President Bush, defender of the LEFT?!?

Dick Morriss says so. Apparently the Senate republicans were all set to change the Senate rules so that judicial nominee filibustering was impossible. It was a done deal, until BUSH INTERVENED, and now it is too late. Here's an excerpt:

President Bush and Karl Rove probably figured that they did not want the power to appoint judges without opposition from the Senate Democrats. They realized that without the filibuster there was nothing to stop them from nominating judges who would cling to a hard right-wing agenda on Roe v. Wade and other issues, permanently alienating much of the country and driving a stake into GOP efforts to reach out to independents and women.

Bush needs the filibuster so that he can nominate judges who will not drive a wedge into the politics of America. He needs an excuse to tell his far-right friends why he is not naming a new Clarence Thomas or William Rehnquist or Antonin Scalia to the court. Bush grasps that such an appointment would be a step that would shatter the unity he is achieving after his reelection. And he needs the filibuster to keep the loyalty of his base even as he disappoints their most earnest expectations.

I have three completely different reactions to this article

#1) (assumes Morris is right about Bush intervening) WHAT THE HELL?!? Bush has always been a moderate conservative, and I've been saying for years that he is a uniter not a divider, or would be if the dems weren't so invested in claiming he's an evil, dividing dunce... But this is going too far.. You don't correct an imbalance by being balanced, you correct an imbalance by being imbalanced the other way... (just read that back to myself and lolololol) But seriously, nominating moderately conservative justices only seems to guarantee they'll become moderately liberal justices if approved.

2) (assumes Morris is right) For the thousandth time I need to thank God for Bush. Having saved moderate, libertarian leaning conservatives from the what the liberals would have done, he is now saving us from what the immoderate, reactionary conservatives would do... Not only does he have foresight, he has perspective. President Bush- Greatest President since Washington???

3) (assumes Morris is wrong) Is Bush, having rolled 7's throughout his first term, on a craps run? Because it seems he has already failed on Social Security reform (I won't be able to privatize part of my social security taxation, guaranteeing the boomers will raid every last cent of it... great) and now it seems the democrats will effectively decide who the next Supreme Court justice will be. Is it time for me to play the dark side? (warning: craps knowledge required to understand these analogies)


Interesting times, lol.