Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Rambling flotsam and jetsam

I was listening to NPR (that's Nationlistica Peoplizas Radiosco or "Radio of the New People's Revolutionary Front") this morning, and apparently the Democrats who are filibustering Pres. Bush's nominees are heroic defenders of liberty and judicial process, and the Republicans seeking to end the endless filibusters are neo-totalitarian fascists seeking to usurp the process of checks and balances to promote their own ideological agenda.

Got it.

Nevermind that the primary reasons for Dem's opposition to the nominations are ideological. They feel that Bush's choices are "too conservative" and so will not represent the "will of the nation." They have, as yet, failed to provide any actual evidence of this, however.

And they oppose Bolton's nomination to the U.N. because, apparently, "he's kind of testy at times." That's right. We want a milquetoast wet noodle as our ambassador to the UN, one who will quietly knuckle under to anything the U.N. throws at us. No agenda there at all.
According to one liberal commentator, speaking with great bile about the stealing of the political process by right-wing fundies, :
"invoking Christianity as an instrument to advance a political agenda or to vanquish a political opponent is divisive, demagogic and beyond the pale in American politics."
Okay, so then what is blocking a judicial nominee because of his or religious background?
I also find it interesting how in many editorials and news articles, authors throw in the "born again" catch phrase when describing Christian conservatives. As in "Born-Again Christian Conservatives {eat puppies, hate gays, want a theocracy, whatever}..."

As opposed to what? The non-born-again Christians? Is "born again" supposed to invoke images of greater fundamentalism than your average "cultural Christian," who is a "christian" because they go to church two or three times a year?
Are we then led to believe that the cultural christians are more amenable to liberal causes, whereas the "born-again" kind with an actual personal conversion experience are more apt to adhere to Biblical fundamentals?

I guess I can live with that.