Perspective on the filibuster deal

Joe Conason provides a bit of perspective on the deal brokered by the 14 moderate Sentors.

I find this particularly interesting: "Behind the blustering confidence, however, George W. Bush and his advisors must know they’ve suffered a sharp setback that may become the turning point in his second term."

[...]

"From today forward, as Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, pointed out, the White House will be obliged to "consult" with members of both parties before they send up judicial nominees, including anyone nominated to the Supreme Court if and when any of the current justices steps down. Having assumed that the Senate existed to do its will, the Bush administration has been notified instead that it will now operate under constraints imposed by the Democratic minority and the Republican moderates.

"The "nuclear option" represented an assault on the structures that make self-government possible in a large, diverse and sharply divided nation. This was an ideological minority’s attempt to exploit the Senate—where small rural states enjoy disproportional weight—and seize absolute power. In the name of the Constitution, they tried to rip down the barriers to factional domination that were erected by the nation’s founders.

"Their defeat is democracy’s victory."

I hope Conason is correct about this being a turning point in Bush's second term. I'll be looking for events that support that view.

Even if it is, however, consider an analogy to WW II. The German defeat at Stalingrad and the Japanese defeat at Midway were the two clear turning ponts of WW II. There still remained three hard years of nasty, hard slogging fighting after those two battles before the War was ended.