Time and Newsweek ignored White House 180 on Supreme Court nominees' religion
In their October 24 editions (posted online on October 16), Time and Newsweek reported on the White House's announced shift from the "biographical phase" to the "accomplishment phase" of the effort to secure confirmation of President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, White House counsel Harriet Miers. Time and Newsweek both noted that Miers's Christian faith factored heavily into the "biographical phase," but neither reported that the administration's touting of Miers's religion contradicted the White House's position -- during the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. -- that a nominee's religious views are irrelevant. Time and Newsweek bypassed examining the White House's contradictory positions, even though they quoted White House press secretary Scott McClellan and an unnamed "Bush aide" attacking the press for focusing on Miers's faith -- after Bush promoted her religious views -- and claiming they needed to move away from discussions of religion that "really have no bearing on her qualifications."
Time reporter Mike Allen wrote that White House officials "hope to relaunch the nomination of Harriet Miers," and intend to "stop debating her religion and personality and start focusing on her résumé as a pioneering female lawyer of the Southwest." Allen also noted that McClellan "briefly dropped his sunny volubility and accused reporters of obsessing about the 'side issues of religion,' as if the White House hadn't been pushing Miers' faith." Similarly, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman and senior White House correspondent Richard Wolffe reported that the White House is "releasing Harriet 2.0, focusing on an inch-by-inch ground game." Fineman and Wolffe noted that the White House issued talking points that "were notable for their absence of even a passing reference to her religion." The Newsweek report also quoted an anonymous aide to Bush saying: "We got distracted by discussions about her faith and church attendance that really have no bearing on her qualifications for the court."
Whereas Time and Newsweek simply reported the White House's strategy shift, other news outlets have reported on the embrace of Miers's faith in the context of earlier judicial nominations, noting that the White House had abandoned its position articulated during the Roberts nomination that religious views are immaterial to a nominee's qualifications as a judge:
- The Boston Globe, referring to a July press briefing by White House press secretary Scott McClellan, reported on October 13: "But the increasing focus on Miers's religious faith drew criticism from some leaders of the religious right. They noted that White House supporters of Bush's last nominee, John G. Roberts Jr., had rejected suggestions by liberals that his devout Catholicism might affect his judicial rulings. White House spokesman Scott McClellan emphasized that Roberts had said 'personal beliefs or views have no role whatsoever when it comes to decisions that judges make.' "
- An October 13 Chicago Tribune article reported that "[t]he White House also has injected Miers' religious views into the process, even though many Republicans, including the president during the Roberts confirmation, have long argued that a nominee's religious views are irrelevant."
- Newsday reported on October 13: "In past debates over Bush judicial nominees -- including just-confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts, a devout Catholic -- Republicans and the White House have vehemently insisted that personal religious beliefs should be off-limits."
Typical GOP backpeddling and hypocrisy. It kind of reminds me of those courtroom dramas where a witness drops a bomb and the judge tells the jury to disregard what they just heard. Now the Republicans expect us to pretend we didn't hear Bush blatantly using Miers' religion to assure the regressives that she would, indeed, vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Even though Bush and Miers are more concerned with selling out to Corporate interests than they are with abortion, they have to keep the Religious Right distracted because without them, the GOP is toast in the next election.
Unfortunately, the GOP will always have the RR on their side. I really can't see any of the 'thumpers taking up the progressive banner, can you? The trick is for the progressives to secure everybody else.
Though they are the minority, religious nutbag flat-earth conservatives are the GOP's base, as much as they would rather not admit it. (Although some party members are proud of it.)
This latest is just another effort to further secure that base. It was inconvenient to have people examining Roberts' religiosity during his nomination. It is convenient for people to hear these things about Meirs during her nomination.
The fact that Bush has to publicly vet this Meirs person on the merits of her religion is a scary prospect indeed. It also shows that Bush is absolutely aware that he's nominated a nobody who doesn't belong on the bench. People called him on it, and now he has to say "no, no. It's ok. It's ok. She's religious!"
It seems that the Country Club Republicans and the Religious Right have made a Faustian bargain of sorts. The evangelicals lend their numbers to the Social Darwinists so they can enact their policies which help the rich and powerful. In return, the thumpers are able to get their pet social bugaboos into the political arena.
nerzog:
A susinct analysis.
The Country Club Republicans wish for government to favor the amassing of great fortunes in the hands of the few, while the quality of life for the many steadily diminishes.
The Evangelicals wish for government to favor THEIR religion in statute and law, imposing religious practice on a population that once enjoyed Freedom of Religion.
Both wish for the power of government to impose their will on the masses, and to curtail any freedom that an individual might have to resist being indoctrinated or fleeced.
And there is no conflict. Evangelical leaders have no problem becoming fabulously wealthy at the expense of the common man. And Country Club Republicans couldn't care less if their peons and serfs are forced to recite religious doctrine and be forced to carry to term. It won't affect their scrounge for money bolstered by governmental fiat at every turn.
I would surely hate to live in such a paranoid world as do nerzog and tex, so fearful of anything other than their sainted Democratic party......the Evangelicals are out to force religion on everyone without their consent, the rich Country Clubbers want all the money, power and wealth for themselves and everyone else will just starve and beg on street corners. What a world, what a horrible world.
Funny, I have no fear of the Democratic party as such, they are but a mere nuisance, a pesky gnat that keeps flying in your face because they don't have anywhere else to go. Annoying - yes, Dangerous - hardly.
How are the evangelical right wingers dangerous?
1). When American schoolchildren are taught that the world's biologists, astronomers, geologists etc. don't know what they're talking about, and that the world and universe could be either 4.6 billion years old or just 6,000. Take your pick.
2). When suffering people who could have their pain alleviated through the use of medicinal marijuana instead are forced to continue in their suffering.
3). When scientists are denied the funding for stem cell research which might hold great promise in fighting many debilitating diseases.
There you have just three seriously negative real-world consequences when evangelicals get control of the government.
You've got me all wrong, Tommy. I have nothing against Republicans per se, only those who owe their political survival to the James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons out there. I actually like Republicans like John McCain, Arlan Spectre, and Colin Powell (at least before he sacrificed his credibility on the WMD altar). I dislike crooks of any political stripe, like Tom Delay. I also dislike politicians who use their policy-making power to enrich themselves and their cronies.
"It was inconvenient to have people examining Roberts' religiosity during his nomination. It is convenient for people to hear these things about Meirs during her nomination." --deeznuts
---------------------------------------------------------
You hit the nail on the head.
Quite shocking how they get away with such blatantly self-serving principles.
Surprisingly I heard a guy on Hannity's radio variety show who was pointing out this very same point to Hannity. Of course, now that the cat is out of the bag, conservatives would rather pretend that knowledge of Miers ultra-Rightwing evangelical church has nothing to do with their recent shift in support FOR her nomination.
Once the conservative pundits have been satisfied with her religious extremism, no one else (especially the liberals) is allowed to probe it or use it against her. The conservative pundits once again revert the principle that her religion has nothing to do with her qualifications pretending it didn't make any difference to them.
Why do the Republicans cater to the religious right? Who else are they gonna vote for? The Democrats? The Green Party? There is no other party that skews even slightly in step with their point of view. They'll vote Republican regardless of who the candidate is.
I would think that the vote is not so important as the enthusiasm evangelical leaders show in pointing out that anyone who votes for a Democrat is going straight to hell. Without that guidance, evangelical voters might actually vote based on their self-interest -- and the Republicans would be screwed.
Evangelicals make a perfect voter base. All you really have to do is win over their preachers. They're accustomed to being told what to think, so being told how to vote is not much of a stretch.
There is an old saying that made it into country music (blech) and is a favorite of the right wingers. "If you don't stand for something, then you'll fall for anything.", they say.
Really? Is that so?
Problem is, what they 'stand' for is also what they 'fall' for, and can't tell them apart. Thus, debt is prosperity, war is peace, suffering is joy, and blind obedience becomes freedom in their twisted minds.
My sister-in-law is a good example of these people. At a family gathering before the 2004 election, the subject of Bush v. Kerry came up. She blurted out "Well, at least Bush has VALUES!"
How do you fight that kind of profound ignorance and gullibility?
You can't fight it. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reason doesn't work. Insults certainly don't work. She has been permanently re-oriented to that position.
I have a sister in the same situation. The right-wing evangelicals tell her essentially that the Democrats are evil incarnate. If she ever finds herself in agreement with Democrats, she views that as a blasphemy. Won't ever let that happen.