A reader dissents:
You blogged: “Why blow things up on the first pick when you know there will be fights over the second and third no matter what? And if the Dems consider McConnell an extraordinary pick justifying a filibuster better to demonstrate their bad faith as early as possible.”
Aren’t certain nominees are more likely to provoke a filibuster than others, regardless of where they fall in the order? The Dems will have a better argument for opposing a nominee as “extraordinary” if they have already demonstrated their “reasonableness” by confirming a less controversial pick first. It’s easier to say one out of two Bush nominees is extraordinary than one out of one. Pardon the mixed metaphors, but Bush should look at the big picture and not let the Dems off the hook.
Keep up the good work,