So I'm browsing along, minding my own business, when I see a diary from a fairly big voice on the left ripping Elena Kagan for not being as far to left as, say, Scalia is to the right. The argument goes that Bush moved the ball 80 yards to the right on dozens of issues (football analogies, my favorite), and Obama is crowing over 10 to the left.
Maybe I don't understand sports, but doesn't 10 get you a first down?
Look, Bush did push things hard right. Extremely hard right. And it cost his party massively. That's what happens whether you're making real progress on the left, as Johnson did when he 'lost us the South', or whether you're pushing a hard right agenda. Depending on luck and skill and a thousand factors, you may get what you want, but 80 yard pass is no good if the other team is going to be dominating the next 4 quarters.
I tend to agree that Obama could be more bold on a number of issues. And like anyone with opinions, I think I'm right. But if I've gotta choose between a big Progressive push for one year (the length of time we had our 60), or an end to the Reagan Revolution and the beginning of 30 years of relatively good governance, I'll take that and sleep soundly.
How's this relate to Elena Kagan in particular? Thus:
If Roe v Wade is defended vehemently by 4 proud Progressive judges, that will not stop 5 Conservative judges from overturning it.
If Roe v Wade is defended vehemently by 3 proud Progressives, 1 terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad Centrist (*gasp*) with a known penchant consensus building, and 1 grudgingly convinced Justice Kennedy, well I call that a win.
80 yards comes to precious little if you don't make it into the in-zone.
***Edited for an embarrassing and obvious error: I'm hyped up on Dayquil and home from work, forgive me***