Great Article at Slate today

http://www.slate.com/id/2122012/

William Saletan makes a good point here about what more than likely will be how Bush will approach the coming Supreme Court nomination fight.

What I take away from this article as relevant for Democrats is that we should appear to fight like hell against whoever Bush nominates, but at the same time ultimately stand united against the nominee but appear gracious by allowing the vote to take place.

With what Saletan says is on the table for the next term, I think it would greatly help the Democrats going into 06 if we ramp up the anti-right wing vote in this country by fighting against a right wing jurist, but ultimately allowing them to take the seat because then in June/July of 06, when Future Justice Crazy Pants either 1) reveals themself to be the right wing loon they are, our base is energized going into the midterms or 2) the Justice turns out to be a moderate, at which point the Right flips out and is demoralized.

Saletan also points out that the polling data on Roe v. Wade shows that 2/3rds of the nation doesn't want Roe overturned, and I almost guarantee that an even greater percentage never want to see abortion criminalized. In such a situation, how could we not benefit from any anti-right wing backlash over the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade? Let the Republicans have their Court! The political backlash against their cherished judicial goals will be more than enough to beat their party back down into the minority.

I dunno, just a thought.

One thing that is a bit confusing about Saletan's position is that he apparently believes that the Right has "won" the abortion debate. Leaving aside the silliness of "winning" a debate in an ongoing democratic process, I fail to see how the right has won the debate when in his own article he mentions that 2/3rds of the nation doesn't want Roe overturned. How can the right "win" when their goal is overturning of Roe, and 2/3rds of the country disagree with that goal?

Curious.