With the op-edisphere slow on the draw—outside of E.J. Dionne who gives the compromise his blessing—I scanned the blogosphere Tuesday morning to find out what progressives are thinking about the compromise. I'd say despair outweighs optimism 2 to 1. The optimists think the GOP might actually take more hits than Dems for this deal from their reactionary base. Following is a roundup of the best reactions.
From TalkLeft
And here, TalkLeft declares her utter disappointment about the compromise:
Sell-Out Deal Made: Bush's Judges In
The worst, the compromise is in. Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor are in. Total capitulation by Democrats. Total victory for Frist. Let them spin it how they want, it's a loss for the Democrats. Henry Saad of Michigan is the fall guy. He won't get a vote. No one cared about him anyway. That's tossing the Dems a chicken bone.
[SNIP]
We don't have a "Republic" tonight. We have a total Republican regime. Welcome to the Theocracy.
Feingold Responds
The only U.S. Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), speaks on the compromise:
This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in this deal.
The folks at MyDD see it differently: " there is no way that this is not more of a victory than a defeat." And below:
Final Thoughts
by Chris Bowers
The Nuclear Option debacle is over, and I for one am glad. As much as it helped shed sunlight on the extremist, theocon wing of the Republican Party, it also dragged on for two months and sucked as much air out of the news and the blogosphere as I have seen any issue accomplish since the election. In terms of airtime on the netroots, it was at least the equivalent of the Social Security fight. Certainly stopping these nominees was important, but had we even spent half as much effort working to stop the bankruptcy bill, we might have really been able to help some people.
Some will say that this moves us closer to theocracy than ever. Of course they will be right. Then again, every day of the 109th Congress brings us closer to theocracy, and this one is no different than the rest. Further, keep in mind that theocracy is what the Republican grassroots want, and the Republican grassroots are pissed off at this deal. If we weaken the energy of the Republican grassroots, we also slow our slide toward theocracy. So while this certainly moves us closer to theocracy in the short term, in the long term it might help us begin a reversal.
Some will say that this reinforces the narrative that Democrats have no backbone and don't stand for anything. On this point I must disagree. Over the past few years, the pattern that has emerged in Congress that helped reinforce this narrative has been a minority of Democrats splitting with their own party and voting with a unified Republican caucus. This is what happened on the tax cuts, the war vote, the bankruptcy bill--you name it. However, this time a minority of Republicans broke ranks with their party and voted with a unified Democratic caucus. This reverses the tables, and if anything makes Republicans look unprincipled, lacking backbone and direction, and rife with disunity. We were the unified caucus. They were split. MORE
--Alexandra Walker |
Tuesday 11:24 AM
