When are Republican politicians going to wake up and quit playing footsie with obstructionist Democrats? Come November, how will Republicans credibly be able to make the case that they deserve to be reelected to majority status when they have unilaterally surrendered their current majority position?
Based on their repeated behavior, these Beltway politicians couldn't possibly comprehend the degree of angst, disgust and frustration swelling in the conservative base of the Republican Party.
The tepid, feckless reaction of Republicans to the Senate Democrats' latest assault on President Bush's judicial nominations is a perfect illustration of their recurring abdication. More and more they think like Democrats, act like Democrats and get in bed with Democrats. And why? Democrats do not come to them bearing gifts.
Like the unmitigated minority bullies they are, Democrats are threatening to filibuster White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, President Bush's nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Terrence Boyle, his nominee for the 4th Circuit.
Democrats are grossly politicizing Kavanaugh's appointment, using it as yet another platform to paint the administration as a sadistic torturer of terrorist detainees and an enemy of the 4th amendment through its NSA wireless surveillance program. Democrats are alleging that since Kavanaugh has been a White House staff member, he must have approved of these dastardly policies and must not be allowed anywhere near the federal appellate bench, where he would vote to constrict our civil liberties.
As for Boyle, Democrats are pretending to be concerned that he is riddled with conflicts of interest and has heard cases involving companies in which he had a financial interest. Sound familiar? Remember a few months ago when they made a similarly bogus charge against Judge Alito concerning his interest in Vanguard?
Senate Judiciary Committee members have a lot of gall to be throwing around ethics charges when the very substance of those charges is unfounded and fraudulent. Which is more unethical: for a judge to hear a case involving a party in which he has a financial interest, but whose interest cannot possibly be affected by the outcome of the case -- as in Vanguard? Or, for United States senators to level unfounded allegations -- bearing false witness -- against judicial nominees of stellar character?
Clinton Foundation: Oh, We Made Additional $12-26 Million From Speeches Given By the Former First Family | Matt Vespa
Friday Document Dump: State Department Releases First Round of Clinton Emails (All 298 Of Them) | Katie Pavlich