On Filibuster "Deal," Is Rove Laughing His Ass Off?

Good news on the filibuster issue being resolved, at least for now. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Democratic Caucus really managed to make the Republican leadership look like the extremist thugs they are. That said, however, here are the real questions no one seems to be asking - and the ones we should really be afraid of: What happens next time? And, was this exactly what the GOP wanted?

The success of this "deal" is up to the word of GOP Senators. And let's be honest - this GOP leadership is so extreme, that word will likely be broken and that means there is bound to be a next time with all of this - whether it's on judges or some other issue. Democrats at some point will inevitably be forced to use - or threaten to use - the filibuster, and then this whole issue will be brought up again. At that point, are we going to get another "nuclear option" fight?

And that brings me to what I fear: that this whole entire filibuster fight may have never actually been about ending the filibuster. It may have been about keeping the concept of a filibuster around for political purposes, but ending it for actual, real-world policy purposes. Here's what I mean:

The "deal" on the filibuster essentially lets Bush have a number of his most extreme judicial nominees, meaning policy-wise, Democrats agreed to let the filibuster as a regularly-used tool be weakened, or at least be frightened into a corner. It also could be eliminated (or severely reduced) in practice because now Democrats may refrain from using it for fear of raising another "nuclear" debate. The effect of all of this could be to kill/weaken the filibuster IN PRACTICE - one of the GOP's big objectives, so they can ram their agenda through Congress, and fire up their right-wing base.

However, the other goal of the GOP is to keep the filibuster around as a CONCEPT or threat - as a demon for conservatives to continue railing against. As Tom Frank aptly notes in his writings, the conservative movement does not function unless there is some target to run a permanent campaign against ("obstructionsts" is one of the big ones). The continuation of the CONCEPT or threat of a filibuster by Democrats - especially now that its profile has been elevated by the media - gives the GOP that target, even though it may not be used, and has been weakened in PRACTICE.

In many ways, this may be exactly what the GOP wants. Now that they control all three branches of government, they need SOMETHING to campaign against when voters do not like the results of their governance. And with the filibuster theoretically "surviving", they keep another "obstructionist" straw man around which they can roll out and blame anytime their policies aren't well liked. And the beauty for them is, they keep the CONCEPT of this evil filibuster around, while effectively weakening its actual EFFECT in stopping much of anything.

I'm not sure what the answer to all this is - the Democrats had to fight this tooth and nail, did a good job, and should absolutely be proud. They protected America from extremism and this is a major public defeat for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

All I'm really saying is that progressives must be careful not to declare too much of a victory, as it may make us look like we are celebrating the preservation of obstructionism (even though that tool to actually obstruct has been severely weakened). That is exactly what I fear the GOP wants. I have that sickening feeling as progressives celebrate tonight about preserving democracy, GOP guru Karl Rove is sitting in his White House office laughing his ass off because he knows policy-wise he got a win by weakening Democrats' willingness to use Senate power, while politics-wise he kept the "obstructionist" straw man around he needs to win campaigns. I sure hope I am wrong (and feel free to tell me if you think I am).