July 25, 2005


Opposition to Roberts slow to muster: Nominee's record isn't generating storm of liberals (Rick Klein, July 25, 2005, Boston Globe)

Appellate judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court has caused an early splintering among liberal groups who were geared up for an epic battle against President Bush's nominee, providing momentum to Republican-led efforts to have Roberts quickly confirmed in the Senate.

Among prominent liberal groups, only abortion rights advocates and far-left groups such as MoveOn.org are now opposed to Roberts outright. Others -- including some of the most influential environmental, civil rights, and consumer advocacy groups -- are critical of him but say they will reserve judgment for now.

While powerful interest groups on the political left may ultimately coalesce to oppose him, early indications suggest that Democrats who seek to defeat Roberts cannot depend on the liberal lobbying and financial juggernaut that helped deny conservative Robert Bork a seat on the high court in 1987. [...]

With Republican-allied groups united and stepping up their campaign to see Roberts confirmed by the Oct. 3 start of the next court session, fractures among organizations that have traditionally been allied with Democrats could ease the way for the GOP-controlled Senate to confirm Roberts.

When your party has no core ideas, just a coalition of special interest groups, it's tough to hold together.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 25, 2005 8:27 AM

Texeira's ideas were pretty interesting and their trenchance can be seen in Europe but also in the US under Clinton. Once the Cold War ended with Soviet defeat, there was precious little holding right-of-center coalitions together.

However, after 9/11, national security became important again, and the current crop of Democrats have about as much credibility there as Rutgers does in college football.

Both parties are coalitions of special interest groups. Our electoral system forces them to coalesce. If we had proportional representation, we'd be like the Knesset which has 23 parties for 120 members.

Posted by: bart at July 25, 2005 12:48 PM

Christian conservatives, economic conservatives and libertarians are united, though for different reasons, by the desire to have government cede back certain programs to society.

Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 12:54 PM

And in Israel they'd be in 3 separate parties, at least.

The professional minority activists, the gays, the public sector unions and the Socialists all want to feed out of the public trough. That's enough to unify them. Private sector unions and Socialists want to stamp out competition. Tha''s enough to unify them.

Posted by: bart at July 25, 2005 1:01 PM

Wait, did Old Media use the term "far-left"? Why yes, it did. I thought the style books forbade that.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 25, 2005 1:30 PM


Rick Klein appears on Laura Ingraham all the time, so he probably isn't one of the hive.

Posted by: ratbert at July 25, 2005 3:28 PM