Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Roberts Helped Pro-Gay Rights Coalition in Key Case (167 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  FOCUS (none)
    It doesn't matter to us what Roberts' position is on gay rights.

    It matters that he worked pro-bono on an important gay rights case in direct opposition to the most strongly held belief of many of his most ardent supporters.

    His nomination is not in any kind jeopardy from the attacks from the left. It likely won't be from the right either.

    But this is a perfect, no-brainer opportunity to wedge the Dobsonites within the GOP. There is no downside to pushing this. It is unlikely he will be defeated - but it will stoke intra-party sniping on the one single issue (SCOTUS) that matters to the fundies. Like I said, a no-brainer. If you think this doesn't hold such potential, then hold your nose, venture into freeperland and see what they're already saying. It does. And even if it doesn't pan out that way, there's no downside for us here. Increasing doubt on their side is the way to go here.

    "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me... they gave me the name and I used it." - Novak, Newsday, 7/22/03

    by thirdparty on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:30:08 AM PDT

    •  on the other hand... (none)
      his apparent interpretation of the commerce clause makes me very nervous. That is the linch-pin that holds a great deal of our federal environmental and labor regulations.
    •  possible (none)
      Whenever possible, the Democrats should try to play up any issues that might wedge one part of the Rethug party coalition away from others.

      We've got to remember this is not a monolithic block we are opposing.  And not all "conservatives" believe the same thing.  

      There are several strong factions within the Rethug party.  The American Taliban types are only one of these.

      The Rethugs have the same problems holding their coalition together, as the Democrats do try to keep lefty Green anarchist types like myself in their tent.

      And, there is a repeating cycle in politics.  At this stage of Presidency's 2nd term, coalitions tend to fly apart.  This isn't some mystical theory based on where the stars are, it has to do with some basic political realities.

      -- When a President gets re-elected, every part of the coalition thinks now is the time for them to cash in.  Most likely they've been muting their views to get the President elected the first time and then re-elected.  Plus each coalition will tend to believe they were the key reason their side just one a close election.  (Ie, look for Bush to have the same problem with parts of his coalition that the lefty, green anarchist types like me gave the Clinton administration).

      -- Second, when a President hasn't been feeding enough bones to a part of their coalition, now is the time they start saying what the heck.  (Like a lefty, green, anarchist like me asking what the heck is Clinton doing passing Welfare Reform, NAFTA, WTO, a war in Yugoslavia, a war in Colombia, etc).

      -- Third, right about now everyone starts manuevering to see who is going to succeed the sitting President.  Loyalty will start to shift from supporting their President to supporting their own bids to be the next President.  The Rethugs probably all feel they can win the next election (yep, we've got a surprise waiting for them, right?).  And they feel their particular part of the coalition is the key part of past victories.

      There's probably more I can add to that list, but that's enough to get the picture.

      Basically, anything the Democrats can do to drive wedges and exploit differences between the various parts of the Republican coalition is a good thing.  If it really works, you could see for instance the American Taliban types splitting off and running yet-another-3rd-party candidate.  At worst, it adds tension and conflict, and maybe gets the American Taliban types asking how much they should support a nominee they don't really agree with (like the anti-war faction asking how much they should support the pro-war, send-more-troops position of Kerry, Hillary et al).

      We've got to remember that not all "conservatives" are the same.  Its kinda become like "country music".  The term conservative becomes a catch all phrase that everyone (on that side at least) wants to claim for themself.  But the American Taliban are different from the main-street small businessmen, who are different from the wall-street financiers who are different from the neo-cons, etc, etc, etc.

      We've got to know the differences.  And exploit them whenever possible.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site