Broadcasting in the Clear (Well, Sort Of)

The date was October 8, 2004. It was the second presidential debate between John Kerry and George W. Bush. That debate is famous for two Bush statements. The first one was the stunning announcement that there is more than one internet (Bush: "I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft."). The second announcement was that George W. Bush (are you ready for this?) did not like the 1857 Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case. That decision . . ., well, I'll let our president explain it:

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

No, Bush hadn't lost his mind -- well, not really anyway. It turned out that he was merely speaking in code. Timothy Noah at Slate explained it this way:

What was the meaning of this borderline-incoherent ramble? Apparently, it was an invisible high-five to the Christian right. "Google Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade," various readers instructed me, and damned if they weren't on to something. To the Christian right, "Dred Scott" turns out to be a code word for "Roe v. Wade." Even while stating as plain as day that he would apply "no litmus test," Bush was semaphoring to hard-core abortion opponents that he would indeed apply one crucial litmus test: He would never, ever, appoint a Supreme Court justice who condoned Roe.

And all this code-speak went along swimmingly for a while -- that is, until the Harriet Miers SCOTUS nomination came along.

The NYTimes has a good article today about the GOP CodeBook and whether or not it has been thrown out the window:

The nomination of Ms. Miers demonstrated the fragility of a coalition built in part on code. The administration relied on subtle clues about her evangelical faith and confidential conversations with influential conservative Christians to enlist grass-roots support for Ms. Miers.

Instead the Miers nomination has threatened to shatter the coalition that Mr. Bush and his adviser Karl Rove hoped would be the foundation of a durable Republican majority. Social conservatives say that Mr. Bush made them tacit promises to appoint justices who would rule their way on abortion and other social issues. They wanted a nominee with a clear record and Ms. Miers had none.

Now that the code is starting to break down, the radical right is resorting to other methods to get their messages through. One example of this is the secret communique:

Perhaps anticipating concerns over Ms. Miers, Mr. Rove, the president's top political adviser, called several of the most prominent conservative Christians - including James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family and Mr. Land of the Southern Baptist Convention - before her selection was announced to enlist their support. Dr. Dobson has subsequently raised eyebrows by saying repeatedly that he is supporting her in part because he has received certain confidential information that he cannot divulge. They and other allies like Charles Colson have come out in her defense.

Doesn't it speak volumes that the radical right has to operate using codes and secret communiques? It tells me that these extremists have a pretty good idea regarding just how extreme their views really are. These people are so radical, in fact, that they cannot act out in the open and instead cowardly resort to clandestine methods to get their messages through. It is kind of like they are trying to sneak up on the country and pounce when the time is right. You know -- kind of like Communists.

Well, I've got a message for these people:

Ouryay imetay isway omingcay otay anway endway, Assholesway.