THEOCRACY WATCH: Miers, what's next and what does it all mean?
it seems quite obvious that it was a bad choice to begin with. perhaps the poorest choice (from a political standpoint) that Bush has yet made. the Democrats, and many Republicans, viewed the Miers nomination as an example of cronyism writ large, particularly shocking after the Katrina/FEMA/Brownie debacle. while everyone is sure she's a fine lawyer, she simply does not have the paper trail or resume of a Roberts-type nominee, and there's no way a Democrat was going to believe Bush at his word (he being that clairvoyant cardiologyst, "i know her heart"), and it was downright insulting for Bush to say to the social right (equal parts intellectually conservative and religiously conservative), in effect, "trust me." this was a comeuppance that Bush largely deserved, and was largely of his own doing.
so, who's next?
and, more importantly, what does the withdrawal of her nomination (something, i think we can safely say, that she and Bush did not want to do but were forced to do) tell us about the Republican White House?
i know that people in here get upset when we talk about the "christianists" or "christian taliban" or whatever highly debatable nomenclature we use to describe socially conservative, self-described evangelical Christians who view the political arena as the best way for them to live out their faith. however, i think this withdrawal demonstrates, to a startling degree, the veto that Dobson, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, etc., have over this White House.
i am excessively concerned that one man, in particular, has so much power over the decisions that this WH makes.
[Q]Recognizing that conservatives might not find Miers exciting, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove tried to lock up a few important figures who would back her, mainly James C. Dobson, head of the evangelical Focus on the Family. As Dobson later recalled it, Rove assured him "that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian [and] that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life."
That was enough for Dobson, and Dobson's blessing was enough for Rove.
it is abundently clear that Bush's next supreme court nominee, like this one, will have to undergo a religious litmus test in order to be deemed an acceptable candidate by this most influential of WH backers. such a test violates both the letter and spirit of the constitution, and we only know about it because the nomination has failed. using explicitly religious criteria rather than judicial philosophy - and, worse, a specific kind of religious viewpoint within a single religion which is to say, an evangelical -- for judicial nominations is yet another sign of this toxic combination of religion and politics infecting all levels of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is another THEOCRACY WATCH, and another example of the Bushies violating some of the most basic values of the United States, and indeed, all of Western Civilization.
Funny how the only "litmus test" talked about in the press is abortion.
But, I guess there is comfort in these theories.
I'm very uncomfortable with loonies like the Concerned Women for America having veto power over presidential nominees. They're extremists. Yes, this is theocracy at work.
oh, please. "Theocracy" is tossed around here for shock value.
I don't think it's any disgrace to feel so strongly about a particular issue that you use it as a "litmus test". Some people feel that strongly about abortion. That's no disgrace, even though I don't feel that way.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:46 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com