I'm an angry Republican

No, that's not a redundancy. But a couple of things have ticked me off today.

Topping the list, Senate Republicans today elected Trent Lott for minority whip. You remember Mr. Lott, don't you? He's the one who sang the praises of segregationist Strom Thurmond, and the resulting firestorm of criticism led to his resignation as Majority Leader in 2002.

That was not even four years ago! And now the Republicans -- who lost what was considered a safe Senate majority -- are electing him to leadership? Gee, can we bring in David Duke as an advisor?

Is the Republican Party really that tone-deaf? As Jim Geraghty said today, "Aw, hell, the GOP can just concede 2008 now."

The other issue raising my blood pressure a few points: In a story in today's New York Observer, New York's Chuck Schumer assumes the role of God. Here are the first three paragraphs:

More than the inability to influence Iraq policy or the President’s tax cuts, Chuck Schumer says that the single greatest failure of the Democrats as an opposition party was allowing Samuel Alito to join the Supreme Court.

“Judges are the most important,” said Mr. Schumer, who orchestrated the implausible Democratic takeover of the Senate last week. “One more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.”

From now on, all the President’s judicial appointments will need to meet the requirements of Mr. Schumer, the Park Slope power broker who has happily accepted the mantle of chief architect for the Democrats’ effort to build a majority for the 2008 elections and beyond.

What incredible arrogance! Apparently, the Democrats slipped a Constitutional amendment past the American people when we weren't looking; it now reads that the president will appoint judges "by and with the Advice and Consent of Chuck Schumer."

I will be especially curious to see two things: 1) How will a Democratic Senate majority affect the president's judicial nominations, especially if there's a Supreme Court vacancy; and 2) Can the Democrats keep all 51 senators in line to vote against said nominations?

If the answer to the latter is yes, that means the Democrats don't have to filibuster, and the Republicans' cries about how Democrats won't allow an up-or-down vote are pointless. Even the cries about deference to the president -- how Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3 because the Republicans chose to play ball instead of resorting to a filibuster -- will be ignored.

However, if even one Democratic senator (and that includes Joe Lieberman) bails on the caucus, they'll have to filibuster. The GOP hasn't shown the cajónes to make such obstruction a major issue, but they'd better learn how if they hope to regain the majority.