Multiple angles on the Democratic Party's ethics

The strategy the Democrats are using to decide which of the Bush judicial nominees to oppose is examined in this Weekly Standard article that I was pointed to by Ann Althouse. The point of the article, which I recommend strongly, is that Democrats oppose certain Bush nominees specifically because they are both conservative and a minority. This combination they find to be an unacceptable threat to their racial stranglehold on minority politics.

Ann makes a good point that it is possible that Bush is participating in the flip side of the coin, nominating minority judges specifically to create dissonance in the Democratic alliance of interest groups. But heck, isn't that just affirmative action?

The New York Times previews the likelyhood for a bruising battle for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The article posits the President may opt for a difficult nomination fight to exhause the Democrats, thus allowing him to slip some others through. I think the state of the Democratic Party, wherein reflexive anti-Bushism is the only real credo, will not let that happen at this time.

Michelle Malkin provides a good overview of the Democratic Party's opposition to reforms that might reduce voter fraud. Given the black eye the election process has gotten with Christine Gregoire's "victory" in Washington State on the back of the worst vote accounting processes that side of Broward county, it seems highly scandalous the systematic opposition the Democratic Party has to any kind of measures to prevent vote fraud.

Between these two items - the perfidious opposition to minority conservatives and vote reform - I really think the Democratic Party has taken paths of opportunism that have led it to immoral positions.