October 13, 2005
ANOTHER SHOT ACROSS THE BELTWAY BOW:
Role of Religion Emerges as Issue (Peter Baker and Charles Babington, 10/13/05, Washington Post)
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said on MSNBC yesterday that he believes Miers personally opposes abortion. "I believe that she is pro-life," Gonzales said. "But the question as to whether or not she's pro-life or not has no bearing and should have no bearing as to . . . how she would rule on a particular case interpreting the right to an abortion."A Justice Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity surrounding the nomination said Gonzales has never talked with Miers about her views on abortion. The official declined to say why Gonzales believes Miers is opposed to the practice.
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman stressed that Miers would not be seduced by the liberal establishment like other Republican-appointed justices who "want to curry favor with the Georgetown cocktail set."
If the neocons and libertarians want this fight the theocons are more than willing to have it...again.
MORE:
to be read to the tune of "Goin' to Carolina in My Mind", Bush, promoting Miers, invokes her faith (Charlie Savage, October 13, 2005, Boston Globe)
[T]he emphasis on Miers's religion seems to have convinced some other leaders of the religious right that she is worthy of support.Televangelist Pat Robertson said yesterday on his ''700 Club" show that conservative senators who vote against Miers would face retaliation -- especially those who voted in 1993 to confirm Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a President Clinton appointee who had been general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union.
''Now they're going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they're going to vote against her for confirmation?" Robertson said. ''Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office."
So the opponents have Kristol, Frum, Brooks and Krauthammer and the supporters have Dobson, Falwell, warren and Robertson? Posted by Orrin Judd at October 13, 2005 12:06 PM
I cannot help but wonder how much of the opposition to Harriet Miers from conservative "pundits" comes from the fact that she was not on their list of potential nominees? Ego may play a significant part in their opposition. The president was supposed to nominate one of the names on their list. When he did not, the nominee was "obviously" not qualified, because if she was she would have been on their list.
Posted by: Cameron King at October 13, 2005 12:37 PMEstablishments always want one of their own.
Posted by: oj at October 13, 2005 12:45 PMA drinking buddy of mine from college days, who has since "found Jesus" and become active in those circles, writes that he and his fellow believers really like what they've seen of this nomination so far. Funny how you have to look hard to find that information, if you hear it at all, among the screeching from the pundits. I thought "the base" hates it. Guess it depends on what constitutes "the base".
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 13, 2005 12:56 PMOJ,
In several recent posts, as you do here, you describe the collapse of the conservative coaltion as neocons/libertarians/econocons split from theocons - split triggered by the Meier's nomination. So you seem to be accepting the fact that the split has or is occurring.
Are you of the opinion that all the conservative movement requires is the thecons (social conservatives) and can dispense with the other cons (economic/financial conservatives)?
Anon:
It's a theocon party. Neocons and libertarians/econocons have nowhere to go but bitch about depending on the actual base of the party. It never changes.
Posted by: oj at October 13, 2005 1:41 PMNeocons and libertarians/econocons can always stay home on election day.
OTOH a Dem (like Clinton) who balances the budget and cuts spending would get their vote.
Hillary's got wiggle room with the Democratic voters, due to the ire she stirs up on the right. But it's beyond reality to think that the Kos kids and DU crowd will back a candidate on whom even the most reluctant praise is being offered up by the folks over at NRO Online, and vice-versa. That doesn't mean she can't win the neocons over -- hubby won a bunch of them in 1992 -- but if she does, that's not going to make it Howard Dean's Summer of Love over at the DNC headquarters.
Hillary might get a Frum or two on her side over the Miers battle, but we're still 37 months out from the 2008 election, and one or two things figure to happen between now and then that might eclipse the current neocon/theocon debate.
Posted by: John at October 13, 2005 2:35 PM
Anon - Clinton (Bill) balanced the budget by gutting the military, having the GOP Congress retrict spending, and benefiting from the dot.com bubble.
To balance the budget now Hillary would need to cut spending or raise taxes. Cutting spending would kill her will almost all of her base (haven't you seen the Dems stay far away from the budget cuts to pay for Katrina issue?). Raising taxes would kill her with everybody else.
Posted by: AWW at October 13, 2005 2:56 PMThis will all be old news by the 2008 election anyway and the various conservative factions will congeal as they did in the last election. Even if by chance this issue pops up again just remember that Bush aint running again and the Republican nominee can just claim that Bush screwed up and that he'll do a better job in filling any future vacancies. Assuming that any neo/theo/liber/cons consider Bush's appointments to be too liberal it would mean they'd be more likely to swing even more conservative in the next election - which favors the Republicans not the Democrats.
(Though I believe that Miers will likely become one of the most conservative judges on the bench so it'll all be moot anyway).
Posted by: Shelton at October 13, 2005 3:19 PM