If the last four years are any indication, when the media bigwigs start crowing about a GOP loss...get out the champagne, because we've won. Again.

David:

The fact that the observer (the media) is leaning over backwards is bound to skew the perception a bit, eh?

Setting aside the fog over the "deal", let's postulate what D.C will look like in 2008 if no legislation (other than the budgets) are passed in the interim. The divides will be much worse, because no one will feel like they are 'winning'. The problems we face (those that D.C. needs to address) will be much worse - SS, Medicare, no refineries, confusion over trade policy, the AMT, etc. That stasis may sound good for the Democrats, but they won't win a national election based on 'nothing'. In fact, they are probably going to lose seats in 2006.

Fineman seems like a smart guy, but this piece is silly. Or very cleverly understated (if he is trying to usher Bush off-stage). However, a few recess appointments, ratcheted pressure on Iran, and some serious proposals on tax reform, and the tone will change.

I agree the "deal" is poor, if only because it disrupts the political order (which is a dangerous precedent, in my view), and because it assumes things the President (any President) would never agree to, but it happened. It would have been better to end the logjam permanently, but that may occur next week.

The real problem with the judges is that the two point men for the GOP (Specter and Frist) are not driving the Senate; it is driving them.

OJ: Post the tnr bit I sent you.

Ooops. I am sorry it was further down.

"So a deal has been struck on the filibuster. Republicans will allow Democrats to keep the filibuster as long as Democrats never use it. This way, both sides win (except for the Democrats)."

Robert: They are expressly allowed to use it and Senator Dewine has confirmed it.

David. DeWine is an idiot.

For the next six weeks at least, Bush controls the situation, in terms of possibly getting all the current backlog of federal court appointments minus Saad confirmed. Kavanaugh and Haynes haven't had the mass of vitrol ginned up against them the way Owens, Brown and Pryor had; stoking the fires to scrub those picks will be tough unless someone on the GOP side objects, they way Graham might with Myers.

Force all those nominations through between now and the end of June and that situation is off the table before the current Supreme Court session ends. If Rhenquist does retire, then things could get a little trickier, since the liberal groups reflexively opposed to all Bush nominees -- who also have been defanged on the federal level right now due to the Gang of Seven deal -- will be revitalized along with the media once the possibility of a new high court nominee enters the mix.

Robert: Exactly.

DeWine also said if they go overboard then the GOP senators can torpedo the agreement.

Guys, read the NY and LA Times articles up this morning. The two sides are already hashing over just what this agreement means. Collapse is built into the nature of the agreement. This thing will last until we next need a justice on the Supreme Court, which if rumors are correct will be next month.

If 2005 is for Democrats what 1964 was for Republicans doesn't that mean 26 more years of control of both houses of Congress?

David - Great article, I would have posted it myself if I you hadn't beat me to it.

Fineman's discussion of McCain/Warner et al is excellent. This was a revolt of the secular Republicans, making sure that religious conservatives would not get onto the Supreme Court. They are creating cover for themselves to oppose the nuclear option (on the ground that they're bound by the agreement), thereby enabling the Democratic filibuster of religious Supreme Court nominees to succeed. It was orchestrated by McCain.

Kevin, yes and a DINO president in 2008 who enacts the most rabidly right-wing agenda in all history, gets re-elected in a landslide in 2012, only to be removed from office in disgrace in 2014. Hmm, sounds like a lot of fun !

Robert - DeWine is indeed an idiot, as are Graham and Warner. What does that matter? He's not so dumb that he doesn't know what he agreed to.

I might add that Graham will be McCain 2008's southern chair, and DeWine his midwestern chair.

PJ: Yes he is that dumb.

Some of us are old enough to remember how losing the Bork vote signalled the end of conservatism.

OJ:

Considering some of the Supreme Court decisions since then.......

You know, I am convinced that regardless of this rancid "Gang of Seven" deal, that we who pushed this will wonder why we were so hasty about this.

Don't you think we should have waited until the end of the Supreme Court term? There are currently four cases yet to be decided (The Ten Commandments cases, Kelo v New London, and Jessica Gonzales v Castle Rock) that, either way firmly decided, can be best described as SCOTUS "tap dancing on land mines."

didn't the bork kerfuffle lead the dems to try for more in the iran-contra hearings, effectively stunting reagan's second term ?