You take things as they come. In case you missed it there was great angst here on FR when the traitorous RINOs deserted the leadership. They got their share of mail and if we are smart this one issue can be added to the case of why each of these should not be reelected. Moving right along the next event we have is Roberts..who is not a proven conservative but did have good bona fides so while we exibited concern no major outcry..Then comes this nomination of someone no one (including Bush himself) can offer objective bona fides for. Therefore the outcry from those of us who believe this is a poor and potentially dangerous nomination. The first time we get a whack at any of these turkeys is '06 and then '08. At that point we will have been given the opportunity to replace 2/3 of the senate. I don't feel like a pot because Bush made a bad choice. I feel like saying his choice was bad. However I do feel Bush is a darn sight worse than just a kettle. Your mileage may vary.
Losers that didn't defeat the filibusters are all speaking from a position of personal failure.
Until the filibusters are defeated, we could elect Jim Robinson President and McCain, Graham et. al. would get to define whether his nomination of you or I presents an extraordinary circumstance justifying a filibuster which keeps the Senate from doing its job of debating and voting.
Attacking the filibusters means attacking the Gang of 7 Republicans, listed in my tag line, for giving the filibusters credibility with their deal. Note in particular that Reid immediately attempted to claim that their deal meant the filibusters were constitutional. They obviously aren't, and I don't think the current SCOTUS would disagree with me. There are people who can't be considered moderates all over that court, from Ginsberg, Stevens and Souter all the way to Scalia and Thomas.