I have been amazed at how many people have latched onto extreme, incomplete scenarios to decry the recent Senate deal on the filibuster. These extreme scenarios are all one sided: the reps are the losers and the dems the winners. What is stunning is both the left and right are sharing these same visions.

But there are a few of us unshaken in our belief the current picture of ‘the deal’ is just wrong.

Polipundit linked to a Mark Coffey post listing those not up in arms about this. Check them out.

Here is what I see. The gang of 14 represent 7 dems and 7 reps – ALL who wanted nothing to due with what I will call the judge-buster/rule-buster. These people did not want a change to the filibuster rules (rule-buster) That is their PRIMARY goal. They clearly understood that the rule change would come in response to a judicial filibuster (judge-buster). These senators rightfully see that the rule-buster and judge-buster actions are completely interconnected. There is no rule-buster if the dems do not try a judge-buster.

With 7 on each side they have the leadership of both caucuses stuck (which is why Reid and Frist HAD to sign up). Lose 6 reps and you cannot rule-bust. Lose 5 dems and you cannot judge-bust.

So now the dems are the ones who are responsible for this ‘deal’ being carried out or junked. If they dare try a judge-buster they will cause a rule-buster response by the reps. But will any of the 7 dems who crafted the deal vote for a judge-buster now? I doubt it. Why would they sign and promote this ‘deal’, attaching their personal reputation onto something they would junk and be held responsible for doing the junking? Reid lost the judge-buster for this Congress and he knows it. If he tries it, he has to get past the 7 dems (who will be backed 100% by the 7 reps to oppose the judge-buster). If he does get by the gang of 14 he then has to win the rule-buster, but at that stage the gang of 14 will have been burned (by 5 or more of the signatories of ‘the deal’) and will split to back a rule-buster change .

I have no problem waiting until Saad and Myers are confirmed to prove my point. It will happen before the end of June.

Why the confidence? Many rep signatories have clearly stated that a judge-buster attempt would bring them right back to the rule-buster. And Frist has clearly stated he would use th-rule-buster again. So is Reid brave enough to pull the trigger and irritate the moderates? Not before 2006, he needs them to hold down his losses. Why do you think Byrd was there? Think Byrd could survive if this deal implodes on him? Think Ben Nelson could?

My previous posts on this here and here.

Mort Kondracke stated basically the same thing on Brit Hume’s Special Report last night (no link)
Robert Kuttner says basically the same thing in the Boston Globe today (registration required)
David Corn sees it this way also:

But the Democrats did not walk out of the room with a hard-and-fast right to resort to a filibuster. With this compromise, they are only able to wield a judicial filibuster if seven Republican senators agree the situation is “extraordinary.” In essence, a small band of moderate GOPers will now have veto power over the Democrats’ use of the judicial filibuster.

Ron Brownstein captures the true dynamics as well

If the president chooses a polarizing figure for the high court, the seven Democrats would face enormous pressure to support a filibuster — and that would pressure the seven Republicans to reverse direction and back the filibuster ban.

Graham and Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), another negotiator of the agreement, indicated in interviews Tuesday that they would support banning the judicial filibuster if they believed that Democratic use of the stalling tactic did not meet the “extraordinary circumstances” standard.

The NYTimes today has an article that bolsters my prediction on what will happen in June

This deal is really no deal until it plays out at length,” said Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, who said he wanted a vote soon after Memorial Day on the nomination of William G. Myers III, a candidate whose fate was left uncertain in the deal.

Just a day after the agreement broke an impasse that had vexed the Senate and the Bush administration for years, senators on both sides of the aisle portrayed the new framework as fragile. Republicans in particular said the bipartisan deal, brokered by seven Democrats and seven Republicans on the eve of a showdown that could have crippled the Senate, would survive only if Democrats refrained from filibustering other emerging nominees, including some who were not guaranteed a vote in the last-minute agreement.

Here is the transcript of Sen John Warner [my senator!] on Brit Hume’s Special Report last night clearly stating that filibusters by the dems will be enough for the 7 reps to side with Frist on the rule change. Now many have noted his use of multiple stalling tactics, but the do not understand Senate tradition. For one nominee there may be numerous attempts at cloture. Typically the Senate will allow a few of these to fail to make sure debate is complete.