Liberal advocacy groups are also delving into the nominee's background. A story in a homosexual newspaper--The New York Blade--reports on Dallas homosexual leaders' meetings with Harriet Miers when she sought election to the Dallas City Council in 1989. "She was not hostile, nor did she come across as some kind of right-wing ideologue," said Louise Young, formerly with the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas. Ultimately, the group declined to support Miers. ... Despite this non-endorsement by his group, Marc Lerro said his fellow homosexual leaders viewed the fact that Miers met with them and filled out their questionnaire as "a positive gesture." Today, Lerro says "I can't say...she will be good on our issues, but on a personal level, she was very open to having gay people serve on boards and commissions." ... I have a concern that Miss Miers was helping to legitimize the drive of homosexual organizations for power and influence over our public policies. You can be sure Harriet Miers will be closely questioned on these and other matters when she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee.It looks to me like Tony Perkins just came amazingly close to expressing concern over the fact that the nominee didn't come across as some kind of right-wing ideologue.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
The rhetoric from the Family Research Council is even more shocking than usual today. Here's Tony Perkins:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
That's not what he says he's concerned about. What he says he's concerned about is that she might have been "helping to legitimize the drive of homosexual organizations for power and influence over our public policies". It wasn't about how she appeared to them. It was about how her dealings with them would make them look. It would make them look mainstream. I got the sense that what he didn't like is that she met with them to begin with, because it makes their organization look legitimate. I don't think that's very flattering to him, but it's not the same thing as being worried that she's not a right-wing ideologue.ReplyDelete
Yeah I know. The description I gave was an uncharitable one. This is as much a PR surprise as anything else -- I'm amazed that Tony Perkins puts text in his own newsletter that's so easy to interpret in this way, even though the interpretation is surely wrong.ReplyDelete
Would anybody but a right wing zealot worry about legitimizing these groups simply by meeting with them?ReplyDelete
I'm not sure Tony Perkins would object to being called a right-wing zealot or right-wing ideologue. He may, but if he did then it would be on the grounds that he thinks he represents the silent majority. He knows he's well on the right side of the political spectrum and is not a moderate in any sense. So he's right wing. He knows he has strong views and promotes them as an agenda. Isn't that what an ideologue is? He knows he is very fervent about them, in a religious-supported way. Isn't that zealous? That may be why he would view some of these descriptions differently than most people who read this blog, including any conservatives like me who have much more of a moderating influence.ReplyDelete
I'm worried that even if Perkins isn't expressing concern over the fact that Miers doesn't come across as some right-wing ideologue, he may be expressing concern that Miers isn't acting in ways that only a right-wing ideologue would act. Is this a distinction we should care to draw?
Maybe I'm off, but I don't find this particularly shocking (stupid, yes). I'd be surprised to learn that FotF didn't violently disapprove of people meeting with homosexual groups. Even taking the potential misinterpretation, I'd be surprised if they weren't displeased that she apparently came across as "open" to them in any way.ReplyDelete
And why is Blogger making me type in stupid letter combinations to post?ReplyDelete
I know, it's very annoying. I'm sorry. There've been spam problems, so I turned that on.ReplyDelete