Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Question for Jeremy Iggers

Hey Jeremy, is this the standard to be followed for wry, witty political commentary? I hope not. Here's a sample:

And that is why the Brethren of the Foursquare Gospel of Christ the Republican are intending to spend upwards of $18 million to win confirmation of the president's anointed nominee, and, one assumes, their pagan Visigoth foes will spend almost as much in opposition.

This was not always the case, children. There was a time when nominees posed for a photo with the Pres, sat for an afternoon of genteel questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee, were confirmed handily and fitted for their robes and given a key to the Supreme restroom, without any mass mailings or newspaper ads. Just as the pope selects cardinals without Catholics massing in St. Peter's Square and waving placards, so the president once chose justices.

Knowing this president as we now do, the man who proposed John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N., one assumes he is considering nominating Dr. James Dobson. Nothing in the Constitution stipulates that a justice must have any legal training -- they have clerks to take care of that stuff. One imagines the president on his knees in the Rectangular Bedroom, asking for the Lord's guidance in the matter, and the Lord guiding him toward Dr. James Dobson.

The president protests: "But Lord -- he is a bully. His mind is rusted shut. He would institute a state religion in America and that would be the end of the Christian faith as we know it. Laura loathes the sight of him. He reeks of cheap cologne." The Lord insists that nobody but Dobson will do. "But Lord, this is going to be an ugly uphill fight in the Senate. I have only 45 or 48 senators who are fully programmed. The others exercise their own judgment and are unreliable."

Anyway, I'd like to address a few remarks to Mr. Keillor while I'm at it, if he ever deigns to stop by this establishment.

Dear Mr. Keillor:

May I call you Garrison? Thanks.

Garrison, might I suggest some context here? You sort of failed to mention the bad faith on your side of the aisle, as exhibited here by Chuck Schumer, who promised a "war" over the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, whomever that person is.

I would also like to point out, Gar, the recent trend of nasty judicial confirmation battles is a legacy of your party. Remember Robert Bork? Clarence Thomas' name ring a bell? Keep in mind that President Clinton's nominees did not face the kind of treatment Democrats have been dishing out to President Bush's nominees. As an example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confimed on a 96-3 vote, even though her judicial views are far more liberal than conservatives would approve of. The DFL on the other hand filibusters the nominations of competent judges.

Then there is the basic mean-spiritedness of your remarks. For someone who claims to hold the idea of tolerance in high regard being a liberal and all, you sure seem to get great enjoyment out of mocking the religious beliefs of the President and of a whole lot of Christians. Where did that liberal tolerance for the views of others get to? Did you leave it in the pockets of your other pair of pants or something? It just doesn't sound like the sort of thing a good Lutheran from Minnesota would be saying. As for the idea of nominating Dr. Dobson, are you just fantasizing about your own favorite nightmares or what? Don't worry about it. The most likely outcome is the President will nominate a nice competent judge who believes the Constitution actually means what it says. Nothing to worry about here.

Million Monkeys Typing

No comments: