I would like to see someone at the DNC get a Gingrich-style list of "preferred words" out to members of the House and Senate for use in public. Reading what Chuck Schumer had to say (as he basically twirled around in his pink tutu and conceded defeat on another judicial nominee) made me so anrgy that I scared my dog and my cat. From the NY Times article "Wider Fight Seen as Alito Victory Appears Secured" comes this from Senator Schumer:

"Make no mistake about it," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Judiciary Committee, "had we not put up the fight we put up with the judicial nominations all along, you would have more conservative people on the Supreme Court."

Cluestick for you Chuck. These people are not "conservative." Stop saying that they are.

There was a great question posted in a WaPo chat with Washington Post National Political Editor John Harris yesterday. John Harris punted, snidely I thought.

Conway, Ark.: So let me get this straight--of course the warrantless snooping is legal, says the Bush administration, because the program was vetted by executive branch lawyers, who exercised legal judgment independent of their client, we're supposed to believe. Meanwhile, down the street, we shouldn't put too much stock in things Sam Alito wrote in the 80s when he was a government lawyer in the Reagan administration, because he was just doing his client's bidding. Which is it?

John F. Harris: Good morning. I'm filling in for Mike Fletcher, one of our White House correspondents, who is on the road with President Bush. I like your question, even if it is perhaps a bit argumentative. I'll e-mail it on to him and see if he can get an answer from the White House.

I agree with Mr. Harris that it is a great question. I wonder why he couldn't venture to answer it himself?

Via War Liberal...

A San Antonio Southern Baptist pastor has spoken up in a way I think I could really get behind. He takes a swipe at Roy "Look at my Rock!" Moore and at government money via faith based initiatives as a corrupting influence on organized religion.

See for yourself below the fold...

The Bush plan to "privatize" Social Security depends on funding the transition costs by confiscating excess returns from new private accounts.

That's right. They intend to calculate what rate of return you need to achieve to maintain the basic level of guaranteed benefits and if your account outperforms that rate of return, they will simply take it.

Who says? The White House says!