Action Items on the left bar. Contact wobbly senators (yes, I have contacted them all) to ensure that President Bush's and ... yes, the next president's nominees, too ... receive a full vote on the Senate floor. A couple of RINO's appear to be defecting (namely, McCain and a couple of northeasterners), but it is time to hold these senators accountable for acting upon the election results.
A couple of thoughts for you as you ponder your Action Items:
Quote of the Day: "Why should we pay any attention to Sen. McCain? He doesn't listen to any one else?" -- Rush ... via Hugh Hewitt. Love the intersection of the blogosphere and talk radio.
A Word on History: Okay, I will try to be statesmanlike and rational. How do I put this? Okay ... ahem. The Democrats are LYING!! Okay, was that clear? I know some of you are shocked, but there is absolutely no historical precedent for filibustering appellate court nominees. It has never happened before 2000, and one Supreme Court nominee was filibustered briefly with bipartisan support in 1968. It is the Demos who are distorting history and Senate traditions and overly-politicizing the judicial confirmation process. They started this garbage in the Bork hearings, you will recall.
About "Extremism" and the Proverbial "Mainstream": Democrats' claims that they are trying to protect the judiciary from being overrun by judicial "extremists", which Patrick Leahy outrageously likens to "jihadists", are way out of bounds and would be laughable if the tactics were not so way out of bounds. The Demos are just trying to make sure -- by any means necessary -- that no judicial conservative makes it to the appellate bench, especially a minority or a woman. Let's be honest. This is all about politics. Period. Republicans want to get these judges confirmed and Democrats don't like the views of the judges. That's it. But instead of arguing the merits and giving a vote, the Demos label Janice Rogers Brown essentially an "Uncle Tom" and a "jihadist". Why? Not sure. And why can't Demos admit that there are all types of views -- conservative and liberal -- in the mainstream? I am not sure about that, either.
But I do know that they know that ...
The Democrats can not win a national election ... or a national debate on an issue where they show their true liberal colors. So, they demagogue and try to destroy the character of their opponents.
Here is a modest proposal for the very august, sober, and erudite Senate to ponder: If 50 senators vote for a particular judicial nominee ... 50 statesmen representing roughly half the country, give or take because of the distribution of two senators per state, that is ... then by definition, wouldn't such a nominee be in the mainstream? How can a minority define the majority's views as "extremism"?
They're Democrats. That's how.
It's time for something out of ordinary in the Senate ... action. Action that reflects the will of the people.