Harry Krause wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in message
...

Survive as what, a right-wing theocracy? No thanks. Yesterday President
Nincompoop was telling his base to support Harriet Miers because of her
religious beliefs. That's an outrage. The woman isn't being nominated
for archbishop.

I didn't hear about that. Did he actually tell them to support her
because
of her religious beliefs or did he simply acknowledge that she was
strongly
religious?

Eisboch



I don't have his exact words handy, but he apparently directly and
through his surrogates is telling his "base" to support her *because* of
her religious beliefs.

This is interesting. Chief Justice Roberts obviously has religious
beliefs, too, (he apparently is a devout, practicing Catholic), and I
suspect these are at least as seriously held as Ms. Mier's. But the Bush
administration made no issue of Roberts' beliefs. That was the
appropriate position to take; a nominee's personal religious beliefs
should not be an issue, unless there is evidence that those beliefs will
drive his or her decision-making. It matters not to me that a federal
bench nominee is Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or atheist, but if his or
her sponsors tries to hammer home that he or she *is* a Christian, Jew,
Moslem, or whatever, I am concerned.

Well, I agree and that's why I asked the question. If he is forcing his
will based on her religious beliefs, that's wrong. If he is simply
identifying her as a religious person, along with whatever other
qualifications he thinks is important, there's nothing wrong with it.

Your answer contains the word "apparantly". I'd like to hear or read the
exact words of his promotion of her. I'll look, although to be frank, I
really don't give a damn. The whole political landscape will be changing
again soon and much of this will be moot.

Eisboch