Interestingly, in the discussions on the Roberts nomination, it has been written on several blog sites and opinion pieces that since Roberts appears to reject the Thomas view of a strictly libertarian attitude toward property takings, and seems to support less than absolute notions of property rights, that liberals should be heartened.  My own views on the Kelo decision posted above were accused of being libertarian, or better yet, libertarian and populist.

May I ask when a broad view of the Takings Clause, lack of protection of notions of private property, and anti-libertarianism became part of liberal dogma?   I  would think that liberals would favor an absolutist notion of the Bill of Rights, which is what libertarianism is all about.  No finer document exists in the world for the protection of the rights of people than our Bill of Rights and I am proud to consider myself libertarian.  I would think that the protection of the weak and powerless is what progressives are all about.  I would think that liberals would recognize that populism was a big part of what allowed Bill Clinton to win election twice.  On the other hand, most progressives I know rejected Clinton as too conservative and seem perfectly prepared to continue to lose elections rather than settle for a candidate whom they disagree with on any issue.

Considering how Josh Marshall has continually pushed here for Democrats to recognize that they have to WIN elections to have a voice, I see little sign that progressives-liberals have learned the lesson on how to win elections and appeal to red state voters.