I'm not really all that angry about that filibuster deal, but here some opinions from commentators I respect who disagree with me:
Peggy Noonan, Mr. Narcissus Goes to Washington, says it's all "sheer exuberant egotism", echoing a comment I heard elsewhere that it's all about saving their re-election prospects than about preserving the Constitution.
Hugh Hewitt, Non-Nuclear Fallout, discussing the "aftermath of a sell-out".
Charles Krauthammer, The flinch heard 'round the world, who describes the seven Republicans who worked out this deal,
"We will soon see glowing stories in the mainstream press about how they have grown in office. (In Washington parlance, the dictionary definition of ``to grow'' is ``to move left.'')"
The New York Times seems to be two-faced about protecting the rights of the minority, arguing in favor of the concept when it's about Democrats, and against it when it's about people of faith opposed to embryonic stem cell research. The argument about protecting minority rights might have some credibility if it had come up when the Democrats were the majority. I don't remember anyone in the MSM saying that back then however. (hat tip Best of the Web)
My take on it is still that of resigned acceptance of it and a desire to move on. I'm disappointed in Congress, as is today's WSJ, but I'm learning to keep my expectations low as far as politicians go. One good thing about an ineffective Congress is that they can't do much harm either.