Today, PFAW inter alia sent me generic e-PSAs, same all representing as or in nature that "Democrats are the voice of the people in all things, now go demand Reid et al enforce that rule about not nominating controversial Judges in an election year!!!!!!!".

 

Aw, that voice that doesn't need to hear from me 'cause it knows best for me, including in State-authored religion; aw, that voice for ME and all us little guys and gals and chiillllldddrrrreeennnn, that sees no risks to us under the Father State mentality they and their handpicked orthodoxy (governmental, religious, and business) shall forever lead, blaming inifinite domestic and foreign strawpeople while paring their own military and police and non-State language faiths and commerce; aw, that voice of the people looking out for ME in making sure "no controversial Judges are nominated in an election year"...the only REAL thing anyone need do before the election, and thereafter.

 

If I WERE hearing that as MY voice, I'd ask for a lobotomy or somethingazine to the max, or see an exorcist, because either I'd be schizophrenic or possessed.

 

Yes, I continue to support Conservative or at least USA traditional candidates for 2008 general elections. And as for this standalone rhetoric re talking head/point "controversial judges in an election year", first: absolutely EVERY Judge nominated by Bush for eight years has ALWAYS been called controversial by Democrats and their boosters; second: as say PFAW uses this legal tool, it connotes that Bush and the GOP have dark, sinister, oppressive forces who will only "make permanent" all the things folks in Democrat areas don't like and which "durn GOP and Bush" are "making" them do as if this Socialist-type Democrat swagger will fade upon Democrat ascendency to the White House and all offices in the USA...i.e., as always, that's what the Left WILL say again like always, and aw, maybe PFAW and Dems are trying to "help" little guys through making the GOP look like it HAS some such to hide through tacit agreement re "controversial= we have folks you won't like, but you wait if'n we win", and similar inferences.

 

Well, MY voice tells me that the reason the left wants no Judges nominated is because it would be "controversial" to all candidates period, meaning especially Democrats and modernist Independents would HAVE to divulge more about where THEY stand in an election year, instead of just grandstanding on Iraq and insisting it's USA nationals and "wretched if pitiable immigrant waifs" we need to go Gestapo/KGB upon in a brave new era of every fiber of one's life and faith run by amorphous internationalistic elitists.

 

Because the objection put to me by relevant parties today is that White House nominations are feared controversial in an election year, and because I verily believe objectors simply to want to make their own post-election agenda(s) known to the public at-large prior to elections, wherefore, I respectfully submit that no Senate rule barring "controversial" nominations of any kind ought to be enforced, and in fact further so submit that perhaps the very rule itself be rescinded in toto.