Remember the Shiavo memo? It said this:
“This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.”
In another move to define legal issues as moral issues that the pro-life base would be excited about:
“LOUISVILLE, Ky., April 24 – In a Sunday telecast organized by Christian conservative groups to denounce the Democrats as “against people of faith” for blocking judicial nominees, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee stepped up his threats to change Senate rules to circumvent those blockades while simultaneously calling for “more civility in political life…
About 2,000 people packed into the Highview Baptist Church here for the telecast, and organizers said it was broadcast to several hundred churches by satellite, thousands of people over the Internet and 61 million households over Christian radio and television stations.”
While I don’t appreciate the way the New York Times wrote the story:
“In a short videotaped statement included in the telecast, which was called Justice Sunday and emanated from a packed Baptist mega-church here, Dr. Frist, the Senate majority leader, neither referred to religious faith nor addressed criticism that the event was inappropriately dragging religion into a partisan battle.
Instead, he focused on accusations by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, that Dr. Frist was a “radical Republican” for participating in the telecast, which aimed to build conservative Christian support for his threat to eliminate the filibuster of presidential nominees – a parliamentary tactic that allows at least 41 senators to reject a nominee by indefinitely forestalling a vote. Democrats, who hold 44 Senate seats, have vowed to virtually shut down Senate business if Dr. Frist follows through.”
…which reads like an editorial rather than a news story, I am amazed what some Republican leaders will do to get their judges nominated. I find this a highly inappropriate means of gathering support. Now, if church leaders want to stump for Republicans in church, then go ahead. But if Frist wants to stump for Republicans in church, he sends a confusing message: rally the Christian conservative base to get Republican judges who are fair and unbiased on the bench.
I am also amazed that while the GOP disavowed the Shiavo letter, especially in light of the quote above, they pull the same tactic in trying to stop Democrats from filibustering. Both the Shiavo Memo and the Frist Appeal are attempts to define a legal procedure as a moral issue and to get the Christian conservative base excited about Senate politics.
The more some Republican leaders use religion as a political wedge, the less credible they become.
The Schiavo memo was pretty bad. At least as bad as DNC Chair Dean’s promise to use Schiavo’s death as political hay:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0504/16/polit-152444.htm
Where was the outrage when ex-Presidential hopeful John Kerry stumped for votes in church?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041011-123943-3103r.htm
Not that the behavior’s okay on either side of the aisle, but it seems a little late to make an issue out of it now. None of this is original, nor is the idea of defining a legal procedure as a moral issue; when does that NOT happen? What IS original is the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations for this long and to this extent. I’m personally amazed at what Democrats will do to stop the wheels of the judicial system from turning even the slightest bit.
As a Christian who is neither Republican (nor Democrat for that matter) nor very informed on the Schiavo case – i am not a big fan of the tactic, but i have a question.
Josh, you said “The more some Republican leaders use religion as a political wedge, the less credible they become.”
i ask you – to whom? (or is it who?)
If a Baptist Church in Louisville, KY is where they go to make this sort of a point, might that wedge be the very thing they are trying to establish to some of their constituents? And potentially in doing so become *more* credible to them? (incidentally – This is the very tactic of some of some of those who are the very reasons that my dissertation topic is heading in the direction that i think it might be.)
I wish I had more time to respond to these excellent points.
The issue is not original, but it is deplorable, especially in light of Republican leaders disavowing the Shiavo letter on the same grounds. Precedent does not mean that we should ignore it. When any leader does it, they lose credibility. Whose eyes? Mine. Maybe others feel the same way. Sorry for the brevity of the reply.