My guess is she was pre-approved. At least by the gang of 14. There is no filibuster coming on this.
Again, I agree with Pat Buchanan (yikes!)that "there are consequences to losing elections." We can't oppose someone just because Bush picked them. In this case we probably did about as well as we could have hoped. She is no Scalia or Thomas or Luttig.
But I love your point. The rightwing base can't be happy and that just means more trouble for Bush.
I do think Bush could find himself in hot water with the base over this one. He didn't keep his campaign promise.
I don't have a good feeling over how democrats will play thing one. Especially with 2006 and 2008 factoring in. But my hope (probably all it is) is that the right will show some cracks on this one, and we democrats won't look like obstructionists.
That is the question that I asked myself a few years back. The answer made me really think about what party, if any, I should belong too. I switched from an independent to a democrat.
Democrats, in my opinion, have a more positive view of government. Most of us believe that government can have a positive impact on society, and the lives of all Americans. I think Bill Clinton has come closest to articulating my feelings, in his speech to the Democratic National Convention in '04.
Bill O'Reilly just recently best summed up my opinion of the republican view of government (if you count on government to do anything, you will be disappointed).
I think if we can get more people thinking about what government should do, and get them looking the two parties and how they approach government, I think we will win in the long run
I saw Hackett on Hardball a while back. I like what he has to say, and how he says. That being said, if he is going to run for a Senate seat he needs some help with his tv appearance. He looked a little to slick and he smirks too much. He looked smug (I am not saying that he is, I am saying that is how I thought he looked).
As for his message on Iraq, it is something every candidate should really listen to. I am convinced that he did not do well simply because he is a veteran of the war. I think he did well because he has a compelling case for getting out of the war that can play well to both the crowd that opposed the war from the beginning, and those that supported it back then, and still may.
I wanted to chime in on the gun thing. I will also throw school prayer into the mix as well.
I think we could reach out to a whole new group of voters if we were to stop being perceived as being in such strong opposition to these two issues. We have bigger fish to fry.
The rightwing is in control of the Republican Party, and therefore they control the country. They are pushing both fiscal and foreign policies that are dangerous, and we are letting them win in large part to less important issues like gun control and school prayer.
I have read where some feel that Al Gore lost Tennessee and West Virginia and the gun issue alone. I say let them have their guns, if they are so important to them.
If I am not mistaken, the IRS changed their focus last year, and is directing 50% of their enforcement resources to going after those that may be cheating the system with regard to the earned Earned Income Tax Credit.
A tax cheat is a tax cheat, but it seems to me it would be wiser to go after the big fish that may be cheating the IRS for real dollars, not going after the poor for nickels and dimes. I have read that the top 5% alone may cheat to the tune of 200 billion a year.
I guess going after more well off Americans wouldn't score many points with the republican base.