Well, you really have to feel for these conservative evangelicals, especially the ones down south. They've got their man in the oval office. They claim Tom DeLay, warts and all, as their own. James Dobson has the president's ear. And now they've gotten one of their charter members nominated for the supremes.
Is she really evangelical enough? Is she the "right" kind of evangelical? Wasn't the evangelical label supposed to guarantee a certain political correctness of the conservative variety? I mean, baptize them, and they're supposed to come up out of the water opposing all forms of abortion, attacking gays, and demanding coerced prayer in the public schools. And, naturally, they shouldn't have any problem with an apartheid South America.
But while Harriet may be the president's best bud, and for all anybody knows, might be as harshly conservative as Edmund Burke, there's a little doubt. Her "pro-life" credentials are questionable. She apparently isn't afraid of gay people. She started up a women's group of some kind that invited liberal speakers. And back in the day, but after her conversion, she though the Dallas City Council needed to be better represented by minorities, and she even advocated the council divest any of its South African holdings while apartheid remained the law of the land there.
What the blog is going on here? No wonder George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter and William Kristol are throwing her under the bus.
Is it possible that "evangelical" might not mean true-blue, minority-bashing, homophobic, fire-breathing, poor people-hatin', political conservative?