OK, now I can relax a bit. The omnipresent Ted Olsen & Co. at the Christianity Today weblog have put up the official list of all -- surely this is all of them -- URLs linked to the HHGR case. Of particular interest (I plan to post on this later in the day) is the collection of links covering the current state of the heart and mind of Karl Rove's main man -- James Dobson. Scroll down and note the link to the actual radio broadcast in which Dobson takes the red pill.
Enjoy, folks. After all, people on both sides of the sanctuary aisle are still buzzing about the following Dobson quotes in The New York Times regarding the Harriet Miers nomination.
Explaining his reasons for supporting her and praying for guidance, Dr. Dobson cited her religious faith and said he knew her conservative evangelical church. "I know the person who brought her to the Lord," he said. "I have talked at length to people that know her and have known her for a long time."
Dr. Dobson acknowledged conversations with Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, about the selection but declined to disclose their contents. "You will have to trust me on this one," he said, adding that if he was wrong, "the blood of those babies" -- aborted fetuses -- "will be on my hands to some degree."
Now, I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian and a pro-life Democrat. Please remember that. But I think it's time to ask Dobson a variation on the question I asked him a decade ago in a Religion Newswriters Association press conference out in Wheaton of the West. I asked if Bill Clinton had become his own personal Vietnam, pulling him out of the ministry to which he was called (while the Baby Boomers had their childen in their homes) and into partisan politics in much the same manner as the war did for the mainline Protestant left in the 1960s (when members of the GI Generation were still heavily involved in building families). Dobson said he would sacrifice his ministry if it would help him defeat Clinton on the issue of abortion.
The assumption? That Dobson could do more through politics to advance the pro-life cause than he could through working with mothers, fathers and their children. My conviction (and, yes, you can see this in my newspaper columns) is that we live in an age in which culture matters more than politics. I believe that what happens in homes and, yes, movie theaters and malls does as much or more to shape the reality of daily American life than what happens in voting booths. Does Dobson think he can vote in the Kingdom?
Just asking. I think that, on the religious left, E.J. Dionne is asking some very similar questions. Check him out. But here are the money quotes:
The use of Miers's religion as a magnet for conservative support is not just the work of a few religious voices. It's part of the administration's strategy. . . . Let's be clear: It is pro-administration conservatives, not those terrible liberals, who are making an issue of Miers's evangelical faith. Liberals are not opposing Miers because she is an evangelical. Conservatives are telling their friends to support Miers because she is an evangelical.
And many conservatives are now opposing her, not because she is an evangelical, but because they simply do not believe she is a worthy candidate for such an important position in American life and culture.
It's a fascinating moment in GetReligion land. Friends and neighbors, this is why we are here. We are watching the MSM wrestle with a some big questions that are worth wrestling with. Let us know what you think and let the newsrooms -- local and national -- know what you think, too.
P.S. Check this out. An army of Los Angeles Times reporters. About 3,300 words of text. An explosion of travel money (maybe) and bureau time (for certain). Number of new insights or critical pieces of information? Zero?