deserves hosannas in the highest from you and I: from a minority, outgunned position, he pulled a small victory from certain defeat and he and all others involved deserve some credit.

Which reminds me: If I were some of these Dems (and a few moderate Repubs) and I had to read/listen to an unrelenting barrage of insults,disparagements and attacks on my character FROM MY OWN SUPPORTERS I'd probably say "The Hell with all a ya, and the horse you rode in on" and walk away. Many of these folks are keeping the Dems - and Progressives/Liberals - in the fight as demonstrated by some fine performances on CSpan during the debates. If we want to build on small victories to win big battles (the only way for the minority to win, BTW) then we should voice our support when our side does something right, at roughly twice the rate that we slam 'em.

So get writin'.

LastXGaspe