Those upset at the compromise Monday seem to have felt vindicated Thursday night when the democrats filibustered the Bolton nomination for no good reason (except to demonstrate to the moderate middle why they should not vote democrat if they want respect of differences and achieving results back in our government).

Ed Morrissey sees this as a loss for Frist (which it is, but not really unexpected – just the timing and target are a surprise). I still think the dems are killing themselves in the PR battle for the middle road, non-aligned independents. Morrissey points to a NYTimes article (similar to many others I am sure) that rips the facade from the democrats so-called moderate spin

The filibuster is far from dead in the Senate.

Putting a fitting exclamation point on weeks of bitter partisan fighting, Democrats initiated a stunningly successful procedural attack on Thursday against one of President Bush’s high-profile nominees, just days after an unusual compromise averted a showdown over the right to filibuster judicial candidates.

In a separate post he points to a Hugh Hewitt piece at NRO today that tries to identify the winners and losers.

Well, OK there may be some transient winners/losers today – but this has not finished playing out, as this week has proven (and shown how the coalition of the chillin’s was right to sit back a bit). But things will change again as this plays out.

First off, McCain started the week the hero and now he and the other centrists have been made the fools. The so called comity and return to business did not last out the week. McCain really irritated the rep base and came up empty in his promises. DeWine and Graham are back peddling, and I bet you the moderate dems from red states are really uncomfortable. You doubt this? Read Hugh’s article again.

But the dems are going to take the biggest hit

I join the Coalition of the Chillin mentally 3 minutes into the press conference Monday, for real when Mark Coffey insightfully called for a show of hands from the less reactionary voices, because it was clear (a) we got some highly controversial and desirable nominees through and (b) we could count on the dems to overplay and then misplay their hand.

Well they did, faster than I expected. Democrats are losing the middle electorate, while the reps can claim the acted in what I believe were sincere attempts at moderation aimed at garnering some results for country. The middle doesn’t want winners over results. The partisans do, but not the non-aligned voters (which are equal in size to either party).

While the reactionaries wring their hands on short term set backs (has any nomination been defeated yet?) the dems lose ground for 2006. 2006 was always when republican control would be firmly established, if the could increase their senate count to 58+ seats. These national political re-alignments take time. The democrats are reactionary and desparate, which is why they are doing the heavy lifting for us. Do you think reps would have any evidence to take to the voters next cycle if the dems did NOT break their agreements???

That is why I am still Chillin’….