On May 2, 1:38*am, wrote:
Immediately after Specter switches parties, Souter announces his retirement - to
be effective as soon as a replacement is in place. *Unfortunately, Specter
switching sides eliminated him as the necessary potential vote to get an iffy
nominee out of committee, and it is, um, "speculated" (in the DC sense - IOW,
Specter's people first "speculated" it...) that if any midstream rule-bending is
attempted by Dems, Specter will vote "no" on principle (or at least to avoid
looking like a complete servile hypocrite, whatever one's leanings suggest to
them).

And as an aside to Ken, guess whose wisdom, fairness, bi-partisanship, good
looks, and all-around gosh-darned-wonderfulness the Dems are praising as a R
who'll vote for the best nominee regardless...? *Here's a hint - it's not Phil
Graham...

HTH,
R


You rarely see a post with such innuendo and unspoken implications as
this. Nice job saying something without actually saying it, rdean! (or
is that too transluscent?)

--riverman
(BTW, what are you talking about?)