Bush recently said, "This business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all." GW posing as the authority on what defines "realism" -- just laughably surreal.

As if we need anymore proof, what does the following say about Bush as a "decider" of what comprises realism?

On November 15th, the President renominated four of his hardest-right candidates for the federal courts of appeals: a Defense Department lawyer who has been denounced by a score of retired generals and admirals for his role as an architect of the Administration’s infamous interrogation regime; a former Interior Department attorney and mining and ranching lobbyist who sees the Clean Water Act as “regulatory excess”; a district-court judge whose decisions have been reversed or vacated more than a hundred and fifty times, an astounding record that includes two reversals from the Supreme Court—one of them in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas—in voting-rights cases; and a former aide to Senator Trent Lott who is the first federal-appeals-court nominee in a quarter of a century to be unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association.

Do these four nominees appear to be the end result of prudent, rational decisions based on a realistically objective litmus test, as opposed to sheer partisan will? I think not. They are clearly not qualified and indefensible choices.

The madness of King George continues....