Ann Althouse points out that liberal Hollywood doesn't understand "the strength of religion in our political culture."
The money quote (read the whole thing anyway...it's not like she's getting enough hits from Mr. Reynolds...):
And now that the show has lost two million viewers and faces cancellation, Barbara Hall blames America's devotion to religion? Why not blame yourself for losing faith in the deep religious component of your own show?
Then there is this article by Brandon Crocker in the American Spectator (HT to Cold Fury)
let us look at some of the highlights:
Do the American people want Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, and Barbara Boxer to be the arbiters of what constitute "extremism" and the "mainstream?" I doubt it, but it seems as though the "mainstream" press does. We are witnessing an absurd farce being portrayed as high political drama.
For all their desire for "unlimited debate," the Democrats have failed to make the case that any of Bush's nominees are dangerous extremists. California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown once shockingly used the term "socialist" in describing some New Deal programs. But perhaps her real problem is extreme Aunt Jemimahism --being a black woman who is a political conservative. Democrats manufactured an issue with Miguel Estrada when, in their zeal to insure judicial independence, demanded that he hand over confidential attorney-client memoranda that he wrote while working in the Solicitor General's office (something never asked of any other nominee). Estrada predictably refused -- a refusal that was supported by every living former Democrat Solicitor General. And then there is Alabama Attorney General William Pryor whose extremism seems to be defined by the fact that he is a practicing Catholic (read, pro-life). In addressing the MoveOn.orgers, Al Gore lambasted what he called Republican accusations that Democrats were waging a war against religious people. "How dare they!" he cried, which elicited wild applause from the ridiculers of the inhabitants of "Jesusland." This seems to be the extent of the Democratic argument -- to call people "extremists" and then the counter-punch of "how dare they!" How dare they.
Yes, those 10 nominees represent about 5% of Bush's total judicial nominees but 20% (or 33%, using the 17 that have actually been denied a vote) of the more powerful appellate court nominees. And if Democrats retain the right to filibuster indefinitely judicial nominees, guess how many of Bush's Supreme Court nominees will be filibustered? Assuming that they aren't "moderates" who meet with the approval of Howard Dean, I'd take a wild guess that it would be about 100%. It is also an important distinction to note that the Clinton nominees who were blocked by Republicans were blocked by majorities, not by filibustering minorities. Using Democratic logic, it is dirty politics for majorities to hold up a president's judicial nominees, but it is vital to the health of the country that minorities be allowed to hold up a president's judicial nominees.
The Democrats complain that 51% doesn't make a mandate. They seem to forget, though, that their candidate got about 48%. And they lost seats in both houses of Congress. So what "mandate" do they have to continue to hold up the President's judicial nominees?
It is amazing just how twisted and intellectually vacant the Democrats' arguments in the judicial nominations debate have become. And it is amazing that any self-respecting person in the news media can report these arguments with a straight face. But as has become very clear over the past several years, the Democratic Party, and its allies in the media, have no shame.
So, to sum up, using democrat math, if the Republicans win the Electoral College, they actually lost because less people voted for them, despite what the Constitution says about the matter. If the Repubilicans control the Senate, according to the democrats, they shouldn't because there are more people in the states with democrat Senators. Never mind that according to the Constitution, it's the House of Representatives who's membership is based on population. This works because the democrats want to appoint "non-extremist" Judges who will interpret the Constitution, and any other law that gets in their way, to favor them.