More Cause for Cynicism

My cynicism toward the GOP's use of abortion as an election issue is gaining traction.  Consider this exchange between President Bush and reporters today:

When he was asked if he had ever talked to Ms. Miers about her views on abortion, the president did not answer directly at first. "I have no litmus test," he said. But after a moment, he said that to the best of his recollection, he had never discussed abortion with her.

Hugh Hewitt defends the nomination with "Wake up people: Do you really think W is going to elevate a friend who doesn't agree with him on the crucial issues of the day just because she's a friend?"  Well, apparently President Bush doesn't believe that abortion rights are one of the "crucial issues" of the day.  Given her lack of a paper record, how else was he supposed to ascertain her views?  Her past opposition to the ABA's pro-choice policy does not mean that she opposes legalized abortion; it could simply mean that she supports pluralism.  Even if he wasn't planning on nominating her, what does it say about the centrality of legalized abortion to Bush's worldview that the subject never came up throughout his long and uncommonly close working relationship with Miers?

Note that I am not suggesting that abortion should be the defining issue driving the selection of Supreme Court justices.  I am simply pointing out that abortion seemed much more prominent in the campaign rhetoric of President Bush and his surrogates than it does in the decision-making process by which abortion rights could actually be impacted.

Rob

UPDATE: While abortion may not be the only issue that led evangelicals to embrace Bush over Kerry, it was arguably the most widely compelling one.  Needless to say, abortion is central to most evangelicals' criteria for the Bush Administration's Supreme Court appointments.  Check out the level of expectations over at Evangelical Outpost:

Make no mistake, if Miers is appointed to the bench and refuses to overturn Roe we will have only ourselves to blame. If after spending a quarter of a century in the church, a Christian woman can uphold the most unjust ruling since Dred Scott, then we have failed as a church. If the best we can say about an evangelical is that she “brings donuts” rather than that she brings a passion for justice, then the blood of the innocent will be on our hands. We will have failed to fulfill the calling of the church.

So why do we have this strange feeling in our stomachs about this nomination?  Because deep down we know that being a member of a "conservative evangelical church” may make you an evangelical, but it doesn’t make you a disciple.

This level of anguish over legalized abortion stands in stark contrast, in my view, to President Bush's admission that the subject never even came up in his countless conversations with Miers.