Sellouts

The "compromise" agreement reached by the "moderate" Senators in the U.S. Senate today to end the fillibuster will be analyzed endlessly over the next few days in the press and in the blogs.

Did the compromisers save the Senate? Do they represent the reasonable middle in thwarting the plans of their leadership to have a showdown on principle? Is there a "middle" in politics?

My take is simple: the gang of 14 that crafted the compromise are sellouts. A 14% minority who have hijacked the important debate on principle with a plan that merely punts the fight down the road. It's cowardly, in the best tradition of the cowardly Senate.

Is there a middle. No, not a principled middle. An apathetic middle, maybe. A middle that wants to run and hide from a principled fight maybe. But not a principled middle. There are two sides to this debate, not three. The only middle is to sellout and take the ball and go home.

The only bright side in the compromise deal is that 3 of the 7 judges that are at the center of the controversy will get the up or down vote they deserve in the Senate. They are well qualified and will be confirmed.

The downside is that the Democrats escaped having to stand up and take the stage and put the lie that they are unqualified on display by fillibustering in public. They got away with the lie.

My disgust will, of course, center on the RINO's (Republicans in name only) amonst the sellouts who sold their President's well qualified nominees - the 4 who may not get an up or down vote - down the river to have peace with their Democrat colleagues who have abused the process. Disgusting.