Big Win for the Democrats
Howard Dean was just on CNN saying the judicial compromise is a big win for the Democrats.
Let's examine what has actually changed. First, the Republicans get to have a vote on three of the previously filibustered judges. Second ...
Oh wait, that's it. Nothing else has changed.
And this is a Democratic win? I look forward to many more Democratic victories!
I can't join my right-wing friends who are upset about this. Yes, I wish we would have dealt with the problem once and for all instead of putting it off until later, but the Republicans have lost nothing but time. It's possible the Democrats will be better at spinning this in the long run, saying they compromised (even though almost half of them were opposed to the compromise) and how the Republicans aren't compromising, but that argument has not gone very far in the past.
They could also convince people these candidates really are extreme and worth a filibuster: lying about the candidates has proven an effective method so far (like the slander that Judge Brown makes her decisions based on the Bible, when she actually said she reads the Bible and prays before coming to a decision, which is something I imagine most Christians do before making important decisions). But I can't see public opinion really changing to be for or against either party the next time around.
Let's examine what has actually changed. First, the Republicans get to have a vote on three of the previously filibustered judges. Second ...
Oh wait, that's it. Nothing else has changed.
And this is a Democratic win? I look forward to many more Democratic victories!
I can't join my right-wing friends who are upset about this. Yes, I wish we would have dealt with the problem once and for all instead of putting it off until later, but the Republicans have lost nothing but time. It's possible the Democrats will be better at spinning this in the long run, saying they compromised (even though almost half of them were opposed to the compromise) and how the Republicans aren't compromising, but that argument has not gone very far in the past.
They could also convince people these candidates really are extreme and worth a filibuster: lying about the candidates has proven an effective method so far (like the slander that Judge Brown makes her decisions based on the Bible, when she actually said she reads the Bible and prays before coming to a decision, which is something I imagine most Christians do before making important decisions). But I can't see public opinion really changing to be for or against either party the next time around.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment