Friday, July 01, 2005

Noticed in the blogosphere, too

It's not that Kn@ppster is such a big or important blog, or that I'm such a big or important person (well, big -- too big, but I'm trying to make myself stick with the salad and forego the chocolate-covered pork rinds) ... it's that I'm always busier than a one-legged man in an asskicking contest and that I'm easily sidetracked.

That's my story, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.

What I'm getting at is that I'm sometimes slow to blogroll or mention other blogs that toss a link, a comment, a trackback, my way ... even though that's my intention. It especially sucks when those other blogs are really quite good and have something worthwhile to say.

Two of the blogs that meet the description above are Freedom's Gate and freeman, libertarian critter. Check them out.

While I'm at it, I'm going to go ahead and mention Freedom's Gate blogger Andrew L's take on the O'Connor retirement:

[T]here's a good possibility that [Bush will] pick someone guaranteed to meet the definition of "extraordinary circumstances" that the "Gang of 14" will use for a filibuster. Personally, I'd still like to see Candidate Frist invoke the "nuclear option," and have this settled once and for all.

On the notion that Bush is probably going to pick a fight ... bingo. Although, as I said earlier, he'll likely get one whether he picks one or not. Both sides are just itching for a reenactment of the OK Corral, if they can't have the St. Valentine's Day Massacre instead.

On the nuclear option, I'm not sure precisely what Andrew means by "settled once and for all," though.

As Brad Spangler points out:

Republican willingness to set aside forever the most powerful prerogative of minority parties tells us one thing -- the Republicans don’t expect to ever be a minority party again.

The Republicans may think that they want to invoke "the nuclear option." If so, then they haven't thought it through very well. Does anyone really think that, if the filibuster is taken away from the Democrats while they're the minority, they'll give it back when they become the majority again?

Does anyone really want things "settled once and for all" in favor of untrammeled rule for transient majorities?

Gary Nolan, one of the aspirants to the Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential nomination, hit one nail square on the head: Gridlock is good.

No comments: