Author Page for Scott Lemieux

I Hated Me Some of That Movie

Amanda, by IDing my top choice, reminds me that I’m never one to turn down a pointless list, so I might as well get to it. My one condition, which seems implicit, is that the movie have some reputation for quality; otherwise, how are you going to piss people off? Generally, to hate a movie it has to be more than inept. So, a few movies I’ve always hated:

Natural Born Killers Saw it at the opening night of the Monteal Film festival, leading to an intense public argument with friends who considered it a masterpiece. Exemplified what it’s allegedly satirizing. But will be very instructive for those of you who were unaware that tabloids cover the news somewhat differently than the National Journal.

Dances With Wolves I can’t top Pauline Kael: “This film was made by a bland megalomaniac. They should have called him ‘plays with camera.’”

Pretty Woman I admit, this movie is so creepily misogynist it brings out the left-Medvedite even in me. But having said that, from D.H. Lawrence to the Rolling Stones to Phillip Roth to Spike Lee I’ve admired the work of countless artists who have serious issues with women; aesthetic quality makes up for a lot. Needless to say, that’s not an issue here. (Honorable mention: True Lies. Worse than the grossness of the sexism is that is stops the movie dead for a significant period of time to engage in it.)

Dead Poet’s Society Prettily made, and taps into a particular teenage solipsism so ruthlessly, that many seem not to notice that it’s conceived and written on the level of an after-school special, particularly with respect to its one-dimensional morality play; the evil parents and teachers anticipate Sean Hannity’s books about liberals.

Before Sunrise Perhaps not the worst movie I’ve ever seen, but certainly way, way up there on the pretention-to-achievement ratio. Boring as church, too.

Absolute Power There are some people who consider Clint Eastwood the country’s pre-eminent filmmaker. I would like to think that they haven’t seen this.

The Rock There seems to be some impression that Michael Bay is unfairly picked on, because he makes good popcorn movies. But the thing is, he doesn’t. The action sequences are completely inept (and as pretentious as any art-house wanker), edited to draw attention to the technique while not giving you any sense of where people are or what’s happening. Plus, this movie was the one millionth to feature an interminable car chase through the streets of San Fransisco; I expected to see Walter Matthau behind the wheel.

Batman Forever The movie that turned me into the kind of person satirized in The Squid and the Whale; after being dragged to it has become almost impossible to convince me to see “event movie” Hollywood product absent some promise of cash or sexual favors. Like paying 10 bucks to watch a 2-hour McDonald’s commercial. Runner up: Independence Day.

Mallrats/Chasing Amy/Dogma Please don’t make me choose among Kevin Smith movies. Dogma is the most pretentious and dull, while Chasing Amy and Mallrats are where to go for arch misogyny, and also feature Mr. Smith’s exceptionally annoying and untalented significant other.

The Sound of Music That ain’t music; it’s the sound of me puking. Runner-up: West Side Story.

On the other hand, since it shows up on virtually everybody’s list I’m contrarian enough to note that I kinda like The English Patient. Haven’t seen The Talented Mr. Ripley.

…in comments, Matt asks about the source of Bay revisionism. The ur-text is this Slate article, which hauls out every bad argument I’ve ever heard on the subjetct. (Particularly specious is his point that “[i]n fact, patching a bunch of quick cuts together is a massive undertaking in the editing room.” So it is. And then, making a good-looking commercial requires a lot of technical skill too. So what?) Note too that The Island scores a 50 at Metacritic and The Rock a 59, (Ebert is a fan of both, calling the latter “first-rate”) –pretty generous for genre pictures of no aesthetic distinction (scroll down the list on the left and you’ll note that these are certainly not films the critics generally hated.) And note that Pearl Harbor–which in my experience even Bay’s apologists won’t defend–got a fairly large number of respectful notices from major critics, with outright pans a minority. Critics have generally treated him far more generously than he deserved, and his movies are hardly the cultural touchstones that, say, Lucas’ are.

…I don’t know how I could have forgotten Braveheart.

Why Faux Won’t Show The Alito Ad

Lindsay and the Carpetbagger Report note that Fox News has rejected an ad critical of Alito. What’s puzzling is exactly why the ad was pulled–the Yahoo article doesn’t say. Lindsay assumes that it’s the (completely accurate) strip search reference. Justin Gardner, working from the same article, claims (without saying where he’s getting it from) that the problem with the ad is in the claim that Alito “ruled to make it easier for corporations to discriminate,” and defends Fox because he thinks the claim is “isn’t correct.” But the argument about discrimination is of course substantively accurate. Alito, in fact, has interpreted anti-discrimination law in a way that would make it considerably harder to bring suits against corporations, and this would by definition make it easier for corporations to discriminate. So what’s the problem? PFAW has the answer:

Fox News told IndependentCourt.org that it would not run the ad because it uses the words “ruling” and “voted” in reference to a dissenting opinion issued by Alito as a federal circuit judge.

So the problem–which Gardner is, perhaps unintentionally, quite misleading about–is not any substantive claim about his jurisprudence, but some technicalities. And, yes, it is technically inaccurate to say that he “ruled” about employment discrimination in Bray v. Marriot Hotels, since the opinion referenced here was so illogical and wingnutty it was a dissent, and not a controlling opinion (so his opinion thankfully could not “rule.”) The same it true, of course, about Groody. Complaining about the use of the word “vote” is even more trivial hair-splitting; it’s obvious what it means in context, and I don’t think it’s inaccurate at all. As PFAW notes, both descriptions are common ways of describing opinions in the media. Does anybody think that this use of terms would have caused any problems if it was a pro-Alito ad? But, at any rate, apparently even Faux isn’t claiming that the ad is substantively inaccurate, because it isn’t, although its refusal of the ad will create that impression. Which I’m sure is the point.

Unsought Responsibility

Shorter Antonin Scalia (R-USSC): “As soon as the “Gore people” had the nerve to file for the recount they were legally entitled to, we has no choice but to put an end to it by issuing a flagrantly unprincipled opinion overturning a state court’s interpretation of state law in order to ensure the legitimacy of our preferred candidate.”

Law And Politics in the Supreme Court

I see that Ann Althouse is again accusing anybody who disagrees with her about Samuel Alito’s nomination of undermining “the rule of law and the legitimacy of the courts.” Implicit here is the claim that the public legitimacy of courts is tied to the use of grand theory in legal reasoning, a claim which has the disadvantage of not being supported by any evidence. (I’m also puzzled: if originalism is such a publicly popular theory of jurisprudence, why are Alito and many of his defenders–including Althouse–falling over themselves to deny that he is a principled originalist like Thomas? I’d ask Robert Bork…) But then, of course, I’m just a liberal who believes that people don’t have rights, especially the most precious rights of all: you know, your right to be strip-searched without a valid warrant, your right to be sexually harassed at work, your state’s right to steal your copyright without having to pay damages, all the core freedoms at the heart of the liberal tradition.

Her strawman demolition does, however, remind me to comment about this recent post at Balkinization. It must be said that Tamanaha’s post is not a strawman; there are some political scientists who do indeed adopt a very strong version of legal realism. Jeffrey Segal, whose new book Tamanaha discusses, co-wrote the most influential political science book on judicial behavior of the recent decades, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Segal and Spaeth argued that judicial decisions are effectively predicted by the political attitudes of the justice, with legal reasoning being mere ex post facto rationalization. Now, I don’t entirely disagree with their findings. Indeed, I think when you boil things down to their central thesis: that outcomes of votes on the merits in Supreme Court cases generally fall along predictable ideological lines–it’s largely correct. However, there are some major limitations to this way of thinking that are familiar to those who know the literature, and the data Segal and Spaeth adduce quite clearly cannot justify the fairly crude version of legal realism that they infer from it. I’ll summarize what I see as the two most significant problems. (I distinguish this from the more modest legal realist argument that law cannot be entirely separated from politics and that judges do not mechanically apply the law, which I think is self-evidently true.)

The first problem is that there’s a good deal of slipperiness in terms of defining a political attitude–is it a legal policy preference, or a political policy preference, or a partisan preference? The problem can be illustrated with the Supreme Court’s recent Raich decision. If the relevant attitudes are about legal policy (and as I read their model, that’s what they’re talking about), then the model works quite well: every justice but Scalia and Kennedy adhered to their long-standing preferences with respect to the Commerce Clause. But by the same token, if what’s relevant are the political policy outcomes–if judges are just “politicians in robes”–then the model gets as many as 7 of the 9 votes wrong. O’Connor, at least, suggests in her dissent that the state marijuana initiatives were bad policy, while Stevens implied in subsequent public statements that he though the law he upheld is a bad one, and it seems like a fair guess that Scalia and Kennedy support the federal drug law (with Thomas, I’m less sure, although his jurisprudence on federalist issues has been quite consistent.) So, oddly, an outcome that proves that many justices do adhere to their legal principles even when confronted with an outcome they dislike is used be some political scientists to advance a claim that the law doesn’t matter. With respect to Bush v. Gore, although Segal and Spaeth disagree it seems to me that if coded as an equal protection case the attitudinal model gets every vote wrong; the case was particularly bad because the majority voted their partisan preferences, as opposed to legal policy preferences.

But, of course, these cases are somewhat unusual–most cases are fairly easy to code, and in general there’s significant consonance between political and legal policy preferences. The bigger problem is the extent to which confining the model to Supreme Court outcomes on the merits, which in itself concedes a great deal of importance to law. First of all, Supreme Court justices–as Segal and Spaeth concede–generally weed out legally unambiguous cases, which is in itself a very important way in which the law constrains the ability of judges to impose political preferences. In addition, the attitudinal model tells us nothing about why a vote on the merits comes down to any 2 particular outcomes, as opposed to 2 others. If judges were merely “politicians in robes,” than Scalia’s abortion jurisprudence should consist of reading fetal personhood into the 14th Amendment, rather than simply permitting the states to legislate. It also doesn’t explain why the courts avoid cases they could take–it is almost certain that the most of the judges on the Supreme Court in 1971 were strongly opposed to the Vietnam War, but only Douglas wanted to take the cases suggesting that the war was unconstitutional. And, of course, lower courts are much more constrained than the Supreme Court (and while with respect to the public it’s results that matter, for lower courts the content of the Court’s reasoning certainly matters a lot.) So even if one accepts the validity of Segal and Spaeth’s data, it simply cannot support the kind of legal realist argument sometimes inferred from it; it just doesn’t (and cannot) prove that judges are political actors completely unconstrained by law.

To say that Supreme Court justices are merely “politicians in robes,” then, is just as untenable as a formalist arguing that judges can somehow avoid exercising significant discretion when interpreting frequently vague statutes or broad, abstract Constitutional provisions. Judges certainly do exercise discretion, in ways that are related (although not simply reducible to) political preferences, and unlike Althouse I think it’s appropriate for the Senate and not just the President to take these into account, and nor does pointing this out mean that you’re against “the rule of law” or believe that people don’t have rights. But this certainly doesn’t mean that the law is just politics, or that there is little difference between a Supreme Court justice and a legislator. The law certainly does matter, both as a constraint and as a constitutive part of a judge’s thinking. I don’t oppose Samuel Alito’s nomination because I believe he will simply use legal materials as a means of rationalizing simply policy preferences; I oppose him because I disagree with the theories and inclinations–the complex mix of legal and political judgments–that he will use when exercising the significant discretion that a Supreme Court justice has.

Russell And Casey

Russell Arben Fox has a typically thoughtful response to my recent post about Bob Casey and abortion politics. You should read the whole thing. I have a couple quick comments related to Casey and abortion specifically, and another comment that is more broadly applicable. On the former, I should first of all say that if the race, as it almost certainly will, comes down to Casey vs. Santorum, then of course pro-choice progressives should support Casey. Even from the standpoint of reproductive freedom, it’s a wash from a direct standpoint, and the more seats the Dems get in the Senate the better. (I also take no position on the primary; making the electability/ideological compatibility tradeoffs requires more local knowledge than I posses.) Secondly, I’d like to repeat a distinction that I think I’ve made before: I think it is clearly possible for someone to be a progressive feminist and opposed to abortion, and even to favor some regulations. I do not, however, think that a feminist can plausibly support laws that criminalize abortion as they are actually written and enforced. As a quick comparison of Latin American and Canadian abortion rates will make clear, criminalization is a very ineffective method of discouraging abortions, and also carries with it all kinds of negative externalities (the most important ones being the death and maiming of poor women.) So while compromises that lower abortion rates are certainly possible, I agree that where abortion bans (whether total or partial) are concerned I’m just not willing to compromise, barring some massive cultural shifts. And even where lesser regulations are concerned, I would urge anti-abortion feminists to think very carefully about the effects and class implications of such regulations.

On a broader point about Alito, I think there’s a very important distinction to be made with respect to this comment:

Casey’s silence regarding Alito, if it isn’t just canny campaign politics, may represent nothing more than a general faith that socially responsible reforms need not come to an abrupt end even if the Supreme Court does become even more unfriendly to progressive politics than it is today–in fact, such an occurance might turn out to be a helpful step in getting Democrats to take popular, grass-roots legislation more seriously.

I think it’s very important to be clear about this. I should emphasize that I would be perfectly willing to do without judicial supremacy, although I’m not willing to unilaterally disarm (and I certainly still maintain my position that social changes achieved through the courts don’t create more opposition than those obtained elsewhere). But much of Alito’s jurisprudence is problematic not because he will refuse to go along with creating new rights, but because he will make legislatively created rights much harder to enforce. The awful “sovereign immunity” jurisprudence that he almost certainly supports, for example, makes it much more difficult for state employees to get legislatively-created rights (such as the ADA) enforced. Even worse from this standpoint is the extent to which he would make it much harder for employees to sue under anti-discrimination laws. It’s very important not to fall into this trap: Alito’s elevation to the bench would not decrease the Court’s role in American society, or undermine judicial supremacy, or make it easier for liberals to pursue legislative change. Rather, Alito represents a part of the classic conservative bait-and-switch in which broad readings of the constitutional clauses to protect minority rights are “judicial activism,” but when liberals go the Congress the laws are found to be outside of Congress’ power, or made extremely difficult to enforce by the executive and judicial branches. And this is why it’s so disturbing that Casey will not oppose Alito’s nomination. Rights are only relevant if there are effective remedies. Enforcing protection for workers is already very difficult; employees generally have many fewer resources and much less knowledge (and security) than their employers. The last thing we need is to make it even more difficult for employees to enforce their rights. Supporting a judge who supports the “New Federalism” and is hostile to lawsuits brought under anti-discrimination statutes will make the problems Russell describes worse, not better.

Ten Pro-War Fallacies

Good post by Daou.

I Do Not Think That Means What You Think It Means

Wow–Todd Zywicki called P.Z. Myers a “Lysenkoist” because he was arguing against Scott Adams’ ID apologism. And apparently the basis for this charge is…P.Z.’s critical remarks about the pseudo-science of evolutionary psychology! Um, between evolution and tautological just-so stories about the innate inferiority of women, I think it’s pretty obvious which one actually fits the model of politically-motivated distortions of science…

The Alito Kabuki

I’ve noted several times that according to many conservatives apparently the gravest insult of Samuel Alito is to point out that he agrees with them. Dahlia Lithwick has the finest distillation of this pathetic phenomenon that I’ve seen yet:

So, here we have a lawyer putting forth a legal opinion on a constitutional matter, and now he and his supporters seek to reduce it to the functional doctrinal equivalent of, “You simply must tell me what’s in this artichoke dip.”

[..]

Might it be that your calls for this big old national bull session over activist judging are as cynical and results-based as the holding in Roe that you so revile? Could it be that the national polls—which indicate robust support for Roe and strong opposition to justices who’d reverse it—have rendered this conversation too dangerous? Or is it the prospect of the national backlash that would follow from actually reversing Roe that has rendered you speechless? Aren’t you eager, finally, to defend the GOP platform, which overtly promises that the president will appoint judges who will defend the “sanctity of life” and overturn Roe? Or are your notions of scrupulous judicial purity less compelling in the cold light of political reality?

[...]

Conservatives have argued that there is a double standard at work here, that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed despite her “radical” espousal of abortion, polygamy, and other mad notions. But of course, besides the fact that so many of the claims made about Ginsburg’s views are false or distorted, Ginsburg was willing to discuss her views of abortion and women’s rights quite openly. Also, her views were in line with the law. What part of her confirmation hearing makes it acceptable to retreat to smoke signals when the nominee opposes Roe?

A few weeks back, I optimistically suggested that the death of the Harriet Miers nomination also spelled the death of coded speech about abortion. I asserted that the GOP base that had scuttled her confirmation would no longer accept coded messages about Roe. But here’s the flip side: Movement conservatives will no longer accept coded messages about nominees and Roe, but they are not brave enough to send clear ones when it matters the most.

This couldn’t be more right. To all the conservatives who (when a Supreme Court nomination isn’t pending) say that eveyone knows that Roe is bad law, or that the Court is usurping “the will of the people” or whatever, here’s a potentially pivotal nomination–put up or shut up. (And liberals who are “weary” of defending Roe may want to pay attention to the way Alito and so may of his supporters studiously try to dodge the issue. What does this tell you?)

Serendipity

Last weekend I intended to see Capote, but the E train was running roughly once every two hours, and always wary of being tempted by the Krispy Kreme across the street from the theater in Chelsea I didn’t leave enough time, and got there way late. So instead we decided to see The Squid and the Whale, and it was a lucky break; to say “best” would perhaps sound too objective for a movie of admittedly narrow interest, so let’s say it’s far and away my favorite movie of the year so far. A co-blogger once noted that should I become a father–God forbid for all potential parties concerned!–my children would certainly have such useful skills as the ability to properly rank Lynch somewhat below Scorsese. So early in the movie when the teenage son asked his washed-up novelist father about being assigned to read A Tale of Two Cities and he replied by noting that it was “minor Dickens, not nearly as rich as Great Expectations or David Copperfield” I knew I was hooked. (And when later on he’s taking the kids to the movies and insists on Blue Velvet rather than Short Circuit, or when the young woman flirting with his son expresses her admiration for Tender is the Night and he notes that it’s second-rate, far below Gatsby and if only he had finished The Last Tycoon…it was like they were putting my life up on screen, providing the pleasure of recognition if also being depressing. If you’re not a wanker but know one, even better!) The movie is remarkably perceptive about family relations and teenage ambitions and romantic self-sabotage, consistently funny while also being affecting. And the acting is, of course, wonderful. Linney’s brilliance is no surprise–there’s no better actor working in American film right now–but Daniels is a revelation. Anna Paquin basically plays a more fleshed-out version of her character from 25th Hour 4 years later, but she’s good at it, and all of the teenage actors score (special kudos to Halley Feiffer). It is, as I said, a picture of somewhat narrow appeal, but if the story has any interest you’ll love it.

This Saturday, having squandered an opportunity to see the ecstatically reviewed revival of Sweeney Todd as the result of my sheer idiocy, I decided to make up for it by seeing Walk the Line, hoping for another lead-into-gold opportunity. And actually the movie was better than I was expecting. Accept the strictures of the middlebrow biopic for what they are and it definitely works, and obviously this biography is an interesting one. To be sure, there are flaws. A.O. Scott is right that there’s not enough about the creation of his music. And while the decision to re-record the classics rather than mime them is defensible, you definitely lose something–when Cash puts on “Highway 61 Revisted”, hearing one of the handful of American popular musicians even more accomplished than Cash at his peak reminds us of the difference between the real thing and the decent simulations we’ve been hearing. And some of the big set pieces–the audition for Sam Phillips, the onstage proposal–feel too TV movieish. (For all I know, the latter is historically accurate, but it still seems phony.) And yet, I don’t think any of these weaknesses end up being major–the goodwill generated by Cash, both man and music, overpowers the flaws most of the time. The strength of the movie is that for the most part it doesn’t lurch from one set piece to the next, and the small scenes are generally effective. (Consider the casual cruelty conveyed in the brief scene where he insists on nailing pictures of June Carter to the wall in his workshop, for example; there are a lot of moments like this, powerful and telling without overelaboration.) And, again, the acting does what it has to do. For some reason I’m always surprised when Reese Witherspoon is good, but actually she’s a fine actor, and in this movie she’s ideally cast; her performance deserves its accolades. And Phoenix does valiant work with an impossible job. He doesn’t have the voice and (to his credit) doesn’t really try to imitate the master. But he always conveys Cash’s stolidity and his demons, and singing aside his ability to inhabit Cash’s complex stage persona is quite remarkable. It’s not a great movie, but better than such movies usually are. (And I’ll probably be able to talk my family into seeing ST when they come next month, so it will be win-win.)

In other movie news, I don’t really want to discourage anyone from seeing it, but I have to say I didn’t particularly care for Good Night and Good Luck. As a technical achievement, it’s impeccable, but I have a large prejudice against position-paper reading and easy morality conflicts in art, and this movie is loaded with ‘em. (Oddly, while one might think that McCarthyism would be a good subject it’s almost impossible to make a good movie directly about it, precisely because there’s really nothing to admire in McCarthy.) Clooney is a real director though; his first two movies are both failures, but both failed in interesting and very different ways. He has a great movie in him, but alas this ain’t it.

So, So Over

Yeah, I know, it’s my fault for watching. But it’s painful to think what The Simpsons would have done with the California recall at its peak. As opposed to now, when it wedges it in to a lame plot where Homer tries to regain Lisa’s love for the upteenth time, and features only one short speech from Rainer Wolfcastle. And I can’t even say that Fox should cancel it, given that it’s still markedly superior to the show that follows it, which seems to be for people who find Adam Carolla uproariously funny but insufficiently misogynist.

On the other hand, now that Veronica Mars has come out for The Big Lebowski I’m officially a fan…

Slow Trainwreck Coming

Brad R. has a fine roundup of some of the more obscure wingnuts on MondalePlutoNash62Mets Media (TM). And yet, I don’t think any of them can quite reach the heights of this comment from more established OSM (TM) wingnut Dean Esmay, discovered by a commenter at Open Source Poor Man:

I still believe that George W. Bush was the only progressive liberal running for President in 2000, and have no regrets whatsoever in having voted for him.

Well, a conception of “progressive liberalism” that excludes Al Gore but includes Bush’s combination of selectively applied cultural auhtoritarianism and use of the public fisc as a giant kickback operation for monied interests is certainly, ah, unique. (And remember: this is in the 2000 campaign, when Bush was running as an anti-nation-building realist, so he doesn’t even have the alleged relationship between the Iraq War and expanding liberalism to fall back on.) But think of the great OSM stories we have to look forward to:

• “I Still Believe James McReynolds Was the Only Progressive Liberal on the Supreme Court in 1936.”
• “I Still Believe That George Wallace Was the Only Progressive Liberal Running For President in 1968.”
• “I Still Believe That William Taft Was the Only Progressive Liberal, and the Only Thin Man, Running For President in 1912.”
• “I Still Believe That Tom Coburn is the Only Progressive Liberal in the United States Senate.”
• “I Still Believe That Zell Miller is the Only Progressive Liberal in the Democratic Party.”
• “I Still Believe That Ringo Was the Only Talented Songwriter the Beatles Had.”
• “I Still Believe That George Pipgras Was the Only Quality Hitter on the 1927 Yankees.”

That’ll show the MSM!

The Self-Pity of the Pro-Life Democrat

There are a lot of irritating things about Peter Boyer’s recent New Yorker article about Robert Casey’s Senate bid in Pennsylvania. Now, to be clear, I believe that politics is strategic and the art of the possible. I’m all for doing what you have to do to get Rick Santorum out of the Senate, and while an anti-choice President is unacceptable it may be tolerable in some legislators depending on the context. Still, the article hits pretty much every piece of specious conventional wisdom on the subject–assuming without evidence that abortion is a particularly bad issue for Democrats, focusing on lost voters without focusing on voters gained, and discussing Casey Sr. being denied a speech at the 1992 convention while conveniently omitting that Casey Sr. wouldn’t endorse Clinton. But this passage really is particularly infuriating:

What galls Democrats like Tim Roemer is that, even though the Republican core is as doctrinaire on abortion as the Democratic base is, Republicans have managed to create an impression of tolerance for differing opinions within the Party. “As the nineteen-nineties progressed, the Republicans, at least symbolically, became more of the big-tent party, with pro-choice governors, mayors, people like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger, highlighting their versatility on this issue,” Roemer says. “The Democratic Party veered toward putting the flaps down on the tent. They’re steered more by some of these special-interest groups, and, not being able to elect some of the pro-life Democrats in districts, we lost to Republicans.” Roemer speaks from unhappy experience. A few weeks after Kerry gave his talk to America Votes, and as Schumer was trying to sell Party activists on the idea of the pro-life Casey, Roemer launched a campaign to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He ran on a platform of national security (he had served on the 9/11 Commission), tolerance of differing views on abortion, and a return to traditional Democratic values. He pointed to the fact that Democrats had lost ninety-six of the hundred fastest-growing counties in the nation–an unpromising trend for a party trying to regain majority status. Roemer was vigorously opposed by pro-choice activists, who lined up behind Howard. Dean’s successful candidacy. “I had some pretty piercing and nasty opposition research done on me in the D.N.C. race that I don’t think the Republicans had done quite so well in my six races for the House of Representatives,” Roemer says.

What a bunch of nonsense. First of all, as I’ve discussed before, you would think that the GOP’s ability to convey the false impression that they’re a “big tent” on abortion while the Democrats are extremists (although the Democratic position isn’t so unpopular that it has to tell its Supreme Court nominees to avoid the subject) just arose in a vacuum. In fact, it happens because dumbass Vichy Democrats like Roemer keep doing things like talking about token speeches at the GOP convention that didn’t mention abortion at all and were made by non-national politicians (one of whom needed a special election because he wouldn’t have been able to win a Republican primary in one of the most liberal states in the country.) And imply that Democrats have some universal pro-choice litmus test while ignoring the fact that the most powerful Democratic politician in the country is pro-life–and even as strident a pro-choicer as I think he’s done a great job–while nobody in the Republican congressional leadership is pro-choice. And wonder why the abortion debate is being fought on Republican-chosen terrain while they fail to mention that the Republican platform endorses a (very unpopular) constitutional amendment that would make abortion first-degree murder in all fifty states.

But there’s another problem here. Roemer, truly the wanker’s wanker, continues to boo-hoo about his being denied the chairmanship of the DNC. What Boyer is allowing Roemer to imply is that he’s a solidly progressive Democrat who happens to be pro-life (like our friends Hugo and Russell), and this is the only reason he was opposed. And, certainly, communitarian lefties should be a welcome part of the progressive movement. But in Roemer’s case, it’s just horseshit. Roemer voted for Bush’s upper-class tax cuts while voting against Clinton’s 1993 budget, and also favored Social Security privitization. Roemer’s not a pro-life progressive; he’s an unprincipled conservative Democrat. And this is far from unusual–in general, Democrats who are anti-choice are much more likely to be reactionary on economic issues. The idea that the Dems are systematically blacklisting solidly progressive pro-lifers is simply not true.

And so I’m not just going to accept on blind faith the assertion that Casey is a staunch progressive who happens to be anti-choice. In the Boyer article, Chuck Schumer argues that Casey’s opposition to reproductive rights isn’t a problem because “[t]here’s no worry on judges.” Really? As eRobin notes, Casey has refused to come out against Alito, although Alito is if anything even more unambiguously reactionary when it comes to worker’s rights than when it comes to reproductive rights. Maybe Casey really is a solid progressive, and certainly he has to be better than Santorum. But let’s remember that Dems who are conservative on choice often sell out on other issues too.

UPDATE: In comments, Matt Weiner notes that Boyer does mention Casey’s non-endorsement in passing; my mistake, although he makes it appear as if the non-endorsement followed his inability to speak rather than vice-versa. He has more on the article here. [edited to distinguish between the two Caseys.]

…More from Matt Stoller.