Very good. I wish Pres Bush would just gi ahead and fill all the vacancies that liberals in Congress have blocked, and that liberal-leftist lobby groups have lobbied against, with judges who havent sold their souls to the various liberal-leftist ideological positions.

Whatever one might say of Bush's other nominees, the blockading of Pickering is a most egregious examples of misconduct by Senate Democrats. Even the Village Voice knows it.

These folks need to throw raw meat at their most extreme supporters, and that's all that's happened to Pickering.

I think the blockading of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen was just as bad.

People for the American Way my ass!

And by the time his nomination requires Senate confirmation (it would've been after '04 election), GOP should have more body in that house.

me too!

Pretty cocky prediction there, BigFire. I wouldn't count your chickens before they're hatched if I were you.

Odds may favor the GOP at the moment but that's no guarantee of anything. It would be better if they'd find a way to get along with Dems a little better. That is, assuming Dems actually want that to happen.

Democrats and liberals, or Leftist-liberals, or what have you, should quit using the damned "race card" so damned much. Not only that I'm tired of it, but their enemies can just as easily use it, too, and to just as great effect. They're already doing that, all too well.

Pickering left the Dems in 1964. I wonder who he voted for in 1960? Could it have been Nixon? Can't belong to a party being led be Papists, Jews, and African-Americans can we? Why else didn't the Mississippi electors go for Kennedy in '60? Those Papists became the largest group in Congress in '64, isn't that so? Ah, to be in the party of good, white Christians is a wonderful feeling!

Libertarian:

You sound more like a lying lefty asshole. Are you Michael Moore?

I am nothing of the sort! I despise Hilliary Clinton, and hate anti-smoking laws, anti-drinking laws, anti-gun laws, and other anti-personal autonomy laws that modern left wing Calvinists ram down our throats as much as I despise the fundamentalist nonsense of the Gary Bauers and Sandy Rios of the Religious Right who want to reduce the government to a Christian police state. I happen to belong to both the ACLU and the NRA and proud of both! I did not lie and am only a lefty to those desiring a theocracy. I am not approved by those seeking a nanny state whose sole purpose is to protect us from ourselves. And, yes, my ass has the requisite opening for solid waste to leave the body. But, thanks for the applause! Remember, a Dem in the White House in '04 means no President Hilliary ever!

Well, your comment sounded a bit racist and like typical republican bashing. I would think that a true Libertarian would look to the facts instead of spew such vile clap.

Remember, a Dem in the White House in '04 means no President Hilliary ever!

Please. I'd take Hillary over any of the choices offered up this season. And, I'm a republican.

It is a fact that he switched in '64. The statements about the Kennedy election and the '64 Congressional election are facts. My question is whether the new dominance in the Democratic party of African-Americans, Jews, and Catholics was repulsive to him. Who he voted for in 1960 would be telling. I doubt that he voted for Kennedy. If you leave the party because these new groups are having an influence on the party that is bigotry. I wish the Dems would have candidates in African-American communities who would be allowed to fully represent their community's values. Respect is shown by giving a people a place at the table represented by someone who represents how they think, not how you believe they should think. As an ex-Republican, I understand when communities are pressured to comform to someone else's values. I did not want to be in a party where every community must conform to the Southern Baptist Convention. The "good, white Christian party" was obviously the GOP, unlike the Heathen Party that Pickering left. You knew what I meant. Why the claim of Rep bashing, otherwise? Being one of them thar heathens who have not been saved, I suppose it was the right move for myself.

Who he voted for in 1960 would be telling. I doubt that he voted for Kennedy. If you leave the party because these new groups are having an influence on the party that is bigotry.

But you don't know for who he voted - you were being snarky. You also don't know why he left the party. You are making assumptions. You know what they say about assuming?

People that know him support him. Like James Charles Evers and Ronnie Musgrove. The fact is Pickering is supported by blacks in his district who also admire him should say a lot.

This is about Pickering and all you are doing is complaining about republicans. Stick to the topic and provide facts.

Ah, Rosemary, don't you know facts and truth are the enemy of blowhards the world over? Forcing them to stick to the facts is discriminaton and we wouldn't want that would we? I think yes.

I know I'm being silly but...

Dean,

Regarding projected Republican gains in the Senate--it goes a bit beyond "favorable odds," and that's even before considering Bush's coattails (think 2002). Five incumbent Democratic Senators are retiring this year in the South (NC, SC, GA, FL, and LA). The South has been trending Republican over the past 30 years, and every one of those states went Republican in the 2000 Presidential election. (Yes, FL by the tiniest of margins, but Jeb Bush got reelected in 2002 rather handily, so predicting a Republican pickup of Bob Graham's Senate seat in 2004 seems reasonable.)

From the South alone, I think it's fair to predict a Republican gain of 4-5 Senate seats. That's not a small swing, and the political landscape would have to change pretty drastically to change this scenario.

I wonder who he voted for in 1960? Could it have been Nixon?

Could have been, after all, Nixon won the popular vote.

Can't belong to a party being led be Papists, Jews, and African-Americans can we?

The Democratic party was not being led by Papists. Kennedy was dead, Johnson was in charge, and he was certainly not a papist, not Jewish or Negro either. An awful lot of politicians were changing parties in those years, in both directions. The Republicans were leading the fight for civil rights for blacks, not the Democrats, despite their propaganda. (I was there, as a Democrat, so I know.)

Why else didn't the Mississippi electors go for Kennedy in '60?

Because they felt Nixon was the better choice, like the majority of the country?

Those Papists became the largest group in Congress in '64, isn't that so?

The Democrats won a majority, in large part because of Republican efforts to support the civil rights movement. The Democrats were not, however, Papists. You clearly reveal both your bigotry and your ignorance with these statements.

...after all Nixon won the popular vote [in 1960].

Jeez, Gary, that kind of talk makes you sound like the lunatic fringe.

Libertarian:
"I am nothing of the sort! I despise Hilliary Clinton, and hate anti-smoking laws, anti-drinking laws, anti-gun laws, and other anti-personal autonomy laws that modern left wing Calvinists ram down our throats as much as I despise the fundamentalist nonsense of the Gary Bauers and Sandy Rios of the Religious Right who want to reduce the government to a Christian police state."

Excellent! I totally agree!

This Libertarian gives an interesting analysis of the two parties. The Republicans were historically the Protestant party, the party that denounced "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion", and there weren't too many Jews in it for a long time (Goldwater a notable exception).
In spite of this "WASP" predominance, however: It may seem incredible to many today, but the Republicans were the pro-Negro party for close to a hundred years after the Civil War. Calvin Coolidge advocated a federal anti-lynching law. By contrast, Woodrow Wilson brought Jim Crow into the federal executive branch and praised "Birth of a Nation", the movie which was largely responsible for the revival of the Ku Klux Klan. It was not until Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey that the Democratic party began to break away from racism. And that motivated Strom Thurmond and George Wallace to break away from the Democratic party and launch third party campaigns of their own against both the GOP and the Democrats. (Wallace later repudiated racism.)

One small flaw: Pickering is himself Catholic (a "Papist" if you will). And the Republicans have been playing the "religion card" with great success: "Why, how dare you oppose Pickering? You must be prejudiced against _all_ Catholics! You bigot!"

No, Ara, if he talked like an asshat idiotarian he would be complainind that Kennedy "stole the election." But since he's an intelligent adult, he accepted the legal result.

It's pretty sad when Trick Dick shows more class than the entire Democratic Party.

That Pickering is Catholic is a minor flaw in Looneytarian's premise. That he's anti-racist is a more major one. That most Republicans have no intention of "reduc[ing] the government to a Christian police state," as he suggests, is a big enough flaw to warrant the name "Looneytarian," even among those of us who respect libertarianism generally.

"in 1968, state prosecutor Charles Pickering testified against a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan."

I didn't know that Senator Byrd was ever on trial!

The Libertarian didn't say that _most_ Republicans want to reduce government to a Christian police state. He only said that Republicans like Gary Bauer and Sandy Rios, to name a couple, of the so-called "Religious Right" (a euphemism for what they really are) want to do so. Many other Republicans, of the old Goldwater type, want to reduce government, period.

These Dem attacks are no more screwy than the typical complaint about the economy. I see candidates on TV complaining about employment figures which is legitimate, but THEY NEVER EXPLAIN WHAT BUSH IS DOING WRONG. I can't accept the idea that an intellegent person can simply assume that the recession is Bush's fault because it occurred during his term. So I have to assume that Kerry is going after the dumb vote.

So much for the checks and balances. Well, I think history will prove that this administration was a complete and utter failure. Just when I think that Bush can't be more divisive, he goes out and pulls a stunt like this. I can't help but laugh at the "I'm a uniter, not a divider." stump during his campaign. He knew full well that he was going to divide the country on the issues. Like Ara, I have to think, is he a liar or just stupid. Well, I certainly don't think he's stupid. Well, at least he's a man of conviction. He's got ballz, I'll give him that. Must have been all that training in the Air National Guard.

Typical mush-headed Dem non-logic from a Democrat.

Dear Timmy, just in case you haven't been following the news, let me fill you in: the Democratic Party has been systematically stonewalling all the most important Bush nominees for no other reason than they can.

And if you were really worried about checks and balances, instead of sucking up to the latest Dem group-think, you would realize that it's the Democrats who have been abusing that concept by blocking the nominations.

Every single nominee that has been blocked has been, objectively, a good jurist. But the Dems want Bush to nominate good, liberal jurists. When he doesn't, he's "divisive." Feh.

And you can kiss my ass on that "liar or stupid" crap, bunkie. Ara started that during the "BushLied(tm)" thread because he was either too stupid or too partisian to understand how tricky intelligence analysis is; not to mention being really weak on logic (what, it's not a binary choice!?). God forbid someone might think of "analysis (as performed by the Clinton administration as well as Bush) was just, maybe not accurate. Or worse yet, the six months that the liberal apologists for Hussein gave the man enough time to move the stuff to Syria.

Why don't you start posting on DU, or MoveOn? They seem to be more your style anyway these days.

Tim:

All presidents make recess apointments. How on earth do you think Bill Lan Lee got appointed? Clinton did it twice by recess appt. just to bypass the republicans.

Grow up.

What percentage of Bush nominees have been approved? Fifty percent? Sixty percent? What's that? More than 90%? Can't be. After all, the dems are stonewalling and unpatriotic aren't they?

Casey, turn down the AM radio and step away from the Fox New Channel.

Grow up? Tsk, tsk, always a dismissive dig against dems. Next you're gonna tell me that "you really look stupid (or words to that effect) when you make post like that." Let me preempt you on that. .

Here's a good one for you: The Bush administration has made seven anti-environmental protection announcements on Friday afternoons. The Friday before Thanksgiving, the Friday before X-mas, the Friday after New Year's. And other just plain old Fridays. Last year, they fast tracked logging projects and stated that "environmental reviews are not necessary." This administration has made its living misleading the public on issues ranging from the environment to the war and homeland defense.

What's shocking to me is how everyone on the right just goes along in step with everything Bush does. This is lunacy.

The Bush/Rove administration has been misleading the public since the campaign and building an nearly unbeatable reelection war chest. That's great, and they're gonna win. But in 2008, it's all gonna change when the Dems take back the office. Thankfully, I am a patient man. My bread is being buttered as a member of the military and about the time I'm retiring, my party will be back in power and properly funding education, healthcare, and job training programs for the unemployed and displaced workers.

Oooh, but at least Bush gave you your $1500 hush money (I mean tax cut). Man, you people can be bought at such a cheap price. And, with you school vouchers, you may even be able to pay for one or two semesters at an inexpensive private school. Of course, not the one Bush went to at $28,000 a year.

My look at the biggest suckers:

1. (tie) Amway reps. and Ditto Heads
2. Whole Life buyers
3. Time-Share holders
4. Struggling middle income people voting for Bush (if you have no health care insurance, bump yourself up to number 2.)

Yes, I'm strongly biased, but I think the American people deserve the truth not deception. Fuck Clinton when he lied to us also, but never trust a mother fucker that appoints someone from the petroleum industry to head a study on the environmental impact of relaxing the pollution standards.

Oh, and Sen. Edwards has backed ever one of Bush's federal judge nominations EXCEPT Pickering. Maybe Edwards knows something. Maybe he read his record. Maybe you guys should read it. Not too impressive I must say.

Either way, bringing "Sheets" (Sen Byrd) into this argument is not relevent.

I want to see _more_ filibustring and obstructionism from both sides. I want the Democrats or liberals to keep any more Borks or Scalias from getting any influence. And I want the Republicans or conservatives to stop gun-haters from mutilating the Second Amendment. Protect the Bill of Rights -- all of it -- at all costs.