Filibuster deal
What a stupid deal! What good is keeping something if you aren't going to use it? It would have been better to block all the judges or let the R's change the rules, then cry foul. If you want to look on the bright side, see MyDD, but I agree with Feingold.
posted by Victor Laszlo @ 5/24/2005
4 comments
4 Comments:
I do take some consolation in that conservative bloggers are furious with the Reeps for making a deal, which is fun to watch.
I think it's a pretty sad statement that we're so starved for something positive that we're reduced to trying to find victory in a development where extremist religious zealots lost a cosmetic skirmish in their war to install a theocracy. Put me in the camp of those who are disapppointed that the Dems caved after finally showing some balls.
I just don't see much respect for the "rights of the minority party" from having Joe Lieberman and John McCain playing nice-nice, kissy-kissy. I just see two lesser-evils trying to save their political asses.
What makes it even worse is that I got an e-mail from MoveOn this morning claiming victory, with pictures of three people with placards standing in front of a courthouse in Boston as evidence that "we did it."
But Arthur, a threat that you can't or won't actually carry out loses it's force.
no prob, I can think of worse insults than being confused with Meta.
Yeah, i like the concept of supermajority and the fact that it was "retained" to some extent, at least for a while. Perhaps a small blow was dealt to the tyranny of the majority. But...
I don't think it will amount to a hill o' beans in the long run. We're gonna be watching the Dems standing by with their thumbs up their asses as a long list of reactionaries get appointed to the appellate courts, and probably the supreme court as well.
I predict that the theocracy will march on. Yeah, it's possible that this was a victory for Republican moderates (as described in Mydd), and in that sense, it could be a good development. But I tend to think not. I don't think that those Republican moderates were really standing for principles, but for what they deem politically expediant. Let's see if they really stand up against the nut cases to promote moderate stances on something like ...let's say WAR perhaps? Or issues of poverty, or corporate greed, or the environment, equal rights for gays, promotion of contraception as a way to fight aids, promotion of contraception as a way to reduce abortions... you know, minor issues like those, where "moderate" right wing positions might not be so obviously politically advantageous.
Post a Comment
<< Home