You guys are getting robbed. I mean really. I haven't the time to post here at all, or even finish the ones I've already written, yet I'm making at least three or four comments a day at other blogs. And good stuff too. The original intent of this blog was just to be a storage place for the comments I was making elsewhere, so I'm really screwing you over by not posting anything here. But I always try to make the stuff here even better than the stuff I comment, and I still don't have the time for that. To be honest, I'm not sure I'll have any real time for this blog until the end of the month. But by then, I'm hoping to have enough free time to really let loose with all kinds of crazy stuff to just blow your minds. I have so many posts to be making, but just don't have the time for it. But just to tide you over, I'll repost one of my comments here.
Regarding the Fiscal Conservative's stance on abortion, I wrote a bungled comment over at The Carpetbagger's that I thought I could share with you. Basically, I pointed out that Fiscal Conservatives should want poor people to have abortions, because it lowers their population; thus fewer poor people (and fewer Democrats). Plus, the cost of paying for abortions is cheaper to society than the cost of welfare, medicaid, education, and possible imprisonment of the poor child born into poverty. And that the argument against abortion, from the Fiscal Conservative's perspective, would be that they might want people to be poorer from raising too many kids, and that more poor people makes for a cheaper labor force, due to supply and demand. But overall, I thought the argument was much stronger in support of poor people abortions, and that's why they should support it. So therefore, the primary reason they are against abortion is to buy votes from the Social Conservatives. Of course, I'm strictly referring to the William F. Buckley libertarian-style of conservatives, and not of the cross-overs who are both rich and socially conservative.
I also pointed out that my Supreme Court prediction was that they'd pick someone who was against abortions, but who would support Roe anyway. And that he'd be quite conservative in every other regard. My brief reading on Bush's new nominee has confirmed that prediction. As I argued before, the Republican leadership loves Roe too much to give it up. We won't know until Roberts is confirmed and someone tests Roe, but he did say in his previous nomination hearing that he would not vote against Roe because it was now established legal precedent. And that is namsy-pamsy conservative talk for going against his beliefs. But I feel fairly confident that he won't overturn Roe.
My big mistake in all this was in doubting my predictive abilities by calling it a "longshot". And I called it that because I failed to predict the "legal precedent" argument as a reason to support Roe. But seeing as how Roberts has already given that excuse once before, it'll probably hold this time.
Overall, I think our best bet in all this is to not threaten the filibuster at all, or even suggest a strong opposition. Instead, we need to claim him to be respectably moderate, especially in regards to Roe; while stalling his nomination in the hopes that the far-right will learn to detest him. A quickie nomination can't do that, but if he says enough things to calm liberals and moderates, he should burn enough bridges with Bush's base. But if we scream filibuster on this one, it'll burn the bridges for future attempts. We'll be like the party who cries "wolf", and it will reduce our ability to use it when we really need it. I'm sure the Whitehouse is using similar logic. And it's likely that he's already been vetted with the religious right, so it's unlikely that any strategy can stop him. But they really do have grass-roots under all that monolithic thinking, and it is possible that they won't approve of the guy. Hell, we might even be treated to another Schiavo-style protest outside the hearings. Wouldn't that be exciting. But I think we need to sit this one out, without appearing to be irrelevant.
Of course, this assumes that he doesn't have some nasty skeleton in the closest, in which case he should be obviously rejected. But the little I've read about him says that he's very intelligent, and that's about the best we can hope for with this crowd. No knee-jerk conservatives allowed, but the smart ones can pass.