I think yesterday was done for something bigger

Last night I was laying in bed just thinking about everything that has happened with the filibuster. In the beginning the rightwingers were so sure of themselves that they were going to get nuclear. A few senators weren't going to vote for it but I don't think it's known how many were sitting on the fence about it. Karl Rove even stpped in and said "no compromise." Then yesterday happened and Frist was very pissy about it and so were people like Dobson. I think someone talked to the White House about the deal and they have something else planned. Bush got three of his judge's through with no problem. The democrats promised not to use the filibuster if they kept the filibuster. We all know Bush would've gotten these judge's anyway with people on our team like Liberman and Biden and Bush being stubborn. When I first heard about this I had this horrible feeling in my gut that something bad is going to happen and soon. What did the democrats give up? What did Frist give up? I think he had some type of plan with Dobson and the like of him and that's why they were so pissy. Whoever made the final deal to compromise knew that their fundamentalist and freeper base would be mad because they don't like to lose so I think they have something else planned for their base to bring them back to the polls in 2006 and 2008, but what is it? Some new law for them or a stunt like Terri Schavio? I can only imagine what it'll be. It was smart either way for Reid to declare a victory because of the reaction a lot of republicans had. So now I wonder what's next.

:rofl: I needed the laugh.

I do know there was a centipede with a shoe fetish in it. *g*

and it's not clear they had them. As outrageous as the nuclear option is, a lot of outrageous things have gone on over the last five years. Shutting down the Senate was a legimitate tactic but a politially risky one. I think both sides were afraid of the potential consequences, and that's why there was a compromise.

I thought that 60 votes were needed to change senate rules. If they tried to do it with a simple majority they would be breaking parlimentary rules.
Am I wrong?

A simple majority can change the rules of the Senate, but the change can be filibustered. What the Republicans might have done was to simply rule that judicial filibusters were unconstitutional. While this may have been an outrageous interpretation, from a procedural point of view I understand it could have been done. Responding to that by shutting down the Senate was the only response to that, and that carried great political risks.

I would like to have seen the Democrats fight tooth and nail as well, and most of them were prepared to. But the outcome was not clear. That's why I'm not too disappointed.

replacement for Frist. Frist's presidential plans are out the window - make way for Jeb.

I think he was doing all the right things for a presidential run for 2008. A lot of people were getting annoyed with the filibuster ordeal and wish the news would talk about something else and all that so they had to do something. This did make them look power-hungry if people knew what they were talking about and it made Frist look like an ass not wanting to compromise with the calm and collected Reid and in the end it looks like Reid kicked Frist's ass (which is always nice).