Could Democrats have won the Nuclear Battle?

Here's the question. Let's say, starting in May 2005, if the Democrats had used the right strategy, could they have preserved the filibuster and prevented Owens, Brown and Pryor from getting judgeships?

My take is they couldn't, but i'm curious to see how others think.

Edited to add - Also for those who think they definately could have won with the right strategy, if you would, I'd be curious to know it would be.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

nt

I agree with that assessment, actually. But could we have won without compromising.

However, I promise you I'd be willing to remove the fillibuster option when we're in power, just as long as we're in power. Also the presidential power to do recess appointments.

As the White House would of leaned on every Republican with everything they had.

which means they would be F*uck if theyd tried

The Democrats have become the party of weaklings with no agenda other than keeping what little they have by caving to the Republicans at every opportunity.

They have allowed the seating of 3 RW fanatics and left the nuclear option on the table.

Instead of standing up against the Republicans they smiled happily, bent over, and declared it a "victory".

"Victory" used to mean that you actually won something.

What strategy would you have employed with 44 Democratic Seats, to ensure victory?

Or would stupid martyrdom on "principles" be preferable to a tenative victory?

Didn't you get that memo?

:cry: Why is everyone leaving me out? :argh:

My god, we are the minority, we faced the majority that could have had their nuclear option, our filibuster and their 8 nasty judges all in one swoop, and we made them fold their hand. Oh, we let them keep their ainty, but we only had a pair of 3's to their Kings and Queens. They thought we had a full house. heehee

I can't decide if the naysayers are wild eyed dreamers or simply pessimists? :freak:

The glass is Half Full and it definitely ain't empty! :woohoo:

In fact, we couldn't have lost- in the long run anyway. We had the public overwhelmingly on our side in this, we were united and acting strong for once. Even if we didn't, the nuclear option would have shown the republicans for what they really are, especially any supposed moderate republicans who dared vote with Frist.

And whichever of those 2 scenarios played out would not have mattered, because we would have still ended up with these appointments anyway.


So instead, we cave yet again, show ourselves for the weak kneed opposition that we are, throw our core constituencies to the wolves- and yet, still end up with those 3. Oh, and we save the filibuster, so long as we don't use it. Yeah, that was our best option alright. :eyes:

that by delaying the fight, they move it closer to an election where it will have more impact.

Had Frist triggered the nuclear option this week, we might have gotten some PR benefits out of it, but by the next election cycle it might largely have been forgotten (except in Frist's dominionist base).

Frist, or whatever republican is majority leader by then, controls the calendar on this. If it even looks like the fight might be damaging to them, they will wait until after the election to wage it. That's just a non-issue.


Instead, if we'd forced their hands now after them being dumb enough to schedule the vote, we could have gained some ground. Even if people like Chafee sided with us, it would have done great damage to him. Right now, he's not looking that vulnerable in 2006. But if the republicans became even more disenchanted with him for voting with us on this, they might have run someone against him in the primary. Or else he (and the other supposed moderates) would have been forced to break ranks and explain their actions.

Either way, it would have given our party fabulous ammunition against the supposed moderate who are up in 2006. Because that's the biggest thing this deal accomplished- giving cover to those people.

and therefore give power to the radicals, then YES. Seems pretty simple to me. :shrug:

Even if the Republicans succeeded in ending the filibuster, it would've been better. People don't like this garbage- the smell of dictatorship is getting to strong to ignore.

They should've forced the Republicans to *act*. Either back down and earn the scorn of their base, or plow through with the nuclear option disgust everyone else. The Dems had the high moral ground- all they needed to do was wait for the Republicans to move.

Instead, they "compromised", like the capitulating enablers they are. Not only did they give the Republicans a chance to save face on the issue, but they gave up their ability to filibuster to boot. Yes, it's technically still there- but only so long as they don't use it. If the Dems ever find the will to attempt to block a piece of serious Republican legislation, the Republicans will simply say they broke the deal and it's null and void.

If the Dems were holding a burgler at gunpoint, they'd compromise and tell him he could have the TV set and the gun, so long as he promised to not to slam the door on the way out.

this matter. Everyone I talk to (including people that usually keep up with the news) don't really know what the issue is. And, this fight does not have legs with the general public, it is too complicted to follow and most will be glad that it seems to be resolved. Unfortunately they still vote every two years.

because it is to the moderate republicans benefit to retain the filibuster. If Frist had gone nuke, he would have lost, because his own side would have caved. Frist knew he didn't have the votes, we got played, again.

The Dems with this deal allowed 3 judges an up/down vote and got...nothing they didn't have already.

But all this is speculation, we don't know now. But we do know about the judges. Lets see how these 'moderate' republicans vote on these 3 judges. Then we will know if the 'deal maker Dems' got played.

Bush and Rove would have push each GOP senator hard with the line that a vote against the nuclear option means that Bush is a lame duck already. I think that Reid may have pulled it out but I was not optimistic.

The lack of strategic thinking here and in the Democratic party never ceases to amaze me.

Had we FORCED the Repugs to vote on the filibuster there would be two outcomes: they would have barely squeaked out enough votes or they would have barely lost.

If they lost the vote to remove the filibuster, that would have been a HUGE win for the Democrats and the country. The likelihood of that happening wasn't great, but it was well within the possible--and it was worth a shot. Of course it was totally undercut by talk of compromise. Once we gave the northern Repugs an out, they eagerly took it. Any chance of an outright win for us was gone.

The most likely result was a narrow defeat of the filibuster. Bush's judges would have all been approved except a sacrificial lamb for spin purposes. (See, we aren't so radical, we even blocked one! The filibuster wasn't needed!!!!) Sadly, that is exactly what is going to happen as a result of this capitulation.

But, strategically, this would be a big win for the Democrats. First, the supposed "moderate" Repugs would be exposed. They would have a tough time in their next elections. They would be tied to an unpopular power grab by an unpopular regime. They wouldn't be able to fool independents any more. This would help us hugely in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Second, the Democrats could slow down the Senate considerably, bottling up the extremist agenda. The Republicans would try to spin this as Democratic obstructionism, but that just wouldn't fly. The Democrats could simply say that they are following the Senate rules. They could in turn blame the lack of things moving forward on Repug incompetence. The public would blame the party in power; they wouldn't pay much attention to the Senate schedule.

Third, when we regain the Senate and have a Democratic president (it will happen someday!) we will be able to get our judges through. Remember the Repugs shoot down many more Democratic nominees in the Senate than we do of theirs. They will then be powerless to stop us and can't complain about it since they killed the minority's only tool.

Fourth, the Democrats could show for once that they will fight in earnest for something. That they stand for something. We have no credibility as a party willing to go to the mat for what we believe in. We cave at the first sign of pressure. This could have started turning that image around. Instead, we've just cemented the image once again.

Fifth, we gained nothing from this surrender. They'll get all the judges they want. They'll go nuclear later if a Supreme Court nominee is threatened with filibuster. Better to have everyone's position out in the open than let the Repugs get all they want and still keep the mantle of "moderation".