|
If Frist wins, it's bad for the country for obvious reasons that I don't need to go into. And there is really no way for Democrats to counter it; I think the idea of bringing the Senate to a halt would be disastrous for the Democratic party. Do Democrats really expect that the country will remain sympathetic to them for a year and half and return control of Congress to a party that destroyed the Senate? That's wishful thinking, and a mighty big bluff on the part of Harry Reid. People expect the Senate and the President to work together, and Republicans will have a field day fanning out to various competitive states saying "Your Democratic Senators are keeping the government from tending to the business of the country." Meanwhile Democrats will have to keep repeating "The majority wouldn't let us filibuster judges" or "They keep sending ultraconservative judges to the Senate." After a few months, which side do you honestly think people will support?
The deal, however, would do several things. It would undercut the conservatives in Congress (especially Frist) and make them look irrelevant. Second, it's good for the country - it allows the Senate to get back to work on real issues. Finally, it would build trust between the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats who brokered the deal, which might lead to them opposing the conservatives later on down the road when we need to stop other bills from being passed.
|