I have to admit I was wrong about the compromise. Looking better every day.

Rick:

The day this was announced, it was me and OJ versus all comers, baby! Glad to see some people coming around to what a masterstroke this was.

Very early on, when I first learned of it, I figured it was a typical GOP wuss-out until I read the agreement and realized how shrewd it was. It seemed that "extraordinary circumstances" applied to both Dems and Reps -- a major loophole. I didn't think there was any way all those senators were even going to agree on what this thing meant.

And now the president is preparing a bunch of appointees, and if the Dems filibuster them, we blow up the agreement and start over.

It's still a terrible deal, but at least we're getting paid up front. Next, we're going to pay our price as perfectly good nominees get filibustered and we can't do anything about it.

except break the filbuster.

Matt - If we're gonna crow prematurely, I think my "middle ground" assessment may well prove out. I agree with you that it was a good deal in that the liberals had gotten the media rolling and changing the filibuster rule would have fit too neatly into the "out-of-control conservatives" story they were building. The agreement blew up that media juggernaut and creates fresh terrain for the fight over Supreme Court nominees. So it was politically astute - those media campaigns are powerful when they're created, but very costly for the liberals to organize. And elected officials are much more important than judges, so winning the perceptions battle is as important as getting the judges seated.

But it remains to be seen whether the Dems will filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, whether Bush will be deterred from picking a Christian conservative (Janice Brown and Pryor may now be too hot), and whether a filibuster can be broken before 2007 (due to the 7 Rep moderates having signed) or after 2007 (if Dems pick up seats or if Bush gets lamer and more moderates defect).

The GOP obviously wins if the Democrats filibuster the Supreme Court nominees.

Someone needs to teach Mr Witcover that the senate is to advise and consent to the appointments that the president makes, not be in on the choice of the appointments he makes. It is the responsibility of the president to choose who he wants to nominate and it is up to the senate to advise and consent to those appointments. What Mr Witcover wants is to have the president ask permission of the senate to maybe possibly please let me nominate this person or that person. I just hope Bush is strong enough to tell Witcover to put it in his hat and get over himself.

It is great to see some wonderful jurists approved. But some of that is the joy that comes when one stops banging one's head on the wall. And the principle of head-banging has not been disestablished...in fact, it's been given false credibility.

The danger comes when Bush nominates a Supreme Court justice, especially one that changes the ideological composition of the court. Democrats will be given heroic status for their "forbearance" here to date. It will be said that they lived to their end of the bargain and the pressure will be for Republicans to settle for a 'Kennedy' and not a 'Bork'.

pj:

Sorry for the late reply...

1.) The media will always be against us; I never even considered them when the filibuster question came up. If the Dems play nice and we don't break out the filibuster before the end of the 109th -- great. If they make us use our big gun -- too bad for them. Either way, the press should have nothing to do with the GOP's decision.

2.) Regarding Brown and Pryor being "too hot" -- have you ever known Bush to give a damn what conventional wisdom says?

3.) Dittos to OJ on the SCOTUS question. If they filibuster a minority candidate (which the next one probably will be), we win. If they don't, we still win.

Bring it.

Matt - 1) The media will always be against us, but they can influence centrist voters. It's better to be seen as the victims of aggression by the Democrats, not the perpetrators of aggression yourselves. By arranging for Dems to appear to break an oath by filibustering, and by first doing a compromise before any Constitutional option, the Reps look less aggressive. Also, media propaganda can be defused by disrupting the timing of events, as Bush has repeatedly done to his great benefit and the media's frustration. 2) Bush is a canny operator and will get the best judges for whom he can confidently predict a broken filibuster and 50 confirmation votes for, plus his friend Gonzalez. I'm not in tune enough with the moderate Republicans/moderate Dems to know if enough votes are there for Brown or Pryor. 3) I hope that's true. If it's true, nominate Janice Brown. But I doubt Bush wants to be seen as nominating the person most hated by Dems, even if Dem hatred is totally irrational. It doesn't seem his style. He doesn't approach conflict eagerly, and the knives that work their way into enemy's ribs get there quietly.

He's a party builder so it will be a black or Latino, though maybe not for the Chief's job.

pj:

Sorry again for the late reply...

1.) With the advent of new media, the (already overrated) power of the MSM shrinks. The media have been wont to overestimate their influence, and so have conservatives. If they were ever as powerful as they like to think they are, the GOP would never win elections and certainly wouldn't have run roughshod over the Dems in '94.

2.) Tell it to John Bolton. Maybe it's just because the Dems have tried to filibuster everybody in sight, but I think Bush has gone out on a limb more often than he gets credit for.

3.) Again, Bush doesn't relish conflict for its own sake, but he is also stubborn and wants to make sure the appointees are conservatives, not squishies. Being shrewd, his SCOTUS nominee is likely to fit OJ's designation listed above, which puts the Dems in a delicious bind.

By the way, it'll be interesting to see if the Democrats can cook up some kind of Clarence Thomas-like smear for whoever gets the nod, because they may figure that's the only way they can oppose said nominee without looking like buffoons and alienating minorities. They deserve every bit of pain this is going to cause them.

Matt - I don't disagree much, but:

1) The MSM still reaches far more folks than the alternative media. It's prudent to avoid alienating casual observers who don't go online and don't pay much attention to news. Doing that would give the Dems hope, and lead them to work harder and smarter. Best to keep them as demoralized as possible.

2) Bush carefully built international (including European) support for Bolton and was confident of Republican Senatorial support before nominating him. Bolton is a good example of Bush caution - he prepares for success, he doesn't take gambles. European leaders were ready with endorsements of Bolton as soon as he was announced.

Also, there was no downside if Bolton was not confirmed - Bush could just appoint him recess-wise twice and he would serve out Bush's time in office. With judges, non-confirmation means a lifetime appointment is reduced to 3 years. So he is bound to be more cautious with judges than with executive appointments.

3) Agreed and I hope it comes to pass. But if, in his political judgment, there was a trade-off - if confirming a conservative judge would cost public support for conservative elected officials - then how he would decide is unclear. That's why the MSM propaganda campaigns are significant.

pj:

Sounds like we're more or less in agreement. If I think Bush took a bigger risk with Bolton than you do, we can at least agree that he scouts out a candidate and does his homework before nominating him. I think his disdain for elite opinion coupled with rigorous discipline and foresight makes for a great one-two punch.

Agreed that it's advantageous, all things being equal, to avoid a potential MSM conflagration. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that even though a lot of people don't read blogs or participate in conservative alternative media, those organs have power to influence the MSM agenda they used to lack completely. The Dan Rather and Trent Lott stories were propelled into the echo chamber via bloggers.