There was one moment in the press conference last night that the preznit deserves vague credit for. I wonder how the wingnuts will respond to it?
Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, recently the head of the Family Research Council said that judicial filibusters are an attack against people of faith. And I wonder whether you believe that, in fact, that is what is nominating [sic] Democrats who oppose your judicial choices? And I wonder what you think generally about the role that faith is playing, how it's being used in our political debates right now?
THE PRESIDENT: I think people are opposing my nominees because they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated. Some would like to see judges legislate from the bench. That's not my view of the proper role of a judge.[...]
Q Do you think that's an inappropriate statement? And what I asked is --
THE PRESIDENT: No, I just don't agree with it.
Q You don't agree with it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think people oppose my nominees because -- because of judicial philosophy.
Of course, he should have said that it's inappropriate, but I wouldn't expect him to be that honest. I wonder if Dobson and friends heard that, and, if they heard it, what their reaction will be. I wonder if they'll somehow try to rationalize their way out of it, and insist that the president was supporting their position. More likely, it seems to me, is a sort of cognitive dissonance that will only further muddy the issue. We'll wait and see.
-- Michael
Dobson et al will have no trouble with what Bush said, because Bush still repeated the talking points canard that Democrats want judges who "legislate from the bench" instead of "interpreting the law," while republicans allegedly don't. This is the crock of sh*t that they all agree on. The disagreement is merely over the REASON WHY democrats want to legislate from the bench; are they "against people of faith" or do they just have an "activist judicial philosophy"? This is a trivial distinction. The big lie (that republican judges are not activist and democratic judges are) remains unchallenged by Bush, unchallenged by Dobson, and unchallenged by the idiot press corps. Meanwhile the most radical group of judges in history continues to get appointed and continues to push the country toward theocracy. Until we successfully discredit the way they distort this idea of "activist judges," the repugs stay on message and we continue to lose. Sorry for the pessimism, but that's my reading.
Posted by: the exile | April 29, 2005 at 01:04 PM