Well

First, let me say congratulations on getting banned from Blogs for Bush.

Remember when you wrote this clap-trap

And the article suggests that it would be more impressive to study how often liberals post comments on conservative blogs.

I find that an interesting challenge. I often just read 'liberal' sources like TPM, New Donkey, the NY Times, etc. And I often don't spend time on conservative sources like Foxnews, etc.

All I can say is "wow"

Alright, moving on, here is what I am thinking today.
After my John Stewart "Whaaaaa?" regarding who Bush nominated. I got to thinking about what the Democrats and the left can do during the coming nomination fight.
First, we need to stop saying that we lost this fight back in November. That isn't what the constitution says regarding advice and consent. Secondly, Bush didn't run a presidential campaign on: "I am going to nominate right wing nutcases to the court, Vote for me!" Bush's campaign was: "I am better at defending this nation" (to put it positively), or "John Kerry is a lying liberal pussy who will sell your daughters into white slavery to our new Al-Qaeda overlords" (maybe not that extreme, but close). So in such a situation, we didn't lose this fight at the election because the american people weren't voting on this fight during the election. Sure sure, the argument can be made that people knew what kind of judges Bush would nominate for the court, but frankly I doubt if that entered anyone's thoughts and voting calculations (assuming rational actors voting, which I guess is exactly my point: folks aren't rational) when they voted. Point being if you believed that Bush was better at defending the nation, but you like all the great things that liberal activist judges have done for america, how would you vote? For your liberal activist judges or for not getting blown up?
A broader point here is that we can turn the whole nomination fight, because I guarantee the republicans will use the "you should have won the election" meme, into a debate about Bush and his campaign. Given the way everyone seems to love Karl Rove right now, we can refocus the debate right back on how sleazy the Bush administration is. Only problems, such a strategy takes time, discipline, and guts, all of which are in short supply in the national Democratic party.

So what else can we do about this nomination fight? We have an opportunity here to refocus the abortion debate. Your turn for a John Stewart "Whaaaaa?"
Put it this way, the Senators on the Judiciary Committee shouldn't ask question like "lets talk about abortion, for or against?" Such a question will get the standard right winger lie: "I will support the law as it stands" Instead the Senators should ask questions about how Roberts feels about a woman's right to liberty/privacy. I would choose liberty because that is the words in the document, and we have had this discussion before. If every Democratic Senator, and then the rest of the Democratic Party, gets a game plan together to talk about liberty and equality, and really discuss the bolts of the Nuts' legal and policy position regarding abortion, I think we can do more damage to any nominee than just talking about abortion. This may sound like reductio ad absurdum of their loony arguments, but that is what it takes sometimes.

Abortion isn't an issue about the right to choose. It is an issue about whether or not the liberty enshrined in the constitution is applied equally to all members of American society, including women.