Alito pt 1, and Harry Belafonte, pt 2

Matthew Yglesias writes:

The scant merits of his nomination aside, I think it's unlikely that we'll see a serious anti-Alito effort from Democrats on the Hill. The political judgment going into that strategy may be mistaken (I tend to find the case against a huge fight persuasive, but I could be swung the other way)

He could be swung the other way. Well. I guess that's pretty generous of him.

Taylor Marsh, another new(to me)blogger says of Yglesias:

Judge Samuel Alito is the wrong judge at the wrong time and just because conservatives are in control doesn't mean we shouldn't fight the fight. You never lose ground when you fight for that which you believe, though you may lose a battle or two, you likely will win allies in the longer war.

Many Americans believe the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything but caution, calculation and capitulation.

As evidenced by George W. Bush's victory in 2004, people will even vote for an obstinate, incompetent idiot over any alternative that seems to shift in the blowing wind or someone who won't stand up against something that is just plain wrong (see Kerry caving to the SwiftVet boys).

No wonder we're the minority.

via Avedon, again.

Periodically Arvin Hill and I have talked about a certain line, between the regular lefty bloggers and the ones who've realized that being respectable pundits is within their grasp, and have hopes of making it onto Cokie Roberts's rolodex, and maybe getting invited to swanky beltway parties, etc. (Kevin Drum comes to mind, as sort of the prototype for this second group. Yglesias clearly belongs there too. )


photo via reuters
On the other hand, Harry Belafonte seems less concerned about this. He met with Hugo Chavez recently, and opined that George W. Bush is "the biggest terrorist threat" out there, which immediately resulted in UNICEF piping up that he was speaking as a private citizen and not in his capacity as their ambassador.