[madconservative]

You will support Bush no matter what. I supported him in the elections, I supported him on many things. But this pick is weak and a gamble. It might turn out okay...wow, that's reassuring.

I say we throw up a proven, conservative candidate, let them filibuster. Then throw up a different, proven, conservative candidate. Let the Dems filibuster again, and then use the bully pulpit to show the Dems as obstructionists. If that doesn't work, go nuclear. This is a first down punt, period.

But I am beginning to suspect that many on this site would applaud if Bush appointed Ted Kennedy.

[Rutles4Ever]

I think it's funny that people are saying everyone here should support Bush no matter what, as if that's just the natural thing to do, but God forbid he put JRB in front of the Senate because, naturally, our Republican senators will not support Bush no matter what.

[Pessimist]

"But I am beginning to suspect that many on this site would applaud if Bush appointed Ted Kennedy."

You got that right. And anyone who disagreed would be incoherently labeled a liberal troll to boot.

[highball]

This is a first down punt, period.

That's the best description for this that I've seen so far. Mind if I borrow it?

But I am beginning to suspect that many on this site would applaud if Bush appointed Ted Kennedy.

You're dead-on. I can hear the Bush-bots now: "It gets him out of the Senate," "It makes W look like a uniter," "Brilliant strategery," etc.