Stealth views

I think this is exactly right.

One final point about the hearings. Obviously, it is disturbing that we don’t know much about Roberts other than he felt comfortable going out on a limb and saying that Plessy was wrong. But if you take a step back, it’s refreshing to know that would-be conservative Justices have to disguise and hide their views to get confirmed. Roberts can’t come right out and say, “I will vote against Roe,” or he won’t get confirmed. He also can’t say “I’m an originalist,” or “I love the Federalist Society” (or even “I’m a member.”). These are all political liabilities that can’t be affirmed in public. I hadn't realized this, maybe because I spend more time on conservative legal blogs than a lot of liberal people and lost sight of where the public's center of gravity was.

That said, when they control all three branches of government, I don't think there's any consequences to the stealthy way in which they govern well to the right of the majority of public opinion.

Bush's speech, from what I can tell from the morning's commentary (I had better things to pay attention to) is a perfect example. Under the cover of "reconstruction (ironic, isn't it?)," and helping the underprivileged he's spent five years ignoring, he's actually planning to privatize federal rebuilding to help Cheney's old cronies, lower EPA standards in an area where enforcement was already lax and water foul, eliminate union workers from those hired to clean up the mess, and give a more prominent domestic role to the military.

Bush made a lot of promises even many of his brethren in the party can't quite swallow, but they're not thinking big and bold like he and Karl are. Eventually, the federal deficit will groan as tax cuts are made permanent, and the pitch will be made that cherished programs will have to suffer funding cuts. Grover Norquist must be very pleased.