An abbreviated blog today, since I'll be out Wednesday. Still a lot of grumbling coming from you all about the "compromise" forged by 14 Senators over the judicial nominees — and the fact that the ability to filibuster, say, a Supreme Court (search) nominee, remains intact:
I understand that in the past the filibuster-er actually had to talk for the whole time. Presently they do not have to. Why not make them filibuster as they did in the past? I think fewer would do it if they had to talk for the whole time.
—Robert C. Amstutz, Bluffton, Ohio
Oh, how I wish you were right, Robert. But I have seen legislators who can speak for minutes on end before even TAKING A BREATH. The whole reason why some (many?) of them got into politics in the first place is that they love to hear themselves talk... know what I mean?
Also — some feedback on the stem cell debate, which you heard on “DaySide” Tuesday. Two bills in the House and lots of disagreement, with one e-mailer's solution:
Disallow any and all federal funds from being used for stem cell research. This placates those who have a moral issue. Allow contributions to companies that do stem cell research to be 50 percent includable in charitable contributions for tax purposes. This allows those who support stem cell research to put their money where their hearts are and deflect what would otherwise be their taxes to a cause they support.
— Pete Mohle, Fairfax, Virginia
Pete, I assume you're talking about embryonic stem cell research, but what about the stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood? Seems like a no-brainer that we could fund expanded research in that direction in the meantime... no?
See you all Thursday—
Watch "DaySide with Linda Vester" weekdays at 1 p.m. ET
Send your comments to email@example.com.