the official thank Feingold on his Roberts vote thread

[LSK]

I know lots of you are upset about his vote. So lets voice our frustrations here and maybe email him this threaed.

[whalerider55]

1. haven't checked his vote

but i do know he believes in deference to the president on nominees. there's a lot i like about feingold, but i really think he's way, way off base on this deference thing. When the constitutional responsibility is advise and consent, there should not be deference; there should be a genuine conviction that the nominee is the right person for the job, with the right skills and temperment. as a local elected official, i believe the same way- no deference when the burden is to nominate the right person and persuade the consenters that it is the right person.

if his deference vote on ashcroft didn't teach him a lesson, and all of his and the dems and the pugs rubber stamp of any and all bush nominees- homeland security, FEMA, etc., have taught him the simple wrongheadnedness and irresponsibility of such a point of view, he'll never get my vote for anything.

i'm not a one issue candidate. but i do carefully scrutinize guiding principles, and deference is not only wrong... it is irresponsible and deadly.

whalerider

[LSK]

2. then if he believes Bush has the right to his candidate

He has to also believe that Bush was fairly elected President in 2000 and 2004. Then I can also deduce that he does not believe in voter fraud.

He should also consider the Senates right to confirm or deny a candidate.

[OneBlueSky]

3. exactly right, LSK . . . those who voted for Roberts either . . .

a) believe that Bush was fairly elected in 2000 and 2004 . . . in which case they're too stupid to be in Congress . . . or . . .

b) know that Bush was not fairly elected in 2000 and 2004, and voted for Roberts anyhow . . . in which case they're too corrupt to be in Congress . . .