The MSM and Senate democrats are crazy if they think blocking Bush’s judicial picks by filibuster will be saved by claiming to America that debate in the Senate is at risk.

David Broder of the Washington Post tries out this tactic to put fear into the electorate that majority rule is a bad thing.

But dwarfing all these individual dramas is the question of what the vote means for the Senate as an institution. Two of the main props of the Senate’s identity are at stake. The tradition of unlimited debate, going back to the Senate’s earliest years, has been maintained through the centuries, with the only ceiling being the one set by its cloture rule — the ability of a supermajority (now 60 votes) to bring debate to a close.

The only thing frightening is more speeches from the senate floor. Anyone who has tried out C-SPAN during senate debates fast realizes these people have no concept of producing results. My message to Senators is simple: make your case, cast your votes, respect the results. Because the results are going to be dictated because of the results of the elections we have been holding since 2000.

If there are extreme cases, then our supposed serious and wise senators will take the right action. And ironically, this is the case with the one supposed historic precedent for filibustering judical nominees: Abe Fortas. Poor Abe’s situation was so extreme he couldn’t muster a majority of votes – and therefore is a perfect example of why filibusters are not required for extreme cases – other than to allow democrats to pretend they represent a majority view of this country.

Ed Morrissey gives us the logistics on why we should be getting the Byrd (option) next week.
Powerline describes much of the misinformation being spread.
Polipundit has some good news on the polling front (depends on how you phrase the question!)
Michelle Malkin has tons of other links