 |
| |
|
June 2, 2006
Homeland
InSecurity: The White House should be renamed the Heart of Darkness
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
Treason and lawbreaking have become so banal in the Bush Administration,
the public and the media hardly bat an eye.
But the politically motivated "redistribution" of homeland security funds
-- away from major potential terrorist targets like New York City (9/11) and
Washington, D.C. -- makes the words traitor and Orwellian inadequate to
describe the treachery of the Busheviks.
Here is what one of our readers had to comment. We’ll let you read it
while we try to regain our composure and fathom this diabolical move:
To BuzzFlash:
Feds to city: drop dead
Homeland honcho cuts funds by 40%
A Homeland Security spokesman insisted New York's cut was based on a
powerful new matrix that crunches millions of bits of data to figure out
where money is most needed.
"We're quite frankly getting highly sophisticated in our ability to
analyze threat," said Russ Knocke.
Highly sophisticated in their ability to analyze threat? Do you have to
be a rocket scientist to figure out the most threatened places in the US?
Let's just make it easy - if you're Blue, you're in trouble. That's the
highly sophisticated reasoning they're using to figure out where money is
most needed. I'm not surprised though. I would expect nothing else from this
administration. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
Every day it's a new atrocity and they're getting worse and worse. Are
there actually people out there who don't realize how dangerous these people
are? Oh, what a stupid question.
Chertoff - go Cheney yourself.
Barbara in NYC
Thanks Barbara. We’ve calmed down now.
Okay, now the most likely scenario, beyond chronic incompetence, is that
Karl Rove wanted more funds to go to Congressional areas where the
Republicans need to strengthen their voter base for the mid-term elections.
Bush’s Department of Homeland InSecurity "judged that the
nation's capital is a 'low-risk' city and that the Statue of Liberty,
Brooklyn Bridge and Empire State Building are not worthy of 'national icon'
status. By contrast, those terrorism magnets of Kansas City and St. Louis --
both by happenstance in Henke's home state of Missouri -- received boosts in
funds. Other winners: the horses of Louisville, the cattle of Omaha and five
cities in Jeb Bush's Florida.”
So the two cities that have been hit by terrorists had their “Homeland
Security” funding dramatically cut in order to woo Republican votes in red
states! This is beyond betrayal: it puts our lives at risk. It is criminal
negligence.
Furthermore, the extreme dishonest and juvenile lies that the Busheviks
cooked up to justify this potential enabling of terrorism are beyond belief.
The Bush Department of what has clearly become Homeland InSecurity claimed
that
New York City did not have sufficient national landmarks and targets to
justify full funding: “From Times Square and the Empire State Building
to the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty, New York is a city of
spectacular landmarks. Ask any of the 41 million tourists who visited last
year.
But according to the Homeland Security Department, New York has no
national monuments or icons -- a determination that led to a 40 percent cut
in anti-terrorism funding.”
As for Washington, D.C. – and we can barely contain ourselves as we write
this – the Bushevik Department of Homeland InSecurity stated that our
nation’s capital is, we repeat, "at low risk of attack"
As the Washington Post
reports, "The Department of Homeland Security has ranked the District in
a low-risk category of terrorist attack or catastrophe, putting it in the
bottom 25 percent of U.S. states and territories, as part of a decision that
will cost the city millions in anti-terror funds, according to city and
federal officials."
Okay, pick your jaw up from the floor, now.
Part of the Busheviks’ strategy, which we have repeated since 2000, is to
be such brazen liars, bullies, thugs, and partisans that they simply do
things that defy common sense and, therefore, no one can fully absorb the
evil of their actions.
You take the two cities that are the governmental and economic centers of
our nation, respectively. These are the same two cities attacked on 9/11.
Then you declare that they are not likely terrorist targets.
This is beyond moronic incompetence.
This is raw, oozing evil.
How anyone in Congress with a brain cell in their heads and an interest
in self-survival and the survival of this nation can continue to prop up
this “enemy within” executive branch is beyond comprehension.
The continuation of the Bush Administration puts our entire nation at
risk.
They make the old Soviet Union dictators look honest, truthful and caring
about their citizens.
The White House should be renamed the Heart of Darkness.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
© BuzzFlash. |
| |
 |
| |
Posted on Jun 1, 2006
In a
2003 interview with Ladies Home Journal, Bush told Peggy Noonan that
during the late-night hours of Sept. 11, he and wife Laura were hustled
around the White House in their bedtime clothes because it was thought a jet
was going to crash into the building. “[T]he day ended on a relatively
humorous note,” he said. “We got a laugh out of it.”
"Bad taste” doesn’t really seem to do this justice.
(h/t:
Daou Report. Also:
full-text interview.)
Democratic Underground:
George W. Bush: But the day ended on a
relatively humorous note. The agents said, “you’ll be sleeping downstairs.
Washington’s still a dangerous place.” And I said no, I can’t sleep down
there, the bed didn’t look comfortable. I was really tired, Laura was tired,
we like our own bed. We like our own routine. You know, kind of a nester. I
knew I had to deal with the issue the next day and provide strength and
comfort to the country, and so I needed rest in order to be mentally
prepared. So I told the agent we’re going upstairs, and he reluctantly said
okay. Laura wears contacts, and she was sound asleep. Barney was there. And
the agent comes running up and says, “We’re under attack. We need you
downstairs,” and so there we go. I’m in my running shorts and my T-shirt,
and I’m barefooted. Got the dog in one hand, Laura had a cat, I’m holding
Laura —
Laura Bush: I don’t have my contacts in
, and I’m in my fuzzy house slippers —
George W. Bush: And this guy’s out of
breath, and we’re heading straight down to the basement because there’s an
incoming unidentified airplane, which is coming toward the White House. Then
the guy says it’s a friendly airplane. And we hustle all the way back up
stairs and go to bed.
Mrs. Bush: And we just lay there
thinking about the way we must have looked.
Peggy Noonan (interviewer): So the day
starts in tragedy and ends in Marx Brothers.
George W. Bush: That’s right — we got a
laugh out of it.
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor,
Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2006 Truthdig, L.L.C |
| |
 |
| |
|
CA 50: Is GOP’s Bilbray Running Into a Political Perfect Storm?
By
Rachel Kapochunas | 7:59 PM; May. 31, 2006
Tuesday’s special election to replace convicted Republican Rep. Randy
“Duke” Cunningham in California’s 50th District is still too close to call —
and Republican nominee Brian P. Bilbray, a practiced surfer in the waters
off San Diego, may feel as though he has strayed into a political rip
current.
Bilbray, a former three-term House member (1995-2001), faces tough
opposition from Democratic educator Francine Busby, who in her first bid for
public office lost to Cunningham as the 2004 Democratic House nominee. Busby
is trying to apply the taint of Cunningham’s bribery conviction to Bilbray
and the House Republican majority in general, urging voters to elect a
Democrat and send a message that would be heard across the country.
While Bilbray could normally expect to weather Busby’s assault in a San
Diego-area district that has a significant Republican lean, his special
election campaign has been troubled by dissent within his own party’s ranks.
Bilbray holds moderate views on social issues such as abortion and some
environmental matters, and there are those on his political right who argue
that his narrow victory in the April 11 primary was the result of a
conservative vote diffused among several other contenders.
That sentiment creates some intrigue around the special election
candidacy of independent William Griffith, an Army veteran and outspoken
opponent of illegal immigration. Although Bilbray also has been talking
tough on immigration, Griffith has the support of the San Diego branch of
the Minutemen, a group that has organized citizen patrols of U.S. border
areas.
Though Griffith received less than 1 percent of the vote in the April
primary — in which all candidates, regardless of party, appeared on the same
ballot — his potential to draw even a relatively small number of unhappy
conservatives from Bilbray threatens to make him a “spoiler” candidate.
Layered on top of this is a coincidence of timing that is seriously
complicating Bilbray’s campaign. Voters in the special election to fill the
remaining months of Cunningham’s unexpired term will also simultaneously
cast ballots in the regularly scheduled primary for November’s full-term
general election — which includes nearly all of the candidates who Bilbray
outran in the special primary.
Only one of these, businessman and special primary also-ran Bill Hauf, is
campaigning against Bilbray in the full-term primary, contending that his
more conservative views better fit the district. But another conservative
businessman, GOP primary runner-up Eric Roach, while declining to run an
active June 6 primary campaign, hinted that he would not mind receiving the
support of voters not sold on Bilbray.
Bilbray called the voting process “very confusing,” stating, “It’s tough
to get Republicans used to the concept of voting twice.”
And Bilbray’s difficulties in skirting the political fault lines in the
Republican Party were underscored by the latest bump he faced — this time
from an expected ally — on the campaign trail.
Bilbray had scheduled a fundraiser for Wednesday that would include a
guest appearance by Arizona Sen. John McCain, whose image as a political
maverick gives him more cross-party appeal than virtually any other major
Republican figure. But McCain revealed Tuesday night that he would not
attend, which Democrats heralded as evidence that Bilbray’s campaign is
faltering.
The buzz about McCain’s withdrawal quickly focused on the differences
between himself and Bilbray on immigration.
Bilbray has made a tough stance against illegal immigrants his signature
issue in a district that has a southern edge just 25 miles from the border
with Mexico. He also has accused Busby of supporting “amnesty” for illegal
immigrants. But Busby strongly denies that characterization, stating that
she favors a “guest worker” program embodied in a Senate-passed bill — of
which McCain is the lead Republican sponsor.
Busby sought to preempt McCain’s expected visit by placing a
Web ad on her campaign site accusing Bilbray of “lying” about her
position on immigration. She also sent McCain a letter noting that Bilbray
has attacked her for supporting the senator’s position on the issue.
Busby subsequently claimed some credit for McCain’s decision to back out.
“It was directly related to the focus on the attacks that Bilbray has made
on Francine’s support of McCain’s plan, whether that was through her letter
or just from hearing that Francine was under attack for supporting his
plan,” said Busby campaign communications director Brennan Bilberry. “I’m
sure that didn’t sit too well.”
Bilbray, though, maintains that McCain withdrew to keep their differences
on this one hot-button issue from becoming a distraction.
“The feeling was that immigration was the issue, not campaign finance
reform and the other things we worked on together ... and he would be placed
in a compromising position,” Bilbray told CQPolitics.com Wednesday. Bilbray
stressed that the senator’s political action committee has contributed the
maximum allowable amount of money — $5,000 — to the Bilbray campaign and
that McCain stands by his endorsement.
Despite the Democrats’ efforts to make hay out of the incident, political
scientist Gary C. Jacobson of the University of California at San Diego
suggests it could actually aid Bilbray by assuaging conservative voters. “My
initial reading on this is that this probably helps Bilbray with his
potential core Republican conservative supporters,” Jacobson said. “What he
loses among moderates and what he loses in terms of fundraising would be
offset by what he gains by giving conservative Republicans a greater reason
to vote for him.”
Jacobson added that, since 1966, Democratic takeovers of House seats in
California have happened only in districts where the Republican registration
advantage was 3.7 percentage points or lower. The current GOP edge in the
50th District is 14.6 percent.
That would suggest an important underlying advantage for Bilbray. But it
also would give a possible Busby upset added impact in a campaign year when
President Bush and the national Republican Party have endured a sharp
decline in their public approval ratings — and when the GOP may be
challenged to prevent the 15-seat net loss that would turn control of the
House over to the Democrats.
“For a Democrat to win a seat that is that Republican is totally
unprecedented in California,” said Jacobson. “And that would suggest that
there’s really some fundamental unhappiness with the party.”
CQ rates the special general election as
Leans Republican. Please visit CQPolitics.com’s
Election Forecaster to view ratings for all races.
 ©
2006 •
|
| This is an election to keep
an eye on. If this district goes Democratic it could foretell a major shift
in the political landscape. But if the Republican wins it may signal how
they intend to steal the national election. -Harold, ed. |
| |
 |
| |
|
Published on
Wednesday,
May 31, 2006
by
Reuters |
|
Canadians Healthier Than Americans - Study |
|
by Maggie Fox |
|
|
|
Despite complaints
about long waits for services, Canadians are healthier than their U.S.
neighbors and receive more consistent medical care, according to a
report released on Tuesday.
A telephone survey of
more than 8,000 people showed that even though Americans spend nearly
twice as much per capita for health care, they have more trouble
getting care and have more unmet health needs than Canadians do.
The survey was
done by Harvard Medical School researchers who include members of
Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a
national health program in the United States.
"These findings
raise serious questions about what we're getting for the $2.1 trillion
we're spending on health care this year," said Dr. David Himmelstein,
an associate professor of medicine at Harvard.
"We pay almost
twice what
Canada
does for care, more than $6,000 for every American, yet Canadians are
healthier, and live two to three years longer," Himmelstein added in a
statement.
"Canadians had
better access to most types of medical care (with the single exception
of pap smears)," Himmelstein and colleagues wrote in the study,
published in the American Journal of Public Health.
"Canadians were 7
percent more likely to have a regular doctor and 19 percent less
likely to have an unmet health need. U.S. respondents were almost
twice as likely to go without a needed medicine due to cost (9.9
percent of U.S. respondents couldn't afford medicine versus 5.1
percent in Canada)," they added.
UNMET NEEDS
"After taking into
account income, age, sex, race and immigrant status, Canadians were 33
percent more likely to have a regular doctor and 27 percent less
likely to have an unmet health need."
The researchers
analyzed data from a telephone survey of 3,505 Canadian and 5,103 U.S.
adults.
They wanted to see
if there were any differences in health between Canadians, who have a
tax-supported national health care system, and Americans, whose health
care largely depends on private insurers, employers or the free
market, with older Americans and the very poor cared for by Medicare,
Medicaid and other joint federal-state health insurance plans.
The researchers
found that
U.S.
residents had higher rates of diabetes, arthritis, chronic lung
disease, high blood pressure and obesity.
"Most of what we
hear about the Canadian health care system is negative; in particular,
the long waiting times for medical procedures," Dr. Karen Lasser an
instructor of medicine at Harvard who worked on the study, said in a
statement.
"But we found that
waiting times affect few patients, only 3.5 percent of Canadians
versus 0.7 percent of people in the U.S. No one ever talks about the
fact that low-income and minority patients fare better in Canada," she
added.
"Based on our
findings, if I had to choose between the two systems for my patients,
I would choose the Canadian system hands down."
The researchers
said the study population was representative of 206 million U.S.
adults and 24 million Canadian adults but noted that only half the
Americans contacted took part in the survey, and 60 percent of the
Canadians.
©2006 Reuters |
© Copyrighted 1997-2006
www.commondreams.org |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
The Onion |
| |
|
May 31, 2006 |
Issue 42•22
NEW YORK— The Al Gore-produced global-warming documentary An
Inconvenient Truth is being panned by critics nationwide who claim the
90-plus minute environmental film is "too disturbingly realistic and
well-researched to enjoy." "I found it difficult to suspend my disbelief in
man-made climate change for the first half-hour—and utterly impossible after
that—which makes for a movie-going experience that's far more educational
than it is enjoyable," said New York Post film critic Skip Hack.
"Gore's film overwhelms viewers with staggering amounts of scientific
information until nothing about global warming is left to the imagination,
and that's just not good entertainment. Two stars." Some critics have called
the film's claims that sea levels could rise 20 feet somewhat
sensationalistic, although most agree that this is not enough to save the
film from being unwatchably factual.
|
| |
 |
| |
|
Wednesday, May 31st, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Disclaimer: Pursuant to the UCC (Uniform Comedy Code), all depictions of
events and persons on this site are more real than reality itself, and
therefore any resemblance to reality is not really real. |
| |
|
|
| |
Visit the
Post-Tsunami World
Thursday, June 01, 2006
US troops to get ethics training after Haditha
U.S. military commanders in Iraq on Thursday ordered ethics training
for combat troops, after accusations that Marines murdered unarmed
civilians in an Iraqi town last year.
The training over the next 30 days in 'core warrior values' would
highlight 'the importance of adhering to legal, moral and ethical
standards on the battlefield,' a statement said.
Polunatic was able to get a glimpse at the curriculum document for this
breakthrough ethics training.
Ethical decisions in conducting massacres
1) Figure out the best way not to get caught
2) If caught, don't say anything except that you can't recall
3) Kill ALL witnesses (except your fellow soldiers of course)
4) Absolutely no pics (you'll have to settle for oral war stories)
5) Burn all evidence
6) Walk, don't run.
7) Never forget that the enemy has no ethics at all compared to
Americans.
# posted by Polunatic @ 11:58 AM
|
| |
 |
| |
|
June 1, 2006
Editorial
Republicans are trying to rally their far-right base for the fall
elections with a mean-spirited sideshow threatening to the Constitution: a
ban on same-sex marriage.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has endorsed the amendment, which would
write bigotry into the nation's charter, by a 10-to-8 vote along party
lines, and the full Senate is expected to take it up soon. Since the
measure's language covers not only marriage but the "legal incidents" of
marriage, its approval could jeopardize civil unions, domestic partnerships
and other legal protections that many state and local governments now
provide for same-sex couples and their children.
No one, including the G.O.P. strategists urging its fast-tracking,
expects the amendment to get the two-thirds Congressional approval needed to
send it to the states for consideration. Two years ago, when Republicans
staged a Senate vote on the same dismal amendment just before the Democratic
convention, it ran into unexpectedly broad opposition. Some conservatives
correctly opposed grabbing power from the states by suddenly federalizing
marriage law. Supporters of the amendment could muster only 48 votes, well
shy of the 60 required to cut off debate and avoid a filibuster.
Plainly, the real purpose of this rerun is to provide red meat to social
conservatives, and fodder for commericals aimed at senators who vote to
block the atrocious amendment.
It is sad that Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, who personally opposes the measure, chose to lend his
gavel and vote to speed it to the floor. He got angry when Senator Russell
Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat, objected in forceful terms to both the
amendment and the politically motivated scheduling. Mr. Specter and the
other members of his committee who approved the amendment have no reason to
be angry — just ashamed.
Copyright 2006
The New York Times Company |
| |
 |
| |
|
May 31, 2006
BY
CAROL MARIN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
''I'm not ready to make nice
I'm not ready to back down
I'm still mad as hell and
I don't have time to go round and round and round . . ."
Dixie Chicks song, "Not Ready to Make
Nice," from the their new album, "Taking the Long Way."
The Dixie Chicks aren't sorry. And I'm
glad. And grateful. So I went out this weekend and bought their latest CD,
which is the one that country music stations controlled by Clear Channel
(isn't that redundant?) are not playing. God Bless America, just not the
free speech part, I guess.
If, as Time magazine suggested, the Dixie
Chicks' new album has turned into a referendum, then I vote yes. Yes to
their right, a few years ago, to say that they were ashamed that President
Bush was from Texas. Yes to their right to oppose our invasion of Iraq. And
yes to their right, as loyal but dissenting Americans, to say that the war,
which has now claimed the lives of more than 2,400 of our soldiers and tens
of thousands of Iraqis, is an ongoing national disaster.
It was three years ago that the Chicks
started a firestorm of controversy. And they have paid quite a price in lost
record sales. What's thrilling is that they're still not afraid. Not of
boycotts. Not of death threats. And not of CD burning parties by the moronic
among us who have confused the Constitution with the comic books they must
be used to reading.
Since politics is my beat, not music, I
called our resident Sun-Times expert, Jim DeRogatis. I wanted to know what
he thought about the notion of these artists not only having conviction but
using their art to express that conviction.
"Charmingly outdated," said DeRogatis.
"It's pretty inspiring, and it's definitely costing them. . . . If only they
kept it to rapping about their collective seven children, it would be all
well and good but don't question the flag."
I don't get it, I said. The president's
poll numbers are below freezing. This country's disaffection with the war is
palpable. And the men and women who are fighting, dying and being wounded in
this war, by and large, are from America's small towns and rural areas where
country music is most popular. Are radio stations paying attention to their
own listeners?
"Ah, Carol," DeRogatis said patiently,
"let's look at it as you would from your beat. Who is the major force on
country radio? Clear Channel Entertainment . . . based in Texas . . . hugely
supportive of President Bush . . . a monopoly . . . a monolithic force. . .
. I don't know if they really, legitimately are reflecting the opinions of
their listeners . . . but who let it become this? Well, Bush's FCC."
OK. Now I get it.
If you don't like the message, go get the
messenger. And it doesn't matter if that messenger is a singer or a
reporter.
Right now, the attorney general of the
United States, Alberto Gonzales, is threatening to prosecute the New York
Times for reporting on Bush's domestic spying program. Never mind that
Gonzales and the Bush administration have not felt at all hamstrung by
existing laws or the quaint codes of the Geneva Conventions. As the Times
pointed out in an editorial last week, "Mr. Gonzales was part of the team
that came up with the rationalization for torture, as well as for the
warrantless eavesdropping on Americans' e-mail and phone calls."
That's why, in addition to my admiration
for the Dixie Chicks, I am grateful beyond words to author Studs Terkel.
Studs is a lot older than the Chicks. At
94, he is well past what most of us regard as retirement age. And yet his
passion for this country and for the freedoms it claims to revere burns as
brightly as those torched Dixie Chicks CDs. Terkel has filed suit, along
with the ACLU, against AT&T for giving up our phone records to the National
Security Agency. Terkel thinks that's domestic spying. You know what? It is.
The Justice Department wants to stop that
suit, invoking what it regards as a "state secrets privilege."
I'm rooting for Studs on this one. And
for the Dixie Chicks.
They seem to remember what too many
others have forgotten. That this country was built by people who were not
afraid of revolution. Were not afraid to take a stand. And were not afraid
to confront power when the powerful had gone astray.
The real war on terror that they're
fighting is the one here at home.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company |
| |
|
|
| |
|
Published on
Wednesday,
May 31, 2006
by the
Guardian / UK |
|
Wing and
a Prayer: Religious Right Got Bush Elected - Now They Are Righting
Each Other
Campaigners who fail to keep
the hardline faith face threats and intimidation
|
|
by Stephen Bates |
|
|
|
In his consulting room in a suburb of Montgomery, Alabama,
gastrologist Randy Brinson is a worried man. A staunch Republican and
devout Baptist, Dr Brinson can claim substantial credit for getting
George Bush re-elected in 2004. It was his Redeem the Vote initiative
that may have persuaded up to 25 million people to turn out for
President Bush. Yet his wife is receiving threats from anonymous
conservative activists warning her husband to stay away from politics.
"They've been
calling my house, threatening my wife," said Dr Brinson. "The first
time was on a day when I was going up to Washington to speak to
Republicans in Congress. Only they knew I'd be away from home. The
Republicans were advised not to turn up to listen to me, so only three
did so."
The reason he has
fallen foul of men whose candidate he helped re-elect is that he has
dared to question the partisan tactics of the religious right.
"Conservatives speak in tones that they have got power and they can do
what they want. Only 23% of the population embraces those positions
but if someone questions their mandate or wants to articulate a
different case, for the moderate right, they are totally ridiculed."
In his office in
Washington DC, Rich Cizik, vice-president of the National Association
of Evangelicals, the largest such umbrella group in the
US,
is also feeling battered. His mistake has been to become interested in
the environment, and he has been told that is not on the religious
right's agenda.
Mr Cizik, an
ordained minister of the Evangelical Presbyterian church and otherwise
impeccably conservative on social issues such as abortion, stem-cell
research and homosexuality, believes concern for the environment
arises from Biblical injunctions about the stewardship of the Earth.
The movement's political leadership, however, sees the issue as a
distraction from its main tactical priorities: getting more
conservatives on the supreme court, banning gay marriages and
overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling.
"It is supposed to
be counterproductive even to consider this. I guess they do not want
to part company with the president. This is nothing more than
political assassination. I may lose my job. Twenty-five church leaders
asked me not to take a political position on this issue but I am a
fighter," he said.
Another Washington
lobbyist on the religious right told the Guardian: "Rich is just being
stupid on this issue. There may be a debate to be had but ... people
can only sustain so many moral movements in their lifetime. Is God
really going to let the Earth burn up?"
Such partisan
tactics are perhaps to be expected in a divisive political climate,
with both sides excoriating each other in moralistic terms in a way
that has not been seen in Europe for many years - and which is
increasingly incomprehensible to many Europeans.
To Judge Roy
Moore, who was unseated as chief justice of the Alabama supreme court
in 2003 for refusing to remove a five-tonne granite monument on which
were carved the Ten Commandments from the court's foyer, that just
shows how far Europe has slid.
Judge Moore,
campaigning in the state's primaries to supplant the incumbent
Republican governor, during a visit to address a women's club in the
town of Enterprise, told the Guardian America was falling into
Godlessness, too: "That's it, we're going the same way England is now,
without God. Is it true that Islam is taking over there?" he asked.
This is a common
idea in rightwing circles and, if some of the arguments sound
overheated - a recent radio discussion in
Virginia
on stem-cell research took it as read that only Christians were
capable of moral decisions - the religious right has reason to fear
that its reach is declining.
"I would rather
put my .38 pistol in a child's room than put a computer or a
television set there. The devil's crowd is working how to get to your
children," declared Brother Richard Emmett in his Mothering Sunday
sermon, broadcast to audiences in eastern
Tennessee.
There is a sense that some of the evangelists - using the medium that
Brother Emmett reviles so much - may have overreached themselves.
Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, and Pat Robertson have
embarrassed their followers by antics such as blaming the terrorist
attacks of September 11 2001 on "the pagans and the abortionists and
the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to
make an alternative lifestyle ... to secularise America".
More influential
than either is James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who broadcasts
daily to the nation from the organisation's Colorado Springs
headquarters. Focus on the Family refused to speak to the Guardian,
saying "we have no interest in assisting your research", but
Washington journalist Dan Gilgoff says Mr Dobson has moved towards an
increasingly partisan stance. Mr Dobson endorsed Mr Bush in 2004 but
also unsuccessfully rallied the faithful in defence of Judge Moore's
monument and threw his weight behind Harriet Miers' disastrous
candidacy for the supreme court last year. Nevertheless, Mr Gilgoff
says, "people are scared of crossing him". Mr Dobson is one of those
warning Mr Cizik off environmental issues.
But these are
ageing leaders, with no comparable successors in sight. And, after
years of campaigning against abortion and gays, they have not
succeeded in getting their way on either issue. There have been
victories, but the president's pledge of a constitutional amendment
defining marriage as a heterosexual partnership has not happened.
That does not mean
religion is going away as a lobbying force. Dr Brinson has started
advising the Democrats on how to get more religion into their politics
in the hope of winning the constituency back in the presidential race
of 2008. And, if religious broadcasting grates, as one woman in
Tennessee told me: "I just turn up the rock music on the radio."
Backstory
Religion has
always played its part in politics in the United States but, following
the 2004 election, the religious right could claim to have made the
difference between President George Bush's victory and defeat. | |
Donle’s Daily Dispatches
