FRC Response to *'s Press Conference

[DesEtoiles]

Looks like they weren't entirely satisfied. And, love the quote from Dowd. I'll have to use that elsewhere.

____________________________


FROM AN FRC E-MAIL:


Last night during President Bush's nationally televised press conference he was asked about FRC's stance that some judicial nominees have been filibustered because of their faith. After considerable probing by MSNBC's David Gregory, the President said he believed his nominees were being filibustered because of their "judicial philosophy," not their religious beliefs. I agree with the President that it is the judicial philosophy of the nominees that has been targeted by some Democratic senators. However, that judicial philosophy is being divined by key Democrats based on the nominees' belief system or faith. It was Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) who launched an inquiry into a nominee's "deeply held personal beliefs." He didn't challenge his "deeply held judicial philosophy," but rather his "personal beliefs." What are those personal beliefs? In most cases, it appears to be the filibustered nominees' personal views on abortion, homosexuality and other issues where the Catholic and evangelical churches have clear positions that are contrary to that of today's Democrats and their liberal allies. William Pryor failed the Democrats' test because he said he personally believed, as a Catholic, that abortion is an abomination. Judge Charles Pickering was denounced by the National Organization for Women, a key player in the filibuster fight, because he used Bible quotations in some of his opinions (if you call "the love of money the root of all evil," by the way, you are quoting Scripture). President Bush knows something about the ugliness of elements of the press on these matters. Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New York Times, wrote after last year's election that the President "got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq." We are the ones calling for an end to such verbiage and the unprecedented obstruction it has inspired.

[NAO]

1. looks like they are rationalizing his slight of the RR

too much over-rationalization, too much over-explaining, they are acting as apologists and sales-people to their flocks, who might have taken offense at *'s "not about faith" statement.

These people will defend him and fight for him and rationalize his actions no matter what he does.

[jimshoes]

2. I could see lying for the chimp for oodles of bucks

like some of these shits do, but to stand up for the "asswipe in chief" for no reason except that you're a f'n republican, and for no monetary rewards to boot, well then, the only other explanation is you're an ass hole of the highest degree!. Time to wake up.