2010 House Election Predictions Seem to Ignore Something...

[Brittain33]

It is a very dangerous situation when you can appoint almost anybody and scare the opposition into retreat b/c they are a women, minority, or both. Stupid identity politics.

I remember a few years ago when Republicans were beating the drum and calling Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Dick Durbin "anti-Catholic" for opposing some of Bush's judges who were Catholic.

[Brittain33]

I think you'd be much better off dumping the social conservatives and adopting a libertarian-lite platform.  That's would be a true return to the GOP's roots in limited government.  The social conservatives are dead weight. 

The social conservatives are a huge number of Americans who provide essential manpower for the Republican Party and whose views have to be represented somewhere. They can't and shouldn't be dumped, any more than the Democrats should have "dumped" pro-choicers and gays in 2004 when that was the common diagnosis for their problems. Republicans need to find a way to keep the social conservatives in the tent while somehow appealing to enough others and that is out of their hands. It's up to social conservatives to accept this role and up to the issues and Democrats to create an opening for Republicans where there is none now.

A libertarian platform for Republicans is appealing to people on the Internet more than the general public. No offense. It's like "let's abolish marriage for all couples, leaving it to the churches and giving civil unions to everyone." It's logically appealing but it's a total loser in actual elections.

[Brittain33]

It is a very dangerous situation when you can appoint almost anybody and scare the opposition into retreat b/c they are a women, minority, or both. Stupid identity politics.

I remember a few years ago when Republicans were beating the drum and calling Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Dick Durbin "anti-Catholic" for opposing some of Bush's judges who were Catholic.

Is that suppose to make it right somehow.

I haven't seen people being called anti-Latino for opposing Sotomayor other than people like Tancredo and Buchanan who seem to genuinely have a problem with her being Latina. The fact is, Republicans can object to her because they don't agree with her views, but otherwise she is unquestionably qualified for the job. When people try to claim she's unqualified because she is Latina and therefore an affirmative action pick, they're essentially saying any minority nominated by a Democrat is going to be unqualified. She's not a Latina Harriet Miers. Republicans disagree with her, but their views lost the election, and so Souter is replaced by a liberal who is a minority on the Court in more ways than one.

I guess I'm saying there's a limit to what Republicans should expect to accomplish with their opposition, just as there was a limit to what Democrats could expect to accomplish from opposing John Roberts. It's not as if her being a woman or a Latina is constraining fair criticism. It's that Republicans, or any legislative minority, does not have a right to win every political battle they wade into.