The only problem is that not all Red State voters vote red. Otherwise, you're absolutely right. Anyone who complains about CAFTA (or SCOTUS, or the environment, or the energy bill, or Iraq, etc., etc.) after voting for Bush is a fool. We all knew where a second Bush term was going to take us. It's a little late to start paying attention now.
As I wrote elsewhere in the comments, Roberts easily could easily have written that some beneficiaries of affirmative action programs might be "inadequately prepared candidates". He didn't. Instead, he wrote that affirmative action "required the recruitment of inadequately prepared candidates."
Why would it require such a thing? The only thing affirmative action requires is the recruitment of minority candidates in addition to white males. Roberts' memo clearly stated his opinion that minority candidates are "inadequately prepared candidates."
I considered the fact that there are non-racist (non-sexist, etc.) arguments against affirmative action. You make an interesting one above. But the fact of the matter is that Roberts didn't say "some of the beneficiaries of affirmative action" as you did. He made a blanket generalization about anyone who might benefit from affirmative action policies -- that they are inherently "inadequately prepared" (not "less prepared, as you wrote) than candidates who would not benefit from affirmative action.
You're right about one thing. It would be preposterous to use this as proof that Roberts is a racist. That's something I actually didn't write. Honestly, I don't know his views on racial matters. Assume that Roberts isn't a racist now. Go ahead and assume that he wasn't even a racist then. What I pointed out was an obvious prejudice evident in his opinion. There's really no way around it when you think hard about what he wrote.
Forget Roberts' record. It's bad, but that isn't the point. Right now, the most important point is that Roberts is a liar. He's repeatedly said he didn't belong to the Federalist Society. And now here's the proof that he did. That's a lie.
Even if Team W wants to get cute and say that Roberts merely said that he doesn't remember being a member of the Federalist Society, that's still cause for concern. Shouldn't a young man being nominated to the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment remember being a member of an organization merely six or seven years ago?
So either Roberts is a liar or he's unable to recall relatively important facts about his life. Either way, that would indicate to me that he's not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.
The other day, I posted a story on Pete Ashdown, a Democratic candidate for Senate in Utah. I actually became aware of Ashdown after reading about him at BoingBoing.net, a site that Cory Doctorow contributes to. Cory didn't write the Ashdown post, but he's one of the regulars. If you aren't already reading the site on a regular basis, you're missing out. It's great, great stuff, especially if you're interested in the world of copyfighters and the open source/Creative Commons movement.
Just to follow up, based on my extremely unscientific polling of family, friends, co-workers, etc., I've encountered quite a few Republicans in my home state who will likely vote for Corzine. I know much of this has to do with Corzine's private-sector credentials as the CEO of Goldman Sachs. They compare Corzine to a guy like Forrester who, for all of his rhetoric about being a businessman, is really just a life-long politician -- asst. state treasurer, pension director, and mayor. It's really bizarre for Forrester to run against Corzine as a Trenton outsider when he's the consumate insider. Even many Republicans aren't buying it.
Wow. I'm very nearly rendered speechless by the inanity.
Even if we were to accept the absurd up-is-down premise that Joe Wilson secretly knew that Iraq really was pursuing yellowcake from Africa and was lying about it for some unknown reason, it's not just the Democrats who embraced him. It's also the CIA, the Justice Department, and the special prosecutor's office who took up the case. But I guess they're just "regurgitating Dem talking points" as well.
While I think we all need to do much more homework on Roberts, it's really silly to say that criticism of Roberts is off-base just because Lawrence Tribe has said nice things about him.
I honestly don't know what to make of Roberts on Roe. But we should definitely be very concerned about Roberts, particularly about his record on laws that relate to both the environment and criminal justice. Also a matter of concern is the fact that he's a member of the far-right Federalist Society. And let's not forget the fact that this guy's been a judge for only two years -- don't think that's not intentional. Short tenure as judge means little evidence of his possible, if not probable, extremism.
While all of the talking heads are parroting the point that he's hugely qualified, I'm not so sure about that.
Wow! Thanks for the kind words. Rest assured, though DemWatch will be going dark soon, I will be posting more than just election info here at MyDD. For example, right now I'm burning my eyes out on the laptop, researching John Roberts, trying to add something to the fray that hasn't already been written. Are any Democrats going to sleep tight tonight? Not likely.
I'd imagine that his work for his new cable network would indicate that he's not going to run. Still, I'll never forget the oft-reported story that on election-eve 2004, he commented to a staffer that if he lost, he'd be the same age in 2008 that Richard Nixon was when he ran for President for the second time in 1968.