MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to federal judges. Court of Appeals: Bill Clinton nominated 51 people to the Court of Appeals. Thirty-five were confirmed. Sixteen were blocked by the Republicans by not giving hearings or not allowed out of committee. George Bush nominated 52. Thirty-five were confirmed because the Democrats threatened filibuster. They don't run the committees, so they can't block it in committee. What's the difference?
SEN. ALLEN: I think you'll find on the Circuit Court judges that President Bush has the lowest percentage of Circuit Court judges...
MR. RUSSERT: I just gave you the numbers. Clinton nominated 51; 35 were confirmed. Bush nominated 52; 35 were confirmed. Those are the numbers.
SEN. ALLEN: Well, I have different numbers than that. The reality is that some of President Clinton's nominees were blocked in committee. They did not--and a lot of them were also brought up at the very end of his term.
So its alright to block Clinton's judges but not Bush's. Russert pointed out the fallacies in the Republican position.
...I don't often agree with Brooks these days, but I think he's on target here. This is not a symmetrical situation conservative activist groups are way farther off the deep end these days than liberal ones but it's still a good thought for both sides. Making every fight into a game of nuclear chicken isn't the right way to run a country.
I'm not sure I agree with Brooks just yet. I do agree that these interest group (Religious elites) battles are hurting this country trmendously. I think he's feeling the pressure that the Nuclear option will not help the GOP agenda, nor in the upcoming elections. I'm also not certain that Harry Reid would abandon his voice in the upcoming Supreme Court battle quite so easily.