Support NeoGAF

[maynerd]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/12/miers.ap/index.html

When will this man ever learn?

Not only this but now the religious right is pushing her and making threats. SICKENING!

"Pat Robertson threatens retaliation against conservative senators who oppose Miers
On today’s “700 Club” broadcast, the Rev. Pat Robertson responded to criticism from the Right regarding the Miers nomination and also offered a stern warning to those conservative senators who might be thinking of voting against her. Rev. Robertson suggested that people should look at who is supporting Miers before they doubt her conservative credentials. He named James Dobson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jay Sekulow of the Robertson-founded American Center for Law and Justice, and himself as proof of support for Miers’ nomination from the Right. Robertson concluded by noting: “These so-called movement conservatives don’t have much of a following, the ones that I’m aware of. And you just marvel, these are the senators, some of them who voted to confirm the general counsel of the ACLU to the Supreme Court, and she was voted in almost unanimously. And you say, ‘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?’ Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office.”

 

[explodet]

Of all the things for conservatives to break ranks over, why this nomination? Seriously, I don't get why there's so much controversy over this one person (besides the whole cronyism angle).

Anyone want to clue me in?

 

[bob_arctor]

You have no idea how distraught I am at the lack of assasination attempts on this moron.

 

[IJoel]

Of all the things for conservatives to break ranks over, why this nomination? Seriously, I don't get why there's so much controversy over this one person (besides the whole cronyism angle).

Anyone want to clue me in?

*Insert Admiral Ackbar's pic*

 

[teruterubozu]

Because her credentials are paper-thin.

 

[bob_arctor]

Of all the things for conservatives to break ranks over, why this nomination? Seriously, I don't get why there's so much controversy over this one person (besides the whole cronyism angle).

Anyone want to clue me in?

It's this: Will she piss all over Roe vs Wade or not? That's pretty much it, really.

 

[explodet]

So it's because nobody knows where she stands on the issues? Okay.

Not a trap! I'm Canadian, so American politics mystifies me sometimes.

 

[IJoel]

So it's because nobody knows where she stands on the issues? Okay.

Not a trap! I'm Canadian, so American politics mystifies me sometimes.

No, no, I meant the whole 'OMG SHE'S NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH' facade.

 

[bob_arctor]

Not a trap! I'm Canadian, so American politics mystifies me sometimes.

No worries. I'm American and American politics BUG THE LIVING HELL OUTTA ME. So, you know, consider yourself lucky.

 

[explodet]

One thing I do know, Pat Robertson is a douche.

 

[AstroLad]

As a general matter apart from this whole nomination mess, the extreme religious right seems to love to make threats toward Republican politicians intoning that they won't support them if they dare question something the religious leaders have deemed correct, to which my question is: who the fuck are you going to vote for then? In most places, and particularly at the national level, they don't have the power to field some completely nutty religious zealot from their own ranks (jokes about some of the current officials aside), and it's not like they're going to vote for the baby-killing, queer-loving Dummycrats. I'd just like to see more Republicans say "thank you for your opinion, but go fuck yourself," because some of these folks are going around like they are the entire show when all they really are is a decent-sized voting bloc that has as much weight as people want to give it in formulating their strategies (e.g., the party fielding candidates and initiatives just to get more religious freaks out to the polls). What compounds the abdsurdity of the situation, and something that's been discussed thorougly by some great political writers, is the fact that most of their policy demands are completely contrary to traditional conservative ideals.

 

[Hitokage]

The supreme court does nothing but usurp our freedoms anyway, according to Radical Cleric Pat Robertson, so why should he care.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

You have no idea how distraught I am at the lack of assasination attempts on this moron.

i know a guy who knows some guys. give me a call......

 

[MoxManiac]

Solrac, no can do, those guys were put in jail after I had them assasinate Adam Sandler

 

[teh_pwn]

IT'S OKAY GUYS. SHE BELIEVES IN JESUS.

 

[BigJonsson]

IT'S OKAY GUYS. SHE BELIEVES IN JESUS.

"They'll do anything the president says....cause the president believes in God!"

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Solrac, no can do, those guys were put in jail after I had them assasinate Adam Sandler

son of a bitch...... what about the ferrets? do we have those? and were have you been? i need ipecac.

 

[APF]

Of all the things for conservatives to break ranks over, why this nomination? Seriously, I don't get why there's so much controversy over this one person (besides the whole cronyism angle).

Anyone want to clue me in?

Idealist Conservatives don't want someone who the President "assures them" will rule a certain way. They want a serious candidate with a philosophy, and are outraged because they feel the President is betraying a goal they feel they've waited a long time for: an opportunity to change the court.

 

[ronito]

Since when did being an evangelical christian make any lawyer qualified to be on the SCOTUS?

Honestly, the bush administration are the poster boys and girls of religous corruption in politics. It's as if being an evangelical christian has become the new get out of jail free card. "Well I said she was an evangelical christian." And everyone's response is, "oh, ok."

As a christian I find it more than a little disgusting.

 

[Link1110]

It's things like this that make me believe this, and I'm quite religious:

All elected officials should have to be atheists. It's the only way to ensure seperation of church and state.

 

[Pellham]

It's things like this that make me believe this, and I'm quite religious:

All elected officials should have to be atheists. It's the only way to ensure seperation of church and state.

why not agnostic?

 

[Link1110]

Yes, agnostic would be OK. Just not any member of a religion that wishes to push its beliefs on everyone else.

 

[Hitokage]

It's things like this that make me believe this, and I'm quite religious:

All elected officials should have to be atheists. It's the only way to ensure seperation of church and state.

Speaking as an atheist, that's the last thing I want. All I want is somebody who respects that freedoms aren't really freedoms if they are mere privledges of the ruling class. Certain fundamentalists want christianity to be in government so badly, they fail to realize that if they were to ever fall out of power(in place of, say for example, mormons... who want the same thing), they'd be the ones up against the wall. Government should keep its hands off religion, so everyone can worship or not worship as they believe no matter who happens to be in power.

 

[Boogie]

Government should keep its hands off religion, so everyone can worship or not worship as they believe no matter who happens to be in power.

If only there were some way to enshrine such an idea in a contsitution of some sort.....

 

[Dan]

Editor & Publisher has a fun set of excerpts from the White House briefing with Scott McClellan. He has a pretty hard time spinning this.

 

[Hitokage]

If only there were some way to enshrine such an idea in a contsitution of some sort.....

...and keep people from ignoring it. "Seperation of church and state isn't in the Constitution!"

 

[Mandark]

If only there were some way to enshrine such an idea in a contsitution of some sort.....

You know, I think probably 90 percent of the American people believe in the Ten Commandments, and I'll bet you that 85 percent of them couldn't tell you what the ten are. And when somebody goes by that monument, I don't think they're studying each one of the commandments. It's a symbol of the fact that government comes -- derives its authority from God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds.

Hey now.


AstroLad: I think the biggest stick that the religious right carries is a big block of primary votes. Pretty much every senator thinks of himself as a presidential candidate, and no potential candidate wants to piss off such a big, active chunk of their own party.

 

[DaMan121]

It's a symbol of the fact that government comes -- derives its authority from God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds.

:lol

 

[BorkBork]

Editor & Publisher has a fun set of excerpts from the White House briefing with Scott McClellan. He has a pretty hard time spinning this.

Between the Rove/CIA grillings and this, I want to know how this man sleeps at night.

 

[ronito]

Between the Rove/CIA grillings and this, I want to know how this man sleeps at night.

Oh it's easy when your pillow is stuff with cash.

 

[AstroLad]

Hey now.


AstroLad: I think the biggest stick that the religious right carries is a big block of primary votes. Pretty much every senator thinks of himself as a presidential candidate, and no potential candidate wants to piss off such a big, active chunk of their own party.

Oh no, I certainly realize that; the issue is whether the Christian radicals outnumber the traditional conservatives, particularly when two Republicans are up against each other in a primary from each camp (it's a very simplified view, but bear with me). If the traditional conservative can beat out the radical, then most of that bloc will likely not be lost during general election (particularly since Christians have generally gotten more politically active in the last decade) most obviously because of the distastefulness of the other options, but (more interestingly) because traditional conservatives and radical Christian "conservatives" still agree on most issues. What's fascinating (and certainly clever from a power-mongering perspective) is the furor of the radicals when candidates diverge on any issue, in any way, from the radicals' proclamations, or even if they just refuse to ensure that they won't even consider whatever issue is at hand. This sort of bargaining (or, probably more accurately, threatening) is of course common to all special-interest groups of this sort, but I'd argue that the degree and character of this manifestation is unique in our political history.

Now the logical response the phenomenon is to create a fairly coherent traditional conservative platform and ideology, and thus coalesce support for the large group of people within the party that feel uncomfortable with many of the radical platforms' stances. Increasingly (and I think fairly evidently with the Miers nomination), we are seeing "intellectual conservatives" become more outspoken and somewhat less sheepish than they have been in the past, in what seems to me to be an effort to create a true alternative to the constant appeasement of the radicals that, admittedly, the party owes much of its recent success to, or at least draw the line somewhere. Easier said than done, of course, but I find it heartening when people stand up for their principles in the face of blackmail, even if those principles aren't necessarily my own or even that similar to my own.