I can always tell when a particular loony left web site has attacked one of my posts, because they publicize my work email address, and I get four or five emails like this one: “You dumb s***. How the f*** did you get through law school?” They are almost always crude, hateful, and virtually identical.
This time, the lefties took issue with this post, in which I disputed Howard Fineman’s notion of a “conservative crack-up.” As usual, they don’t try to argue with the post as a whole or dispute its principal themes. Instead, they pick out a particular statement of fact and claim that it’s wrong. Here, I took issue with Fineman’s assertion that the religious right is up in arms about the Harriet Miers nomination, and considers it an affront–a claim which struck me as downright bizarre. (If Fineman had written that the staff of National Review considered the nomination an affront, he would have had a point.) The sentence the goofballs took issue with was this one: “I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an ‘affront’ to religious people.”
The lefty site tried to contradict my statement by offering three examples of “religious leaders” who have opposed Miers:
1) Liberty Counsel. I, personally, had never heard of Liberty Counsel, but that organization is self-evidently not a “religious leader.” What was the moonbats’ justification for including this organization on their list of religious leaders? The group has “close ties to Jerry Falwell.” Oh, really? Guess what: Falwell has come out in support of the Miers nomination.
2) Concerned Women for America. This is a well-respected, secular organization that, once again, is obviously not a “religious leader.” Moreover, CWA has reserved judgment on the Miers nomination.
3) Operation Rescue. I kid you not. Once again, this fringe anti-abortion organization may be a lot of things, but it is not a “religious leader.” Is its President, Troy Newman, even a minister? Beats me, but he certainly isn’t a religious leader, either.
So there you have it. The loonies strike out again.
More important, really, is the left’s inability to engage in rational debate at any level. It may well be that at some point, someone who could plausibly be considered a “religious leader” could oppose Harriet Miers’ nomination. So what? That would not in any way detract from my point, which was that Fineman’s suggestion that religious conservatives, as a group, are so “affronted” by the nomination that none of the Republican Senators who count on their support will vote for the nomination, was ludicrous.