Thursday, October 27, 2005

Well, That Didn't Take Long

In an earlier post today, I predicted the following about the likely reaction from the left to news of the Miers withdrawal:
And you can bet that the left and their media allies will play this up as the "hard-core radical religious far right" driving this "good woman" away from this nomination.
No sooner had those words been typed than statements of leftist outrage began to trickle in. First this from Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who, it must be remembered, recommended Miers for the job in the first place):
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who recommended Miers to the president, put the blame for her withdrawal squarely on "the radical right wing of the Republican Party."

***
Minority Leader Harry Reid has asserted that "the radical right wing of the Republican Party drove her right out of town."
[ED: Yikes! That one's eerily close to my description of what would happen]

***
"In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who had suggested to Bush that he consider nominating Miers.

***
"President Bush should reject the demands of these extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans," Reid said. The president should listen to all Americans and not just extreme elements of his own party."
And then this from the so-called People For The American Way:
For Immediate Release
October 27, 2005

MIERS, WHITE HOUSE SURRENDER TO ULTRACONSERVATIVES

Right Wing Power Politics Overwhelm President’s Supreme Court Pick

Harriet Miers’ withdrawal from her Supreme Court nomination demonstrates that ultraconservatives are so determined to swing the Supreme Court sharply to the right that they pounded their own president’s nominee into submission, and now demand a nominee with unquestioned far-right credentials, said Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way.

“It’s an astonishing spectacle. The unelected power-brokers of the far right have forced the withdrawal of President Bush’s own Supreme Court nominee, before a confirmation hearing has even been held. President Bush’s complete capitulation to the far-right interest groups is astounding. The ultra-right wing dominance of Republican Party politics is complete, and they have dealt a terrible blow to an already weakened President and his administration,” said Neas. “Right-wingers are openly saying they elected Bush to put a battle-ready ultraconservative on the court to replace the moderate Sandra Day O’Connor, and they’re demanding a new choice – bipartisanship, moderation and mainstream Americans be damned.”

Neas said that while his group had initial concerns about Miers’ qualifications, he was willing to wait for document disclosure and the confirmation hearings to assess the nomination. Meanwhile, the drumbeat against Miers from special interest groups on the right grew in coordination and intensity, dooming the nomination.

Neas urged Bush to resist calls for an ultraconservative nominee.

“After this sorry episode, the best way for the President to demonstrate leadership and recover strength would be to choose a nominee with a great legal mind and mainstream legal philosophy who could draw bipartisan support. The President must not let the extreme right dictate his next choice, but instead choose a nominee who can bring us together and maintain a fair and independent balance on the Supreme Court,” he said.


(emphasis added)
My Comments:
Silly me. I had forgotten to include the words "extreme" and "extremist" in my original description. Let me correct that now:
And you can bet that the left and their media allies will play this up as the "extreme hard-core radical religious far right extremists" driving this "good woman" away from this nomination.
By they way, if you took Ralph Neas press release and substituted the words "ultraliberal" for "ultraconservative", "far-left" for "far-right", "far-left interest groups" for "far-right interest groups", "ultra-left wing" for "ultra-right wing", "unelected power brokers of the far-left" for "unelected power brokers of the far right", etc., you'd have a pretty accurate description of Neas and his "far-left interest group of unelected power brokers" in PFAW.

UPDATE:
More from Harry Reid:
"The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had recommended Miers to the president. "They want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals."
And this from Teddy "the Swimmer":
"The president has an opportunity now to unite the country. In appointing the next nominee, he must listen to all Americans, not just the far right," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts."

8 Comments:

At 10/27/2005 12:23 PM, Blogger Pro Ecclesia said...

"... I can tell you're someone who has absolutely no Washington experience ..."

Where I come from, that's a badge of distinction. So sorry if my outside-the-beltway mentality just isn't quite up to snuff when it comes to all the "big important decisions" that have to be made.

 
At 10/27/2005 12:38 PM, Blogger Pro Ecclesia said...

"Where's the religion part?"

It's implied. You know darn well who and what they're referring to when they say "radical right wing". They're talking about religious conservatives and their opposition to abortion.

Surely someone so smart and so astute as to be working in the heady environment of Washington, D.C. and deciding all these important issues on our behalf knows how to read between the lines?

 
At 10/27/2005 2:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You want to project this hatred of religion on the left. It's not a hatred of religion- it's a hatred of the imposition of one religion on people who don't necessarily share it. That's what comes of living in a secular society.

Well put, Jen. You probably realize that this blog and others like it adamantly condemn the term "secular," while conveniently forgetting that the United States is a secular country. If the Founding Fathers had wanted Jesus to be part of Americans' daily lives, they would have put Him in the Constitution.

 
At 10/27/2005 2:33 PM, Blogger Rick Lugari said...

I was going to stay out of this because I see it going nowhere, but this comment begs to be rebutted.

Just as the founding fathers didn't explicitly codify a "right to breathe air, they left out a right to privacy...

They also left out the right to life, which is implied considerably more than 'privacy'. Your right to swing your arms end at my nose; your right to privacy ends at killing another human being.

 
At 10/27/2005 2:43 PM, Blogger Pro Ecclesia said...

Et tu, Local Man?

And just when I was starting to get to like you, too.
;)

 
At 10/27/2005 2:51 PM, Blogger Pro Ecclesia said...

My ex-homeboy Local Man said: "If the Founding Fathers had wanted Jesus to be part of Americans' daily lives, they would have put Him in the Constitution."

So then, things that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution ...

 
At 10/27/2005 3:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on, you can still like me!

So then, things that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution ...

But He's not even implicit, is He?

 
At 10/27/2005 5:21 PM, Blogger Pro Ecclesia said...

"But He's not even implicit, is He?"

So, you're saying there are no emanations and penumbras giving rise to a belief in the Supreme Being?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter for blogger