You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
In a highly disturbing new trend, the GOP and White House are stressing that Harriet Miers should be confirmed because she is a right wing, anti-choice born again Christian. This is incredible, because during the John Roberts confirmation process, the right was indignant when the left brought up religion saying we should not have "religious litmus tests."
But enter Miers, stage right. The last time I've seen this much litmus, I was in a biology lab in high school. It is increasingly clear that neo-puritans are bad for America and simply not compatible with a free society. They lie, cheat, mislead and steal if it will bring them victory. Thanks to this right wing "religious test", it looks like Democrats are being pushed into filibustering the nomination. Here is a snapshot of the day's events:
New Ally: Television evangelist Pat Robertson warned Republican senators not to vote against Miers, noting that most of them had voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- whom Robertson described as a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer -- when she was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993. "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?" he asked on his show. "Not on your sweet life if they want to stay in office."
Anti-Choice: Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said on MSNBC yesterday that he believes Miers personally opposes abortion. "I believe that she is pro-life."
Bush Plays Religious Card: "People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush said in response to a reporter's question at an Oval Office appearance . "They want to know Harriet Miers's background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers's life is her religion."
Left Reacts: "It's hypocrisy doubled and quadrupled," Ralph Neas of People for the American Way said. "What's wrong for John Roberts can't be right for Harriet Miers. . . . The president and his people are using repeated assurances about Miers's religion to send not-so-subtle messages about how she might rule on the court on issues important to the president's political supporters."
Cocktail Set Dissed:Allegedly homosexual 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." Perhaps Mehlman said this because he is more comfortable with the gay DuPont Circle cocktail set?
17 Comments:
It is clear that politicians who always spout "morality" to curry votes and favor with the ignorant are consistently revealed to be the most morally bankrupt of all. They will prostitute any kind of argument if it furthers their cause.
During John Roberts' confirmation process, conservatives insisted that he not be forced to answer specific questions on actual issues. Fine.
Now, however, those same conservatives are demanding "assurances" on how Miers would vote on Roe v. Wade! The stench of their hypocrisy is putrid and stinks in the nostrils of decent, thinking people, which is precisely the reason that extreme right-wingers don't seem to be fazed by it.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/13/2005 1:06 PM
Its time to out Mehlman too. We have a corrupt government in office no question about it, probably the most inept president in history and one who has no conscience when it comes to subverting the constitution for his own ends. In other countries he would be called a dictator. Since when does religion count for government appointments? Am I missing something?
No, you're not missing anything. The fact is that this great country is being held hostage by a bunch of ignorant religious zealots who regularly consult their "invisible friend" before they feel confident enough to get out of bed in the morning.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/13/2005 1:32 PM
Chris, it is breathtaking that in our society government appointments to the supreme court are now based on one's religious beliefs. It only confirms that there is no separation of church and state. The democrats are pretty silent on this one and its apparent that religion matters a great deal to the American voter. Its quite chilling. This is indeed a conspiracy of the right wing and they're winning.
Will the Dems ever grow a pair of gonads and start speaking out against the maniacs running this country today. Sure, 'religion' is important to many/most Americans, but most Americans are NOT part of the rapture right. This insane bullshit is unheard of in European politics. Margaret Thatcher mentioned God ONCE in a speech she gave and caught hell from the press for it. I have nothing against religion per se, but it does NOT belong in our body politic. Didnt Jesus say you should "pray in a closet" or something to that effect? A friend of mine said that when people start harping on 'christian family values', it's like a leper's bell; you know something unclean is coming. So true!!! Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at
10/13/2005 2:49 PM
Gary, this is what scares Europeans who have state religion except France. It is rare to hear the word "god" or reference to any deity during political speeches or rallies. Personally, I'm no longer a believer, but don't really care if others are as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me.
JC once admonished us not to broadcast our religion from the rooftops, in other words, do NOT proselytize which is what christianity does, period. He instructed his disciples to go out and teach all nations but it didn't mean forcing religion down our throats. Again, misinterpretation of scripture. It is ironic that one of his messages was "judge not and ye shall not be judged". Yet, none of these zealots and organized religions can truly claim that they haven't when it comes to us. The hypocrisy is astounding, the self-righteousness abominable. Why doesn't the dumb electorate see it? Expect nothing from the democrats either, a bunch of self-serving mealy-mouthed wimps.
Sorry folks But I just had to post this whole article--Dominick--:
Bush violates the U.S. Constitution by saying that he picked Harriet Miers because of her religious beliefs. We want to know who are the 37% of Americans who still support this elitist, nitwit, master at disaster for our nation? Who are they? Please point them out and make them wear scarlet letters for stupidity, greed and betrayal of the nation.
The President's day: One high crime and two misdemeanors Since Attytood is now officially a "liberal journalist" according to Slate.com, we feel it's our duty to report that many on the farther left have been agitating in recent days for the impeachment of President Bush, primarily on the grounds of deliberately lying to the American people about Iraq. But why stop there. Just today alone, Bush committed at least one "high crime" and two "misdemeanors," by our casual tally.
Let's review:
The act: President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation.
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
Misdemeanor No. 1: In using religion as a key basis for offering Miers a job, the president would appear to have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Title VII of the law "prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
Misdemeanor No. 2: More specifically, one could make the case that Bush's actions are also in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which specifically covers federal employees. According to the same EEOC primer: "The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability."
High crime: As you might expect, the "high crime" here is more serious, and is also the area where it's hardest to argue that the president did not cross the line. We are referring to Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Do you honestly believe that Harriet Miers -- with all her other qualifications exactly the same -- would have been nominated to the Supreme Court if she had been Jewish, or an atheist, or Muslim? Of course not, because the president and Karl Rove, or Andy Card, or whoever's really running things these days, knew that such a choice would not pass muster with the radical clerics who sit on "the board of directors" of Bushco.
A mid-level bureaucrat who treated a job vacancy in this manner would surely be fired. Shouldn't we hold the president of the United States to an even higher standard?
George W. Bush has an easy choice now. He can withdraw Miers' nomination. Or he can be impeached.
Posted on October 12, 2005 07:19 PM buzzflash@buzzflash.com
posted by Anonymous, at
10/13/2005 3:47 PM
I heard someone on talk radio the other day say he was at some type of a polical function or rally where ted kennedy was and he asked him on the side about all the criminality in the bush admin. Kennedy said if they get a majority in congress in 06, bush would be impeached. Keep your fingers crossed. ps..our right wing media is worthless; they should be screaming about bush's latest illegal outrage.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/13/2005 4:15 PM
I found this from the folks at The Smoking Gun website ... its photocopies of actual correspondence between W and Harriet - released from the Texas Archives. She's not anything ... if not one big giant ass-kisser!
The GOP may be on their way out in 2006 ... but they have secured the single biggest victory at the start of the 21st Century ... SCOTUS will be stacked ... many didn't want to hear about this issue back in 2000 or in 2004 ... and we are going to pay the price for many, many years to come!
Don't forget that Roe V Wade is not about abortion per se. Its all about privacy.
Once this precedent comes under attack and the underpinning is taken away ... so goes abortion ... but more importantly (for Gay Americans) ... so does Lawrence v Texas! ... among other advances in made in the final decades of the 20th Century.
I had a discussion with some co-workers who spend a lot of time in Ohio and Texas on projects. We discussed at length the destruction of democracy in the US (we're Canadian) and how a dangerous form of religion has entered the political arena and is tearing the country to shreads in many ways. They were surprised, particularly in Ohio, how the majority of the people defended Bush and would not criticize any of the insane blunders, namely Iraq, Katrina and demonizing his own citizens, namely gays and those who serve in the military. I wouldn't have thought even 5 years ago that it would be a televangelist who was dictating morality for one of the biggest nations in the world. Roe and Lawrence are both on the right's agenda and are not that far away to being overturned. Then, the sky's the limit on civil rights and privacy rights. Very dangerous times ahead for the US, I certainly have empathy for your predicament, it's going to take years to undue the damage these people have caused your once great nation.
posted by Anonymous, at
10/13/2005 11:50 PM
BC..yes this administration has wrought untold damage on our society, subverted the constitution which in any other democracy would be construed as treason and has set this country back for decades to come. Forget about gay civil rights and definitely no same-sex marriage in the forecast either. No self-serving politician, be it democrat or republican is going to support that. Our goose is cooked.
Paul, Houston TX, I think your wrong here. This abortion thing isn't about Privacy at all and of course it was never intended to be "about" abortion. It was ment to be about a "Womans Right to Choose" what to do with her body..
And now it comes out that Miers had 10 liens on properties she controlled in Texas. She ignored warnings by local city officials to clean up the grounds on which her property stood such as overgrown grass, weeds, etc. She eventually paid $2000 in fines so how can Bush and his rabble state that she's a meticulous attorney when it comes to detail?
As Bill Maher said, 'she's never been married and is a devout evangelical christian, and used to be in charge of the texas lottery; i think the only balls she's ever touched had numbers on them.'
posted by Anonymous, at
10/17/2005 1:55 PM
Domink:
In Roe V Wade, the Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.
But I stand by my ascertion - to undermine Roe v Wade - the underpinning "right of privacy" will have to be attacked and undermined ... and once this occurs its not just a women's right to choose that will come under scrutiny by the neocons.
