Rule #1 of politics: When the wingnuts are up in arms they are probably being manipulated.

The filibuster agreement ends with this odd observation:

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word 'advice' speaks to consultation between the Senate and the president with regard to the use of the president's power to make nominations. We encourage the executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

Why did they close on this? What did this mean?

It means the Republicans never had any intention of approving Myers and Saad. Myers is simply unqualified. (Boston Globe in March: The standing committee on the federal judiciary of the American Bar Association reviewed Myers, and not a single member rated him "well qualified.") Questions have been raised about Saad's FBI background check.

However, if a Republican controlled Senate turned down one of Bush's nominees in an "up or down vote" Bush would have looked very bad. His appointees were so questionable his own party couldn't approve them! Thats not a tolerable political outcome.

So how do you handle that? You make a big scene. You make it look like you had to give these guys up in a fight over other nominations with the Democrats. That way you can go down screaming that they are qualified and professional, and Bush is not tarnished. Maybe he looks a little more to the right of center then he wants to, but he doesn't look bad. Maybe Frist takes a hit, but you have to wonder why the Conservative Christians would really care about this. They want people like Owen and Brown, not Myers and Saad.

Whether the Dems got played or were playing along is something I can't speculate on. Owen and Brown were their real targets. Brown in particular is an idealog who thinks that it is impossible for morality to exist outside of the framework of her personal world view. (Which is a dogmatic and silly perspective to have, no matter how eloquently she delivers it.) The Dems really got nothing here.

The question for the Republicans is how much control they have over the wingnuts now that they've gotten them all riled up and then handed them a "loss." They don't control the message in the blogosphere as well as they control it in the media. If their internet propaganda machine turns on their own moderate party members they may take a bigger black eye on this then they would have gotten had they simply embarrassed Bush in the first place.

The American people clearly want the Senate to take an active roll in nominations. In order to do that they are going to have to bork someone every once in a while. Was this big political show really necessary? I think Bush could have taken a loss on a couple nominations, and it would have made the party seem less partisan and more responsible.