To channel Sun Tzu, the Democrats were on untenable ground when the deal was brokered. Victory was not assured, but a strategic withdrawl and a delay before the battle was joined was definitely in our interest.

Is it now a victory? Not yet -- but the Fates are trending in our favor . . .

I also don't think judicial appointments are where and how the Democrats want to define themselves. I have the same complaint about the upcoming SCOTUS battle. It looks to me like Dems are hanging their entire hat on the issue of abortion. I hope they are also going to be getting economic issues that SCOTUS decisions affect front and center.

In the glow after last fall's election victory, Grover Norquist, ringmaster for the right's tax-cutting circus, mischievously compared minority Democrats in Congress to a bunch of neutered farm animals. Once snipped, he said, they can be counted on to accept comfortably "the finality of their powerlessness." Norquist often employs such tasteless metaphors. He also often gets the politics right.

At this moment, Senate Democrats are preparing to take a dive on the issue they have righteously hammered for four years--repeal of the estate tax--and they intend to call this "victory." The Dems want to negotiate a "compromise" with Senate Republicans that will restore the inheritance tax while reducing the rate at which estates are taxed and exempting many more families who are rich but not extremely rich. Yet the outlines of what Democrats are pursuing looks like a monstrous giveaway. It would yield roughly $420 billion in tax relief for the very wealthiest families. Indeed, the bipartisan bargaining may wind up producing far greater revenue losses. When wobbly-kneed Democrats set out to negotiate with hard-nosed Republicans on taxes, the Republic is very likely the loser.

This cave-in would make a joke of Democrats' fervent demands for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets...

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Uyjxxup3boMJ:www.commondreams.org/views05/0702-26.htm+greider+sch umer+inheritance&hl=en

And who engineered the cave-in? Our hero, Chuck Schumer.

Hooray!

Now that the easy regulatory legislation is over and Congress is busy working on judicial nominations and doling out the pork...sudden the GOP looks a little tepid. Bush's big deal Social Security legislation died and Iraq's lack of progress has made it harder for him to push other "big picture" ideas.

Starting hot but going cold...that's the real GOP we all know and love!

Why do I say that?  Because it has preserved the fillibuster for eventual use by the Republicans while nuetered any chance the Democrats could use it.  Think Im wrong?  Have you seen Reid already say that there will not be any fillibuster against a Supreme Court nominee?  I dont blame Reid for that.  The 7 Dems that surrendered the Democratic position have taken the position that ideology is not an extraordinary factor-or at least enough of the 7 for the Democrats not to be able to sustain a filibuster against a cloture motion.  Indeed, After letting Brown et all get confirmed, how can any of them argue that ideology should matter?

Now you may say, "so what, we would have lost the filibuster show down anyways."  Yes, but at least under that scenario the filibuster would be dead.  Progressives have such a losers mentality that we can't imagine the day that we could actually control the Senate and Presidency again.  I think we will achieve it by 2008.  Whether we do that soon or not, we will some day.  And believe me, when that day comes, the Republicans will filibuster EVERY significant judicial nominee proposed by the Democratic president.

One final point, often made by the folks at The American Prospect Blog.  Having the Repugs eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, opens the door for the Democrats to eliminate it for all purposes.  Since most Democratic legislation (min wage, health care, environmental protection) is subject to a filibuster and the Republicans traditional #1 issue, tax cuts for the wealthy, is (usually) not, there is a big Democratic Party advantage for eliminating the filibuster all together.

One last point.  I agree that the "base" is temporarily angered at Frist, Bush et al for the deal.  But once Bush nominates 2 hard right judges for the Supremes and gives them several more neo fascists for the appellate courts, they will realize what a victory for them the deal was.

In summary, the deal gave us nothing except MAYBE a very temporary fundraising advantage, though even this is doubtful. We have already accepted the worst appellate judges, with more to follow, we are going to get at least 2 very conservative supreme court nominees, with more possibly to follow, all the while preserving the filibuster for the Repugs to use in the future.

So can someone please explain again why this is such a good deal for the Democrats.