The Deal

The Right no likee. I feel compelled to utter harsh denunciations of RINO turncoats.

But I think the Right is wrong about the filibuster deal. Here's the comment I left late last night at confirmthem.com (and the sort of commentary there is reflected at National Review, Lucianne, and all the other places we trogs hang out). Some later thoughts are added in brackets:

What I see here is intense partisanship, and I must admit to sharing the disappointment.

However, I think many grass-roots Republicans and conservatives are stuck in campaign mode. We demonize our opponents and attribute nothing to them but bad faith. We may be proven right — the Democrats who signed this agreement may bail at the first opportunity.

But it’s also quite possible that they will be faithful to it: That “extraordinary circumstances” really means something [as in: unusual, non-judicial temperament, the sort of thing for which nominees used to be rejected]. We’ve heard a lot of mendacious, malicious languange on the part of the Democrats on the Senate floor the last few days, but I didn’t hear any from the signatories [may be wrong here, I didn't listen to the entire debate]. The D’s who signed the agreement gave their word not to abuse the filibuster. I’m willing to believe them, until they prove otherwise. And as much as many of us may despise Sen. Byrd, he’s entering the legacy zone. He can be for the Senate, or he can be for the Democrats. I think he’s chosen the Senate. Inouye may be in the same frame of mind.

President Bush will continue to appoint conservatives. He will still be president in January, 2007. [If the D's filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, I'm willing to wait and fight the 2006 election on this issue.] We hold the high ground. We'll work for a 60-member Senate majority in the 2006 elections, and if the Democrats continue to filibuster, we will have to work four times as hard.

But for now, I’ll take these people at their word. Nelson, Landrieu, Lieberman, Pryor and Salazar have nothing to gain from breaking it. It’s time to start bleeding our politics of the bitterness of the last 30 years, if you want to date it to the Nixon administration. This may be a start.

Every red-blooded Republican believes that confirming conservative judges is our most important mission. But there’s a lot more to do, from energy production to Social Security reform. This helps. We’ll get more conservative judges and the other business of the Senate will proceed.

And if it flops, we’ll unleash the hounds.

P.S. If you’ve read this far, please consider that the judges we get confirmed — once — will be on the bench for 30 or 40 years. That’s a helluva term of office. If you think a retention election every 10 years would keep them on the straight and narrow, go to Vote for Judges and sign the petition.

That would be the petition at right.

A little revise & extend: Almost all the commentary I've seen talks about the "Democrats." But the Senate's a funny place. You don't see people as different as Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch holding hands in many other circumstances -- and those two aren't the only odd couple around by far. If I'm not mistaken, even Jesse Helms and Hillary had a little fling toward the end of Helms' career.

We'd do well to look more closely at the individuals involved. On each side are old bulls who remember what life once was like in the Senate: Byrd, Inouye, Lieberman, Warner, Nelson, even Olympia Snowe. For the Democrats on that list, it must be a bittersweet memory, because they remember what it was like when they had all the power.

Add to the old bulls younger senators who perhaps went to Washington more determined to serve their constituents than their parties, who have other priorities, who may be Democrats in red states or Republicans in blue, or who at least don't have the stomach for all-out war: Nelson, Graham, Landrieu, DeWine, Collins, Salazar, Chaffee. Graham, for example, seems much more interested in Social Security than the judiciary. I bet Landrieu cares a lot more about military jobs than judges.

The only guy not on one of the two lists is John McCain. If he didn't take every opportunity to stab George Bush in the back, I might be willing to cut him more slack. But as it is, it just looks like another opportunistic photo op on his part.

At any rate, a deal's a deal. They shook on it. Minority senators, especially, who renege might see payback in pork. Let's see how this plays out before we declare defeat.

UPDATE: On reflection, I suppose it's somewhat conceited to blockquote yourself. But hey, I lived through the Clinton presidency, and if I (and America) learned nothing else, it's that narcissism has its place.
*****Trackbackapalooza day. Here's what the blogs I read have to say about it. (Obviously I read more than these, but no trackback, no link. OK, K-Lo?)
Ace of Spades
Captain's Quarters
Confirm Them
Michelle Malkin
Outside the Beltway
Poliblog
Polipundit
Professor Bainbridge
Protein Wisdom
Southern Appeal
Truth. Quante-fied.
Wizbang