Far-right activists pick a new target

Almost immediately after Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court last week, the Republican base has focused its criticism carefully. For far-right activists it was a three-pronged approach: argue that O’Connor was horrible because she was insufficiently right wing on social issues; insist that Alberto Gonzales would be worse; and explain to any Republican who disagrees that they’re not only wrong, they’re insulting the conservative movement.

As strategies go, this wasn’t a particularly effective tack. It produced intra-party strife, lectures about GOP loyalty, and counter-lectures about ideological purity. No one was happy — except the Dems who’ve been enjoying the show.

After some stern warnings from Republican leaders in DC, including the president, the far-right has chosen a new enemy: New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D).

The Drudge Report, that bastion of reporting excellence, noted on Wednesday that Schumer was overheard on his mobile telephone while riding a train to New York saying, “We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over [Bush’s court nominee].” In a series of criticisms too perfectly timed to be coincidental, several major religious right groups, which had been going after Gonzales all week, issued statements at the same time yesterday going after Schumer with a vengeance.

The Family Research Council issued a statement calling Shumer’s comment “against the process of judicial honor” and “shameful.” Concerned Women for America made a similar charge. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family went so far as to insist that Schumer not even participate in the confirmation process.

Pro-family groups are calling on a powerful liberal senator to remove himself from deliberations on the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor’s eventual replacement on the Supreme Court. […]

“It is impossible, in light of these comments, for any candidate likely to be advanced by the president to get a fair hearing from Sen. Schumer,” [Tom Minnery, vice president of government and public policy at Focus on the Family Action] said. “Senators are constitutionally obligated to offer their advice and consent on court nominees. All Sen. Schumer is prepared to offer is his disgust and contempt.”

So, what’s the most offensive part of the right’s new strategy? Is it

a) They’re relying on Drudge, who in turn is relying on a source who claims to have overheard part of a phone conversation; or

b) They’re shameless hypocrites who’ve been using language similar to the report on Schumer, only from the other side.

Carpetbagger reports; you decide.

Schumer should wear this like a badge of honor. Having Dobson attack you is just a sign you’re doing the right thing.

Dems better come to Schumer’s defense if the Rethugs keep this up.

  • As to the question of which part of the foaming right’s new strategy is the most offensive, I’d call it a draw. They both stink.

  • If Shumer said it, he could say that the comment was made in the course of a conversation which was discussing the unlikelihood of Bush naming a sane nominee and not some batshit loony right winger. It would give him a chance to point out once again the extremist nature of several of Bush’s judicial appointments up to now and the Bushies’ refusal to cooperate with Congress, contrasting that with previous presidents like Clinton.

    Or he could just deny it and point out that an overheard portion of a phone conversation reported by the alleged eavesdropper and from there by a hack like Drudge is a ridiculous excuse the Bushites are using to marginalize him on one of the most important issues he’s faced in years, or ever. It would give him a reason to again call attention to any number of crass Repub remarks, such as the marketing of the Iraq war in October remark, etc. If they’re going to be focusing the cameras on him and offering him free air time to rebut this, then I hope he makes the most of it to throw it back in their faces.

  • Comments are closed.