Redstate

The Democrats are fragmenting.  The Democratic Party structure is divided into the center DLC and the radical DNC/Daily Kurse wings, with Hillary trying to straddle both markedly different positions.  Labor just split into rival operational camps, on the fiftieth anniversary of the joining of the AFL and the CIO.  The Liberal MSM are declining.  Pro-abortion groups now cannot decide whether to go with the radical Democrats or the centrists.  

With no common position and no unifying philosophy, you may expect to see further dissention in Democratic ranks.  NARAL is out on the far left flank, screaming at the top of their lungs in support of a position that has less and less importance in the political dialogue, such as it is.  As indicated by the reaction of both Liberals and Conservatives, NARAL's actions will further damage the battered Democratic coalition.

As usual the loud-mouths get the attention, but there is no longer a cohesive and supportive Democratic Party structure to make political capital out of NARAL's whining.  So the main effect will be to draw attention to NARAL's untenable and irrelevant position, casting further doubt on the viability of the Democratic Party.

Our two-party political structure has served us well, but if the Democratic Party structure continues to erode, how long will this last?  What's next?

In one sense, the Democrat's problems are a good thing.  The USA is at a very serious point in the anti-terror drive to create freedom and democracy in the Middle East.  The Liberals have fought President Bush all the way on this, but their influence continues to decline as the Democratic Party disintegrates.  The EU and Russia have also done much to oppose the war on terror, but they have marginalized themselves with their ongoing political and economic problems.  

So I really would like the Democrats, the Europes, and the Russians to solve their problems in favor of freedom and democracy, but not quite yet; wait until President Bush completes the disintegration of the terrorists and terrorist states.

Considering the ad was the worst kind of guilt by association, and was highly misleading, it's not surprising that other Democrats criticized the ad.  The ad could hardly have been more false and malicious without crossing over into actual libel.  

Viewed from another perspective, though, the ad was successful insofar as it drew the center of attention directly on the abortion issue.  And it did so in a way that actually favors pro-abortion activists (since almost no one is in favor of bombing abortion clinics.)  In recent years, pro-abortion activists have been on the defensive over partial birth abortion, the Laci Peterson "fetus is also a victim" laws, and so on.  So this puts them on some ground virtually all pro-life people would agree with - that no matter how wrong abortion is, it's wrong to commit vigilante violence against abortion providers.

However, I doubt if the abortion issue will get any traction against Roberts.  Roberts has been clever enough to keep his abortion views to himself - though hopefully someone on our side knows what they really are (and hopefully we won't be disappointed).

So I'm a bit concerned about a new article by the Washington Times:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050811-121556-2116r_page2.htm

Comments ?

ABC re-ran his interview from years ago.  He was commenting on the various Supreme Court decisions as a conservative commentator.  Based on that,  I think he understands constitutional issues and history and while conservative, I don't think he will run extreme.

Eventually, there is going to have to be a battle in the Republican Party between the serious sensible conservatives and the religious right.  This may be the start of that battle.

While at the bequest of his client he has argued against Roe, I doubt he would vote to end it.  The science just keeps piling up and combined with stare deices, I don't see a ban in Roe's future - some nibbling around the edges perhaps.

On gay right issues, I think he may surprise some here.  Pro-bono work is an indication of interest and his firm had some interest here as I understand it - and so I would suppose since he did the work, he also has some interest.  And as with Roe, the science keeps piling up.  

Lawrence will stay.  Whether the Supreme Court defines marriage as a right of two persons regardless of orientation - I don't know.  If I were a gay person, I would want to put that question off and let the science continue to define the issue.  

The real concern is over business issues.  Will Roberts take an extreme pro business stand on environmental legislation?  He very well might.  I think this is more of an interest to a lot of the lobbyist than the social issues.

I think Roberts goes through without much fanfare.

Stanford

aren't serious or sensible conservatives?

Not sure what you meant by this:  Eventually, there is going to have to be a battle in the Republican Party between the serious sensible conservatives and the religious right.

the ad was way too out there, and was more into demogogery than facts.

This ad is a guilt by association type ad, and to not condemn it would toss too much mud on everyone else.

I think there are plenty sensible and conservative religious people.  Put me in the Goldwater Camp.

Stanford

Santiago, I like your post. First of all, I am getting weary that Democrats feel that Roe v. Wade must be treated like a sacred cow. It was a court decision (and a bad one at that) like all other court decisions of SCOTUS that can be overturned or tweaked anytime they decide to (as new cases and situations come to the fore). I guess I really don't hold stare decisis as a looming sacred cow either. The fact is that many things regarding women's reproduction has changed since the mid 1970's. The moral/ethical questions still remain, but technological advances in these areas such as the abortion pill, the morning after pill, various improved contraceptive methods have changed the face of abortion from what it was since Roe v. Wade was decided. Advanced technology is forcing the issue of reproductive choice more into the hands of the woman in a private manner. There is less and less of a need to resort to a 1970's type abortion procedure. Yet the radical left screams as if it were the 1970's in its demand to keep hands off Roe v. Wade. With time Roe v. Wade as it is written, is not going to make a lot of difference. As I said before, the moral and ethical questions have not changed even though technology has advanced.

   Democrats splitting-- I love it, but I really don't see Republicans as such a well cemented group either. A careful self appraisal must be taken of what is healthy diversity within a party and what may be a schism looming ahead.

The NY Sun had an article this morning about Roberts writing a thesis about Britsh Liberals in the early 20th century. It sort of alludes to Roberts being more of a libertarian, which I have come to believe since the fracas about him helping out fellow lawyers in the Colorado gay rights case surfaced.

Just me;

    There are very sane and sensible religious folk out there, but face it, one would be in denial not to recognize that the religious right has its share of irrational folks. I think it gets down to the word pragmatism. People whose politics are primarily driven by their religious faith usually are not overly concerned about pragmatism. I seriously think it is a question for Republicans to look at sooner than later how this political partnership between social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, neocons, and libertarians will continue to go on without serious fissures.

Well, I'll be disappointed if he is given the opportunity down the road to overturn Roe and doesn't and especially if he doesn't find constitutional the parental notification and partial birth abortion bans.

Personally I didn't like what was done in the Schaivo case by congress (but thats because its the law that your spouse gets to make those decisions).

As far as science helping out the gays in the gay rights issues, I thought that at least the biology was pretty clearly against them (whether you argue creation or evolution as a basis for life).

The question on Roberts will be whether or not, he allows states to regulate marriage I would guess.

As not quite irrational religous conservative, I'm starting to get nervous again -- wondering if Bush has mad a bad choice here.

Whether the Supreme Court defines marriage as a right of two persons regardless of orientation - I don't know. If I were a gay person, I would want to put that question off and let the science continue to define the issue.

how does science determine whether or not marriage between people of the same gender is "natural"? marriage is by definition, a creation of humanity, to be applied how we choose.

here's my idea, maybe a little too extremist: the government can stop endorsing marriages. marriage is, properly, a contract between two people, often endorsed by some kind of formal organized religion. the government's role in the joining of two people has to do with granting civil rights - so do that, and only that. let the US government take its cue from New Zealand. nothing but civil unions there, and thus, there's no discrimination against its citizens.

besides, if two gays affirming their love and joint legal status weakens your marriage in anyway, i dont think you had a strong one to start with. isnt it the very antithesis of love, that more love weakens what already exists?

I also agree the government should be involved in civil unions.  Let the churches decide marriage issues for their flock and government dispense civil unions without discrimination.

imho,

Stanford

I don't think the attack on Roe matters anymore.  Abortion is here forever now.  That genie won't go back in the bottle as I have opined before.

I am more concerned with the right to privacy.  But more than that, the fundamental right to be left alone.  I don't give a hang if the majority agrees with a man or not when there is no substantial state interest involved.  

Democracy like capitlism can run to extremes if left unchecked.

imho,

Stanford