Compromising Positions

When is a compromise not a compromise? When Bill Frist delivers it. In his mind, "compromise" means "give me everything I want, only a little bit slower than usual."

He continues to lie about the "unprecedented" nature of judicial filibusters, and he continues to fly in the face of overwhelming public support against changing Senate rules.

In exchange for ensuring that all of Bush's court nominees get an up-or-down vote, Frist offers: 1) an unenforceable promise that nominees will not be blocked in the Judiciary Committee; 2) 100 hours of debate set aside for each nominee. Now, I'm fuzzy on my parliamentary procedure, but I'm assuming those 100 hours would get parceled out equally (or even proportionally) to Republicans and Democrats, which means the minority party would be able to hold up a nomination through debate for less than half of that time. And more and more, Senate debate just feels like pissing in the wind.

Tony Perkins and the Familoy Research Council has already praised the offer. Harry Reid said this:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, called the proposal a "big wet kiss to the far right," which has pushed to ban judicial filibusters and get more conservatives on the bench.

Good for him.

Democrats have no reason to cave just yet on this. The negotiating process is important. Both sides will have to give up something (like maybe Frist assuring Reid's bold Democratic agenda gets to the floor).

Should be interesting.