Focus on the Family

While a majority of Americans believe that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford ought to resign following his decision to go AWOL and the subsequent disclosure of his infidelity, one group is not so sure.

And that group is the Focus on the Family affiliate and pre-eminent Religious Right organization in the state, the Palmetto Family Council:

Palmetto Family Council president Oran Smith says his group has not yet called on Sanford to resign, but is monitoring whether the governor is earnestly trying to reconcile with his wife.

"We really haven't reached a conclusion," Smith admits. "I'll have to say there is a lot of strong support on our board of directors for asking the governor to resign -- just simply because of some of the things that happened that were not related necessarily to the affair, but that involved him telling some untruths and trying to be evasive in a way that was not good to establish trust in the office of governor."

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the PFC's position would be were Sanford a Democrat?

But frankly, it's not surprising that the Palmetto Family Council would be reluctant to take a stand against Sanford (just like all the other Religious Right groups) considering that his endorsement of the organization is featured prominently on its website:

And, for those who are so inclined, here is an address Sanford delivered in which he gushingly praises the organization, though most of the speech is an introduction of former Rep. Steve Largent, whom Sanford credits for introducing him to C Street.

But just because the organization is unsure of what to do about the state's hypocritical governor doesn't mean they can't try to rally support for his wife, which it has done by setting up a webpage asking activists to send her messages of thanks and support:

The people of South Carolina, particularly the wives and mothers of the Palmetto State, feel the hurt of this scandal most deeply, and refuse to let this moment pass without taking time to thank and encourage the one person who has been a rock in this crisis: First Lady Jennifer Sullivan Sanford.

Friends of Palmetto Family Council are saying loud and clear that Jenny Sanford deserves our thanks and our support ... By doing so, you can encourage her and thank her for her strength, her courage, her commitment to her family, and her example. Please help us collect as many signatures as possible to show how deeply the people of South Carolina (particularly wives and mothers) appreciate her and what she represents.

Just yesterday I wrote a post about the fact that Manuel Miranda seems to think that the time-line for a vote on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court should be determined primarily by ... well, Manuel Miranda.

Today, CQ reports that Miranda and his Third Branch Conference will be sending a letter to Senators tomorrow demanding that any debate and vote on the nomination be held off until after the August recess:

The Third Branch Conference will send a letter to senators Friday asking that debate on Sotomayor's nomination be postponed until September, said the group's leader, Manuel Miranda.

"It would be a failure of leadership to allow a confirmation vote before the August recess," Miranda said Thursday.

Asked about the idea Thursday, Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said, "I haven't given that any thought. Obviously they're trying to rush this through."

But Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., who serves on the Judiciary Committee told reporters the confirmation schedule will not slip into September.

Miranda said the focus should be on trying to push back the floor vote rather than Sotomayor's confirmation hearing scheduled to begin in the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 13.

"I'm afraid the postponed hearing will be the basis for a barter," Miranda said, in which Republicans would agree to a floor vote prior to the August recess.

Despite Miranda's claim that they would never engage in an "obstructive filibuster" of Sotomayor's nomination, you can already see them plotting to do just that by incessantly issuing demands that, are they not met, they can use to justify to filibuster or otherwise obstruct the confirmation process.

The Hill has more on this "not-a-filibuster" effort to filibuster Sotomayor's nomination:

A coalition of more than 100 conservative activists have called on Senate Republicans to delay a final vote on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor until the fall.

A group of conservatives have called on Senate Republicans to use every tactic at their disposal to hold up Sotomayor’s confirmation until September.

“The confirmation debate and the final vote should occur is September and Republicans should ensure that happens, to allow the American people to engage in this debate,” said Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, which includes groups such as the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America.

The Third Branch Conference polled its members in recent days and found unanimous desire among more than 100 conservative activists and leaders to press Senate Republicans for a delay.

“This issue is bigger than partisan politics; some of the statements Sotomayor has made should be of concern to everybody,” said Mario Diaz, policy director of legal issues for Concerned Women for America.

Members of the coalition will begin contacting and writing letters to Senate Republicans on Friday.

...

Miranda argued that Republicans could delay the nomination by refusing to participate in a vote to move Sotomayor to the Senate floor.

Rule IV of the Judiciary Committee states that at least one member of the minority party must vote to cut off debate in committee.

There are apparently so many right-wing anti-marriage groups popping up in Maine that Focus on the Family, which has set up its own PAC in the state, can't even figure out to whom it is giving its money:

Focus on the Family, a 31-year-old national Christian group based in Colorado Springs, Colo., formed a Maine political action committee in support of the effort to repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law on Monday, according to state records.

The group describes itself as a "global ministry" whose radio broadcasts by Dr. James Dobson are heard by more than 230 million people around the world each week, according to its Web site. The group has more than 9,000 households on its Maine mailing list, according to a spokeswoman.

The newly formed PAC has received $22,000 in contributions, according to filings with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. Last Thursday, it made a $10,000 contribution to the Maine Marriage PAC, which is headed by Bob Emrich, according to state records.

The contribution came as a surprise to Emrich, who said last week he was teaming up with Marc Mutty of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland and others to form a coalition behind the StandForMarriageMaine PAC.

"No, that's incorrect," he said Monday, of the $10,000 contribution to his Maine Marriage PAC. "We definitely did not receive money from them in the Maine Marriage PAC, that much I can tell you for sure. There's obviously some sort of reporting error."

Emrich said he had approached Focus on the Family earlier in the year asking for money. He speculated that the group was confused by all of the groups seeking to repeal the law. He also speculated that because his own name is listed on two different PACs, Focus on the Family contributed to the 'wrong' one.

"I don't want to be accountable for that on the wrong PAC, that would mess everything up," Emrich said, adding that he planned to make calls on Tuesday to straighten out the situation.

"I was not expecting a contribution, I was hoping; I was actually hoping that there would be one larger than that, but every bit helps," Emrich said.

To further confuse the situation, a spokeswoman for Focus on the Family said its contribution was made to the Maine Marriage Alliance, another anti-gay marriage group with which Emrich is associated. That group does not have a PAC.

Yesterday I wrote a post arguing that the Religious Right has two basic options in opposing efforts to add sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation: 1) explain why religion deserves protections while sexual orientation does not even though there are nearly 2.5 times as many violent hate crimes targeting individuals because of their sexual orientation as there are violent crimes targeting individuals because of religion or 2) advocate doing away with hate crimes laws completely while explaining why the existing enhanced penalties for a racist who burns a cross on someone's lawn or a neo-Nazi who burns down a synagogue are "extraneous and obsolete."

In the article I linked to yesterday, Focus on the Family's Ashley Horne claimed to support existing hate crimes laws protecting race and religion but opposed adding protection for sexual orientation because ... well, religion was special:

If, as opponents of the bill say, gays and lesbians do not deserve hate crime protections, then who does?

Focus on the Family does not favor repealing hate-crime laws, but sees sexual orientation and gender identity as changeable, unlike race, for instance, said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for the Colorado-based group.

While Horne acknowledges individuals can change their religion, that category is the exception to the rule because "the government has historically protected religion since the founding of this country."

But today, Horne is claiming that hate crimes laws in general are unnecessary:

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said [Sen. Harry] Reid has it backwards. A hate-crimes law, she said, could distress entire communities – particularly Christian churches.

"As we've seen in other nations where such laws are passed, they can have a chilling effect on the free speech of those who would simply share from the Bible God's views on issues such as homosexuality," she explained. "Hate-crimes laws are unnecessary in a civil society like ours based on the rule of law.

"All crimes are hate crimes," she added, "To give special status to certain groups of people allows courts to reach beyond punishing people for the illegal acts they commit and judge them for what they may or may not be thinking as they commit those acts."

Which is it?  Yesterday Horne thought it was perfectly acceptable to have "special status" for "certain groups," so long as they were limited to race and religion but now says that giving "special status to certain groups" is fundamentally unfair. 

So, I'll ask this again:  given that the Religious Right, as Christians, already has "special status" under existing hate crimes laws, why is it only now that there are efforts to grant protections for sexual orientation that they think such protections are unnecessary?

This sort of incoherent stance is typical of the Religious Right’s opposition to hate crimes legislation: They see protections for race and religion as perfectly acceptable but don’t think sexual orientation warrants similar protections … but they can’t seem to explain why and so they end up arguing that hate crimes laws in general are unnecessary even though they actual support them and directly benefit from the protection such laws provide.

Over the last few years, James Dobson has been slowly relinquishing control over Focus on the Family and, earlier this year, stepped down as the organization's chairman.  To be sure, Dobson remains the face and primary voice of the organization and remains as committed as ever to pressing his right-wing agenda, but eventually he will step aside completely and control will be handed over to Jim Daly, FOF's President and CEO.

And when that does happen, it looks as if we can expect some changes at the organization, at least in terms of tone, according to this lengthy profile of Daly in the Denver Post:

The secret of Jim Daly's success, he says only half-jokingly, is "low expectations" ... Daly is as low-key, quick with a self-effacing joke and seemingly lighthearted as Dobson was authoritative, intense and formidable in defense of Christian values.

"I cannot be Dr. Dobson. I'm hoping for a different pair of shoes," Daly said. "He's black and white — a scientist. That's a good thing. He's provided clarity for the culture. For me, it's more about having a conversation with people."

...

Dobson rarely engaged directly and publicly with political opponents, although he sometimes met them behind the scenes. Daly expects to be more open.

"We're in a democracy. How do we express Christian ethos in a way that draws people into the discussion?" Daly asked. "We are the church. We have to be more understanding and not expect the world to act like the church. We also don't accept the church acting like the world."

Dobson had first handed over the Focus presidency to interim leader Don Hodel, then 68, in 2003 and then hand-picked a 44-year-old Daly to serve in that position in 2005.

It took Daly some time to feel comfortable in the new role.

"I literally laughed when they said they were considering me," Daly said. " 'Oh, no,'

I said. 'You're making a mistake.' I wasn't elated. I went home that night with a feeling of heaviness."

Jim also saw his wife Jean's "deer in the headlights" look at the thought of following Dobson's wife, Shirley, an elder stateswoman of conservative Christianity in her own right.

"At Jim's investiture ceremony, I could not stop sobbing," Jean said. "I thought I had to be Shirley Dobson. Jim told me, 'I have no expectations of you.' And, nothing's changed for me."

A few months ago, when the 72-year-old Dobson resigned as chairman of the Focus board, completely surrendering any administrative role over the 1,000-person staff, Daly and the new generation of leaders truly came into their own.

Dobson was no longer the boss, just the voice of the flagship radio broadcast.

When Dobson stepped down, he said a few words on the occasion. And then Daly spoke.

"What we want to see are more families like Barack Obama's," Daly said.

"Everybody's jaw went clunk, including Dr. Dobson's," Daly recalled, laughing. "But we can respect what Obama does well. We can focus more on the positive. And I respect his family."

Daly says he is results-oriented, not an ideologue.

"When those who are right, left and center all say, 'Let's make abortion rare,' let's meet at that starting point," Daly said. "Let's shove off the rhetoric and get together on practical matters."

So, who wants to listen to an hour and a half of James Dobson and former special assistant to President George W. Bush and current Focus on the Family Vice President Tim Goeglein count the ways in which they love President Bush and detail what a great president he was?

Nobody?

Well, I don't blame you, which is why I've edited it down to this nine minute audio clip in which Goeglein declares that "George W. Bush was the instrument in God's hand" that kept America safe; that Bush was just like George Washington; that Bush was the "most pro-life and pro-family president in the history of the United States" as demonstrated by his judicial nominations, including John Roberts and Samuel Alito; that his heart is breaking that all of Bush's work in this regard is being unraveled by President Obama; that it is not possible to be President of the United States and be pro-choice; that "there can be no compromise on the question of the defense of the innocent pre-born" and that their anti-choice efforts will be "vindicated ... by divine providence" when Roe v. Wade is finally overturned; that Bush is a "great thinker" who is "powered by integrity" which is rooted in his faith in Christ and that, in the years ahead, historians will look back and recognize Bush as the great president that he really was:

One section I didn't include was the ten minute explanation Goeglein gave about the circumstances under which he resigned from his position in the White House which, not surprisingly, he used to further demonstrate just what a loving, forgiving, and all-around remarkable human being George W. Bush truly is. 

If, down the line, you start hearing people claim that President Bush was never really committed to the  Religious Right agenda or that the Religious Right never really loved him, you can just play them this clip of Dobson and Goeglein's love note to George W. Bush, the greatest human being who ever lived.

UPDATE: The following transcript of the broadcast was prepared by The Colorado Independent:

James Dobson: There are undoubtedly some people listening to us today who are going to sneer at what you just said because George W. Bush was certainly one of the most hated presidents that we’ve had — certainly in recent memory.

He was maligned at every turn but I know you admire him greatly, don’t you?

Tim Goeglein: I do, indeed. In fact, I see George W. Bush as a great president. And I believe that George Walker Bush was right about the most important things that came across his presidency in those eight years, Dr. Dobson.

First, without peer, is that he saw the greatest external threat to our national security. And he saw it immediately. And he prosecuted the war in such a way that from 9/11 and the terror and terribleness of the day — and I was in the White House that day — until the last minute of the last hour of his presidency, George W. Bush kept us safe.

Providence kept us safe.

But George W. Bush was the instrument in God’s hand as the leader of the free world.

And every problem imaginable that comes across your desk when you’re the President of the United States. But history will be kind to George Bush because they will see that through a series of very important decisions his leadership, his personal character and integrity added up to the forbearance of another direct attack on the United States of America.

The primary role of the Commander in Chief is our national security. And, yes, I believe that part of the greatness of George W. Bush was not to see this as an intelligence problem primarily. To not see it as a police action.

Dobson: Yeah, yeah.

Goeglein: But to actually see it for what it was. Of course, this was the great blessing of our first president George Washington — the original George W. — who, you know, the thing that made him in Thomas Flexner’s landmark biography “The Indispensable Man,” the greatest trait of Washington was to see things as they were and not as he wanted to see them.

That was George W. Bush’s gift.

When he came to this war, he immediately — upon being told of the attacks — knew that this was war and that we were being attacked existentially by radical Islam.

But the one thing that we did not talk about, I think is the greatest achievement of the former president, beyond the security question, is the fact that George W. Bush is the most pro-life and pro-family president in the history of the United States.

Dobson: Now, I’ve said that on many, many occasions here at Focus on the Family and I want you to address it. George Bush is the most pro-life and pro-family president in history. Validate that statement for us.

Goeglein: I was getting ready to come to the broadcast and I literally jotted these down. These are quick snapshots of the Bush Administration on life.

• Signed and reinstituted the Mexico City Agreement
• Signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
• Signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act
• Vetoed the partial birth abortion bill

And, very importantly, fought it in several appellate courts.

He had the most pro-life, anti-cloning provision, ever. He instituted the most important pro-life provision in his presidency which was a pro-human dignity, pro-life stem cell research policy.

He created the conscience clause laws provisions.

I may say, as well, that George W. Bush funded pro-marriage programs. Was the greatest funder of abstinence education in the history of the United States.

He gave Henry Hyde the Medal of Freedom, the most pro-life member of the United States Senate or House, ever.

And I think very importantly, Dr. Dobson, and this is something that I think that is at the pinnacle of pro-life, pro-family achievement in this administration, the Bush administration, he elevated John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the United State of America. He appointed Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice …

Dobson: A great justice too.

Goeglein: … two great justices. And, this is something people do not know, that George W. Bush nominated and confirmed over 35 percent of sitting federal judges.

Dobson: So his impact on the judiciary is going to continue for a long time.

Goeglein: It is huge. It is huge and it’s lasting.

Dobson: Does it break your heart what is about to happen to the judiciary?

Goeglein: It more than breaks my heart. To watch it unravel in a few short months by a new president is a heartbreaking, disappointing and difficult thing to watch. It is systematic and it is categorical. And we have gone in America from the most pro-life president in the history of our country to, unfortunately, the most pro-abortion president that we’ve ever had.

It is not possible to president of the United States of America, in the early part of the 21st century, and to know what we know morally and technologically and to find any reason other than a full-throated advocate for the pro-life position.

Dobson: Yeah, when President Obama spoke recently at Notre Dame about abortion he talked about our need to come together, to find areas of agreement. He said that we needed to work together. We needed to accommodate each other.

But you can’t compromise with evil. I mean, in what way are you going to compromise with the killing of babies?

Goeglein: There is no compromise. There can be no compromise on the question of the defense of the innocent pre-born.

All of the millions of people who have worked in both in the leadership and the vanguard of the pro-life movement, they will be vindicated. If by divine providence Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. And we were to start again in the United State on the question of life.

It is simply unacceptable that from 1973 until 15 seconds ago, that something like 45 million innocent pre-born lives have been snuffed out in defense of words like “choice.”

George W. Bush’s greatness as a human being, apart from the presidency, is that he has an inner moral compass that is self-confident. That is loyal. That is powered by integrity.

But Dr. Dobson it wells up from his faith in Christ. This is who the man is.

He is a great thinker. He is a person who prays and works to make the right decision. He has an inner confidence and peace in his soul that that was the right thing.

Dobson: And nothing is going to shake his confidence.

Goeglein: I think that is absolutely right. And that’s why I’m actually very confident and hopeful that in the years ahead — with the benefit of time and space — that historians will look back at those remarkable, incredibly eventful eight years, and say, you know, he made the right decisions about the biggest things during those eight years.

And, yes, maybe he will not be remembered, you know, of Churchillian, you know, eloquence. Maybe he will not be remembered for X, Y and Z. But when it comes to the questions of national security and war, when it comes to the questions of the right to life and when it comes to the questions of our constitutional Republic, national sovereignty and constitutional formulation of the Supreme Court — above all when it comes to the innocent pre-born people will say he got those big ones right.

The responses to the assassination of physician George Tiller by right-wing groups have run the gamut. 

The most common response has been to decry the murder and say that violence is never the answer, which has been the point made by the likes of the Family Research Council, American Life League, 40 days of Life, Vision America, and National Institute of Family and Life Advocates.

Focus on the Family likewise issued a statement decrying the killing, but did so in a way that seemed to suggest that the problem wasn’t Tiller’s death, but the fact that he hadn’t been convicted of murder first:

"Tiller recently faced serious charges related to the killing of babies in violation of the law, by the most grotesque procedures administered without anesthetics or compassion. We profoundly regretted the outcome of his legal case, believing the doctor had the blood of countless babies on his hands. Nevertheless, he was acquitted by the court and declared "not guilty" in the eyes of the law. That is our system, and we honor it.

And then there self-serving statements, such as this odd one from Alveda King, lamenting that Tiller was killed in church, saying "just as the womb should be a safe haven, so should church" and one from Operation Rescue stating that the suspect in Tiller's murder "has never been a member, contributor, or volunteer with Operation Rescue."

For its part. the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission vowed not to be intimidated in the wake of Tiller's murder:

"The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission will not allow pro-abortionists or their accomplices in the media to exploit the cowardly act of one misguided individual in order to defame millions of peaceful pro-lifers," said Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "Day and night millions of peaceful pro-lifers sacrificially serve women and their unborn babies. We will not tolerate any attempt to exploit this terrible event in order to further restrict pro-life activities or silence pro-life speech or reverse the gains pro-lifers have achieved in the law."

The nation's most notorious late term abortionist, George Tiller, of Wichita Kansas, was shot and killed while in Church on Sunday. Tiller admitted to having aborted tens of thousands of babies.

"Tiller's death at the hands of a lawless vigilante must be unequivocally condemned," said Cass. "But we cannot allow pro-abortion activists and politicians to use this tragedy to manipulate public opinion or our laws."

Still others are worried about how this will inpact their political agenda, especially as it pertains to opposing Sonia Sotomayor:

They also worried that there would now be an effort to stifle anti-abortion viewpoints during questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Her exact views on abortion aren't known, but conservatives fear she supports abortion rights.

Said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, an anti-abortion activist: "No one should use this tragedy for political gain."

...

Mahoney said he had been conferring with other anti-abortion leaders about how to deal with any backlash to the Tiller killing that might undercut their cause at a time when they are trying to challenge Obama's support for abortion rights.

"I'd hope they wouldn't try to broad-brush the entire pro-life movement as some sort of extremist movement because of what happened in Wichita," Mahoney said. "That's really important — don't use this personal loss for a political gain."

And then finally, there are those like Randall Terry who essentially believe that Tiller deserved to be murdered, which is pretty much the point made by Pat McEwen of Operation Save America:

"He died the way he lived. His was a bloody death." Rev Rusty Thomas, Operation Save America(OSA). "Someone 'chose' to end George Tiller's life this morning, in his church."

"What was an abortionist doing 'in' church, any church...being allowed, welcomed, even venerated? This man killed babies for a living. He charged large sums of money to do it. Then he went to 'church,' made large contributions, and the 'church' (Reformation Lutheran Church) accepted it??" Pastor Mark Holick, Spirit One Christian Center, & OSA.

This is an apostate church, fully complicit in Mr. Tiller's murderous rampage against preborn children. It has provided cover and respectability for him. We have confronted both pastor and church with this trashing of the Gospel of Christ. I can still recall one board member saying, "We have members who believe both ways (pro-life or pro-choice)." Please!

"A man who stiffens his neck after many rebukes will suddenly be destroyed -- without remedy." Proverbs 29:1. "George Tiller has been confronted innumerable times with the claims of Christ." Rev Flip Benham, Director of Operation Save America. "We were in Wichita in 1991, pleading for him to receive Christ and stop murdering children. In April 2001, I wrote him a personal letter with the book, Won By Love hoping to speak with him. Every day outside his abortion mill, gentle Christians pleaded with mothers to choose life and with George to choose Christ. We have been to his home, his church, and his work. He is now bowing before Jesus and confessing that He (Jesus) is right and that he (George Tiller) was wrong!"

No doubt the media will paint every Christian, who loves life and lives out that belief in the streets of his city, as a wild-eyed, lunatic, fanatic bent on shooting abortionists. They will attempt to silence the voice of many by using the violence of one. This ploy is the devil's "straw man."

Beware! The one who murdered George Tiller became exactly what George Tiller was -- a murderer.

You really have to hand it to the Right: when it comes to hypocrisy, they seemingly know no limit.

Take this newest "Washington Update" from the Family Research Council demanding to know whether Sonia Sotomayor gave some sort of assurance to the White House about her views regarding reproductive choice:

In a 2007 debate, Obama said he "would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right of privacy." After bobbing and weaving over the past few days, the White House now apparently believes it must make public its confidence that Sotomayor views abortion on demand as settled law. But that is exactly what Roe is not. The sweeping decision unsettled the nation's conscience in 1973 and caused a firestorm that continues to this very day.

It's imperative now that Judge Sotomayor address how the White House obtained its assurance about her views ... Does Sotomayor pick and choose what she regards as settled, and how and to whom did she give assurances?

If they are trying to gin up some sort of outrage, maybe first they could explain why, back in 2005, even before George Bush had nominated Harriet Miers, Karl Rove and others from the White House were explicitly reaching out to people like James Dobson to assure him that Miers opposed abortion:

Dobson also said he learned that President Bush was looking only for a woman to appoint to the position, which eliminated many of the top names that Washington observers had bandied about in the days leading up to Miers' nomination.

"But I was not gonna be the one to reveal this. I knew that people would eventually be aware of some of that information, but I didn't think I had the right to say it. And so, I made my comment," Dobson said.

"What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I couldn't reveal," Dobson explained. "Well, it's what we all know now, that Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life."

"In other words, there is a characterization of her that was given to me before the President had actually made this decision," Dobson concluded.

It didn't work, ultimately, because the Right eventually forced Miers to withdraw based largely on its concerns about this very issue.

This sort of amnesia seems widespread, judging by this Bobby Eberle piece lamenting the fact that Republicans didn't put up a big enough fight to get Miguel Estrada confirmed:

If Judge Sotomayor is confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the Supreme Court, and Obama, the media, and the left-wing establishment are making sure everyone knows it ... All of this talk sends a sad reminder to me of how things could have been had Republicans stood up and fought for Miguel Estrada, one of President Bush's first judicial nominees. Estrada would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The nomination was seen as a potential stepping stone for Estrada (not Sotomayor) to be the first Hispanic on the U.S. Supreme Court.

While it is quite possible that Estrada may have eventually ended up on the Supreme Court, this sort of finger-pointing and teeth-gnashing willingly ignores the fact that Bush wanted to name the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court by nominating Alberto Gonzales, but the Right would have none of it and essentially pre-emptively killed his nomination, as we chronicled in this report back in 2005:

Newsweek correctly states that “Gonzales is the only A-list contender who religious conservatives pledge, upfront, to fight.” The article quotes Tom Minnery of Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family saying outright about a potential Gonzales nomination: “We'd oppose him.”

In the same article, Manuel Miranda, head of the recently formed coalition of extreme conservative groups called the “Third Branch Conference” and a former Frist staffer fired for unethically reading internal Democratic judiciary staff communications, warned that a Gonzales nomination could doom the Republican Party in upcoming elections: “If the president is foolish enough to nominate Al Gonzales, what he will find is a divided base that will take it out on candidates in 2006.” Miranda went on to threaten retribution against Florida Governor Jeb Bush, if he decides to run for president. “We're not Republican patsies,” he said. “Jeb Bush can go sell insurance.”

The New York Times reported similar opposition to Gonzales: “Late last week, a delegation of conservative lawyers led by C. Boyden Gray and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III met with the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., to warn that appointing Mr. Gonzales would splinter conservative support.”

Elsewhere in the article, the Times reported that Paul Weyrich was warning “administration officials that nominating Mr. Gonzales would fracture the president's conservative backers.” Weyrich also claimed to have held a conversation with Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman to “let the administration know through whatever channels we have that Gonzales would be an unwise appointment because of the opposition of some of the groups.”

In the same article, Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime radical and extreme right leader, said “Bush was very clear, and certainly his constituents believed him, when he said he would appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas. We are not in favor of Gonzales.” One of the reasons for the intensity of the opposition to Gonzales is that the Right feels that they were betrayed by President Reagan with his nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor who was, according to Schlafly, “a terrible disappointment.”

The National Review made its opposition to a Gonzales nomination clear in an editorial entitled “No to Justice Gonzales”: “[The] president has to know that conservatives, his supporters in good times and bad, would be appalled and demoralized by a Gonzales appointment. It would place his would-be successors in the Senate in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between angering conservatives by voting for Gonzales and saying no to him. If Democrats attack Gonzales... conservatives will not rally to his defense.”

Robert Novak wrote a similar piece called “No, not Gonzales!”: “Gonzales long has been unacceptable to anti-abortion activists because of his record as a Texas Supreme Court justice. Beyond pro-lifers, he is opposed by organized conservative lawyers. Ironically, the same Bush supporters who have been raising money and devising tactics for the mother of all judicial confirmation fights are in a panic that Gonzales will be named. With the president's popularity falling among his conservative base as well as the general populace, a politically disastrous moment may be at hand.”

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council also voiced his opposition to a Gonzales nomination during a recent appearance on MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country”: “I think what you would hear would be [what] sounds like slashing the tires of the conservative movement, because this has been a moment in time that has been anticipated for over a decade. And if there is someone who . . . appears along the same lines of an O’Connor, an unknown or someone who has a judicial philosophy that is less than a Scalia or Thomas, it`s a problem. There is no question about it.”

Last week Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (H.R. 2410) which would, among other things, "end the long-standing practice of excluding the committed partners of Foreign Service officers from the benefits routinely provided to the spouses and children of officers serving abroad."

The change would, in essence, "require the State Department to confer the same benefits to same-sex partners as it does to married couples."

And guess what?  The Religious Right doesn't like it:

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus on the Family Action, pointed out that H.R. 2410 violates the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

"The public policy of the United States expressed through DOMA and other federal provisions is to promote one-man, one-woman marriage," she said. "That is the gold standard by which the government does, and should continue to, offer benefits."

That sort of complaint, while entirely predictable, appears downright sensible compared to this one from the Family Research Council:

Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration are not ready to attack traditional marriage directly, but they may be willing to have it die a death of a thousand cuts. Under the current version of H.R. 2410, the State Department budget reauthorization bill, taxpayers will be financially responsible for the same-sex partners of U.S. diplomats. The legislation calls for an end to "the long-standing practice of excluding the committed partners of Foreign Service officers from the benefits [like health care and travel] routinely provided to the spouses... serving abroad."

If the House agrees to fund these "significant others," the policy would be completely inconsistent with the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the government from treating same-sex partners as the equivalent of spouses. Ironically, House leaders are asking Congress to overturn the policy on the grounds of discrimination--even though the bill blatantly practices it. Under the current language, gays and lesbians are eligible for these perks, but heterosexual partners are not.

Apparently FRC considers offering the same benefits to committed partners of foreign affairs officers as are offered to spouses is itself discriminatory because such benefits are not being offered to "heterosexual partners."

Of course, "heterosexual partners" could always get married and then they would receive the same benefits.  Except for a handful of states, gays can't get married - thanks largely to the Religious Right - and even in those states where they can get married, the Right doesn't want those legally vaild marriages recognized by the federal government in any way, shape, or form.

If gays could get married, this sort of thing wouldn't even be an issue. But since the Religious Right is focused on making sure that never happens, we end up with efforts like this aimed at ensuring that the families of gay and straight foreign service officers are treated equally.

And how does the Right respond? By complaining about discrimination!