[A Jovial Cad]

I like Boortz, but he's simply wrong here. His argument is with the time Thomas Jefferson spent as the VP (1797-1801). While "presiding" over the Senate, and not doing much else, he wrote a booklet that basically became the Rules & Procedures of the United Senate. The Senate has reaffirmed them, with slight modifications and minor revisions, ever since. They do so under the Constitution's express declaration that each legislative body of Congress will be the final arbiter of their own rules on how procedural business will be conducted in their respective chambers. One of those rules, for the Senate, is the unlimited debate procedure, or "Filibuster." It requires a 60-vote majority to end debate in the Senate on any given issue even *ONE* Senator might wish to drag on until the legislative session ends. It's a "rule" with such long-standing and precedent that it's never likely to go away.
I despise the DemonRat's dishonest use of it today, in 2004 to block valid judicial nominations, as much as anyone. But let's face it: *our* side has used the filibuster to stop a lot of silly liberal legislation that would've sailed right through when the Dims controlled the Senate in the past. So I'm of two minds about the utility of getting rid of the "unlimited debate" procedure in the United States Senate.
Regardless of all that, President Bush has nothing to do with that, one way or the other. He should not be blamed for bending to a 200+ year-old realities of how business is transacted on the floor of the "Upper" Chamber of Congress. Boortz should back off. The *Dims* in the Senate are the problem--not the White House.

[votelife]

when a SC nomination comes up, it will be time for Bush to play hardball

[livius]

Good analysis.

May I also say that the GOPers in the Senate are a problem. Bush can't do much about things that go on in the Senate unless there is strong leadership there, and sadly, we don't have it, nor do we have the numbers to overcome this problem.