Here is part of the text from Moveon.org's newest anti-Bush screed. This one is about the controvery over the twenty judges renominated by President Bush -- and, as set forth below, it is an exercise in either ignorant or deliberately deceptive rhetoric.

As we write this, the Senate is debating the nomination of mining and cattle industry lobbyist William Myers III for a lifetime appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals -- the second highest court in the land. Myers is the first of 20 nominees Bush has re-submitted in his second term. All 20 repeat nominees were rejected last term by Senate Democrats (as compared to 204 judges they accepted) because these nominees consistently sided with corporate special interests over the rights of ordinary Americans.

The Senate has the power to approve or reject judicial nominations because judges -- above all else -- must be trusted by Americans on all sides to rule fairly. So why does Bush refuse to send new nominees both parties can agree on?

Let's overlook the assertion that the "Circuit Court of Appeals" is "the second highest court in the land." Technically, there are 11 Circuit Courts of Appeals . . . and the D.C. Circuit, not the Ninth (which is what Myers has been nominated to) has been considered the "second highest court in the land." But whatever.

I've bolded the most egregious falsehood. The repeat nominees were NOT rejected last term by Senate Democrats -- they weren't, in fact, voted on. The reason that they were filibustered (i.e., their names were even allowed to be voted on by the Senate) is because they would have been accepted by at least enough Senate Democrats to have been confirmed. President Bush hasn't "refuse[d] to send new nominees both parties can agree on" -- he's merely refused to send up candidates that Schumer, Kennedy et al like. Moderates like Lieberman or Bayh CAN agree with the Republicans on these candidates . . . if Teddy and the rest of the gang would let them vote.