The religious right’s dissatisfaction — with one notable exception

We’ve heard from the conservative blogs on Harriet Miers, but what about the religious right groups that drive the Republican base? What’s the word from the constituency C&L likes to call “God’s Own Circus”? So far, the sentiment is clearly one-sided, but there’s one 800-pound gorilla who’s standing with the White House.

Concerned Women for America said it wants to give Miers “the benefit of the doubt,” but will its support “will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process.” The Family Research Council, usually a reliable arbiter of the far-right’s thinking, said, “[O]ur lack of knowledge about Harriet Miers, and the absence of a record on the bench, give us insufficient information from which to assess whether or not she is indeed in that mold.” The Eagle Forum, which has been very active on judicial fights, was perhaps the most vocal, with the national chairwoman of group’s Court Watch Project saying, “I’m very much disturbed about the Miers nomination.”

Gary Bauer, a leading religious right voice and former presidential candidate, summarized the movement’s perspective in an email to supporters by describing Miers as a “demoralizing pick.”

For at least a week the name of Harriet Miers has been floated by the White House as a possible Supreme Court nominee. Dozens of conservatives in town quietly, behind the scenes, let the White House know her selection would be greeted with skepticism, if for no other reason than she is a “blank slate” with even less of a written record than Judge Roberts on the issues we care about the most.

This morning the president, as is his prerogative, went ahead and nominated her anyway. The impact was immediate – liberal senators are praising the nomination, and the conservative movement is deeply divided and at war with itself over her nomination. The nomination has already hurt the cause and encouraged our opponents.

The religious right’s concerns are not inconsequential. These are the religious activists who serve as the Republicans’ campaign footsoldiers — and who often feel like the establishment takes them for granted. Apparently, it doesn’t help that Miers most substantive professional work came at the Texas Lottery Commission (evangelical Christians consider such gambling immoral).

There was, meanwhile, one very high-profile religious-right leader who stood out by taking the opposite position: James Dobson.

“President Bush pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it,” he said. “He also promised to select competent judges who will ‘not use the bench to write social policy.’ To this point, President Bush’s appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy.”

This isn’t about partisanship; Dobson is the least likely of the religious right’s leader to go along with a Republican on party allegiance alone. So, if nearly the entire movement is dejected, what does Dobson know that the rest of his cohorts don’t? Apparently, quite a bit.

Karl Rove, the president’s top political adviser, started calling influential social conservatives to reassure them about the pick even before it was announced. He called James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, over the weekend….

In each call and in a series of teleconferences throughout the day, representatives of the White House promised their conservative supporters that as White House counsel, Ms. Miers had played a central role in picking the many exemplars of conservatism among Mr. Bush’s previous nominees.

Some of the efforts evidently bore fruit. By day’s end, Mr. Dobson, one of the most influential evangelical conservatives, welcomed the nomination. “Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about,” he said in an interview, explaining his decision to speak out in support of Ms. Miers. He declined to discuss his conversations with the White House. (emphasis added)

Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, said White House officials “worked over Dobson very, very hard.”

I wonder what it is Rove told Dobson that made him feel so confident about Miers.

I wonder what it is Rove told Dobson that made him feel so confident about Miers.

That is the question and the answer could be very scarry.

  • And it suggests a great angle for D Senators:

    “The American Public has just as much right to know about Ms. Miers as this President’s big donors and theocratic supporters. We will not allow this vote to go forward until the White House shares with everyone the ‘inside secrets’ it gave Mr. Dobson to curry his favor.”

    And filibuster if need be.

    I think the public can be pushed to take offense here that what is really driving a Supreme Court nomination is somehow secret from them. The public tends to reluctantly go along with “executive privilege” and likely won’t take offense to not turning over Miers’ White House papers. But here, there is no privilege at all – just favoritism towards wing-nut political cronies. I think the independents go our way on this – maybe even moderate Rs in the general public.

  • Zeitgeist has a great point: either the WH is pilloried for more inside info dealing from Rove (with a great “remember the Plame thing?” link), or Dobson has to come out as a liar. I don’t think he’d go down for this bunch, so there could be some tense standoffs. Anyone know a WH press core member to mention this to? Or a Senator on the judiciary committee?

  • OK after reading the from Andrew Sullivan, I am even more scared.

    QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about,” – James Dobson, Focus on the Family. Isn’t it strange that a man like Dobson now knows more about Harriet Miers than the Senate will ever likely be able to find out?

  • Comments are closed.