>> I'm not sure conservatives have established the street credibility necessary to demand that ALL of Bush's nominees be known conservatives, as opposed to stealthy conservatives. <<
How about anyone who is not at best stealthy? I didn't complain about Roberts because even though he was a stealth candidate at best, he had established himself as a fantiastic pick on non-ideological grounds.
But by scraping so deeply the bottom of the barrel with Miers, he has made very plain that he would never CONSIDER an outspoken conservative.
>> That's exactly why conservatives need to lead out front on the filibuster issue, <<
I agreee whole-heartedly that the use of the filibuster in this instance would be unpardoable. So much so, I can't believe you'd even bring it up. There's no need "to lead out front" on the issue, because it's inconceivable that a conservative would filibuster.
>> Until conservatives establish that credibility, <<
That's my point! He trusts Putin and Chirac and the U.N., but lets his minions call conservatives "vigilantes," and "sexist" and "discriminators."
>> the GOP isn't going to take very kindly to their recent tirades, and all of us will continue to suffer <<
WTF? Are you suggesting that the GOP is punishing us? I've said some people around here have battered wife syndrome, but that's the most directly I've ever seen it expressed, if that's what you're suggesting!
"Don't make Daddy angry, or he's gonna get drunk and start beating us again!"
"Oh, I know it's really my fault... I provoke him to such anger!"
I mean this literally (and, sad as it is, I must even state that I mean the word "literally" literally): Pathetic.
You have serious reading comprehension problems.
Conservatives haven't filibustered. I never said they did. They cannot demand that all candidates be known conservatives until they establish that filibusters are no longer a threat to nominating a known conservative.
You are the weakest link.