Hugh Hewitt has a blogging challenge: McClellan or Grant...
I often associate Hewitt with the delusion based crowd especially because his "argument by anti-authority" "blog as reformation" book is easily counter-argued by saying that blogging is a kind of contemporaneous deconstruction, and can be best illustrated by the propagation of an absurd meme in blog-space (such as creating a confusion, association, or correlation between Hugh Hewitt and the late Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf.)
But I digress...
First of all, Hewitt's metaphor is itself twisted into an absurdity reminiscent of, oh, I dunno, Hugh Hewitt or the Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf?
So, let's get to the meat of the matter, shall we?
Should the GOP leadership in the Senate push to a confrontation with the Democrats over the filibustering of judicial nominees, and if the Dems filibuster even one judicial nominee, should the GOP move to the "nuclear option" of a rule change, even if Harry Reid threatens a Senate shutdown?
Now implicit here is the ol' fallacy of the limited menu: this is not a restaurant, Mr. Hewitt.
The best alternative would be for the Senate to actually advise the president- as is their constitutional responsibility- on candidates that best reflect the consensus of the United States, and then consent to those that actually reflect this consensus. Triumphalist overblown rhetoric against people who actually care about civil rights and liberties won't do. Even in red states people are starting to see through this attempt to subvert the very essence of America.
Remember, there's lots of purple states out there, and even in Kansas, I bet there's people highly peeved at the erosion of civil rights carried out by the anti-democracy, anti-freedom Republicans.
I guarantee you righties: you attempt to take away the filibuster, and karma will badly bite back.
Reid won't do a Gingrich; he'll be more creative.