Read other letters about this article
Well, we're about to see if W will allow himself to be nutted by the wingnuts. Assuming that his embrace of the Republican lunatic fringe is just political expedeincy rather than true conviction, a safe assumption if you ask me, if he nominates a true conservative, the lunatic fringe will have his family jewels in their pocket for the rest of his term. I figure Shrubs only true dedication is to his own power and the corporate greedheads. If so, he'll nominate a corporate legal type who may (or may not) save Roe, but will do all in his or her power to protect corporate America from any kind of accountability. Larry Thompson (General Counsel of Pepsi), anyone?
Just as tellingly, the Democrats are missing a golden oportunity. There are seriously misguided swing voters, who by and large don't pay a lot of attention to politics, who have bought the "no actavist judges" BS hook, line, and sinker. Now is our change to further alientate these voters from the Republicans. The truth is out in the open, if only we'd get on message -- they don't want a fair shake, they don't want a neutral or fair judge. They are only interested in someone who has sold his vote and prejudged the big cases. Call me nieve, but I don't think that's what most people want, at least those who don't eat, drink, and breath politics. (Me, of course, I'd prefer a judge with the appearance of fairness.) But we ought to be sticking all their "litmus test" rhetoric where proctologist will take weeks to find it.
Finally, help comes from unexpected quarters and provides convincing proof that politics makes strange bedfellows. John Danforth, finally getting his craw full of the sanctimonious American taliban that Borked Harriet Miers, has finally come forward and spoken the truth. He's dared to say that the wingnuts have a hammer lock on the Republican party and that's not good for America, nor is it good for the Republican party. I see the stars allined for great things in 2006.