The 'McCain Majority', by William Safire

Link

http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/safire/022400safi.html

"The primary message of Michigan -- one of the must-win "battleground states" in November's election -- is that John McCain would win the state for the G.O.P. and George W. Bush would probably lose it.

"That doesn't bother leaders of the religio-political right. Echoing the cry of the commander of the British Middlesex Regiment at an 1811 battle -- "Die hard, men, die hard!" -- they would rather die hard than win. That's why we hear the lame excuse from them that McCain's victory was somehow tainted by the outpouring of independents and Democrats.

...

"Bush now trails in delegates, 92 to 85; if he wants to win the nomination in a way that may yet allow him to win the election, he should compete for the support of the reasonable Republicans. We reacted badly to his sellout at Bob Jones U., we don't go for his continued TV smearing of McCain, and we will resist another party takeover by the die-hard losers of the self-righteous right.

"Bush has plenty to debate McCain about, from tax cuts to campaign finance reform to Wilsonian morality in foreign policy. Unless Bush is up to that, he will find himself enlisting in the McCain majority."

-- Ron Rodgers (RonRodgers@yahoo.com), February 24, 2000

Answers

This is typical of the mainsteam media. Why was Bush's visit to Bob Jones University a sellout, but Gore and Bradley's pandering to Al Sharpton not? Why such an outcry about Bush's "smearing" of McCain and nothing about McCain's comments about Bush in his "concession" speach in S. Carolina. And how does he get away with applying the word "smearing" to someone else in the same sentence where he uses a phrase like "the die-hard losers of the self-righteous right."

Apparently you can't be a "reasonable" Republican if you take your religious convictions seriously enough to let them affect your political choices. If McCain has the support of an anti-religious bigot like this, all the more reason not to vote for him.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 24, 2000.

McCain is the media's obvious choice. With his religion-hating campaign manager (I think) Rudman, McCain is the best candidate the demopukes can offer. Too funny. Establishment silver spoon boy wonder from Texas better look out.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), February 24, 2000.

Among the many reasons the Colonies fought to get away from King George was for religious freedom. Now, here we are, less than three hundred years later and religion is again into our politics and government.

Falwell, Robertson, and all the others of their ilk scare the hell right out of me. I don't want to live in the United States of Iran. Goverened by a group of Mullahas. Books are burned, women are veiled, no open press, their way or the highway. No thanks.

Get religion out of politics and government.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), February 24, 2000.

"With his religion-hating campaign manager (I think) Rudman"

Campaign chairman, actually. It's more an honorary position, while the manager runs the campaign day to day. But very visible, and quite clearly by having Rudman as campaign chairman McCain is openly identifying himself with hatred and contempt toward religious people. The media talks about Bush visiting Bob Jones University, but he doesn't have the president of BJU as his campaign chairman. So who's the real bigot?

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 24, 2000.

Amen!!!!!!!

-- Very (Grateful@still.here), February 24, 2000.

I meant "Amen" to Richard's post -- not Marchus Archus.

-- Very (Grateful@still.here), February 24, 2000.

Richard wrote: "Among the many reasons the Colonies fought to get away from King George was for religious freedom. Now, here we are, less than three hundred years later and religion is again into our politics and government."

Now we have freedom "from" religion. Or at least, we have freedom from certain religions, true Christianity and its absolutes among them.

Maybe you should reread your history if you think religious people were not involved in the colonies, using their religious beliefs as a personal standard for their chosen political direction. Do you want some examples of religion affecting politics in the colonies?

Just as many people today don't take a stand against what is wrong because other people (including a few church-goers) don't want religious beliefs "shoved down their throats", many people back then also turned a blind eye to wrongs such as those leading to the Trail of Tears for the Cherokee, or the slavery which allowed members of families to be sold away from each other or murdered and abused without recourse. Saying that you believe certain things doesn't mean you do. Acting on what you say you believe shows that you really believe.

Many of those seeking religious freedom by moving to America fled Europe because they were part of the reformation. The whole point of the reformation was to call people to obey God rather than man, and to say that if the Bible is God's Word, then it is the standard, and not religious teachings or religious leaders. You can argue about what the Bible actually says/means, but that wasn't even an issue until the common people had access to it. And once they had access to the Bible, it removed the leaders' religious mind control that becomes "the opiate of the masses."

You might also notice that the reformers didn't carry out their own principles completely, still attempting to use their own teachings/ideas as an authority as well as the Bible. You might even find some of that today :-). The point is not how well it was carried out, but that the principle of accountability to an objective standard (accessible by all) in life and religion was stated and promoted.

Is that ideal of accountability to an objective standard, given to us by God, what you object to, with Christians?

Nowadays it is not politically expedient or popular to believe that there are any absolutes at all, just as in the past it wasn't politically/religiously expedient to allow the common Christian to doublecheck what his leaders were telling him against an objective standard.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 24, 2000.

"....America's founders were seized by a great liberal vision - a country in which people would freely exchange ideas arising from a plurality of interests. From this dialogue, truth could be rationally discovered.

But in today's relativistic environment, pluralism no longer means tolerating competing ideas. It means forced neutrality. According to this view, no one should express any idea that could offend someone else.

......While acknowledging that Prison Fellowship does good work, one reporter challenged my "exclusivist" message. "All roads lead to heaven," he insisted.

I asked him, "Do you know why Mother Teresa helps the dying?"

"She's a great humanitarian," he shrugged.

"No," I answered. "She does it because she loves Jesus - the One who says He is the only road to heaven. And that's why I work in prisons. I wouldn't do it for a moral teacher."....

....Society - like that reporter - wants to have it both ways: They want the benefits of Christian service without the convictions that motivate us. But it doesn't work.

The greatest danger to a free society is supression of the free expression of ideas, which is why the Founders held freedom of conscience to be the first right.

When Christians speak out on behalf of religious freedom, we're not trying to silence anyone - we're trying to preserve the best of our great democratic traditions. "

~ Chuck Colson

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

Richard,...Your 'slip' is showing. Crack a non-revisionist history book.

Your diatribe scares me. You sound more like the book burning type. Perhaps you would like to burn and forbid Bibles? Any way but the Christian way? Is that what you are saying? Just how vehemently do you feel about this? Are you a Christianphobe?

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

But does Bob Jones U. have a good basketball team?

-- (daguysss@da.bullsss), February 24, 2000.

Hello, Mumsie...good to see you back!

Thank you for Chuck Colson's quote, which says it eloquently for the rest of us Christians.

Please see my reply on the thread below in which there is an attack on Bush for allowing a condemned female murderer to go to the death penalty prescribed by law and the jury and judge, in which I respond to those there who attack Christians en masse. They are essentially doing the bidding of the NWO, who divide and conquer through thesis, antithesis, synthesis, a la Hegel's vicious teachings, carried out by NWO puppet Kark Marx and his heirs.

I used to sympathize with blacks and Jews in our culture. Now I can truly empathize with them. It isn't a good feeling to be lumped together as if we were all of one mind, and then castigated for the views of a segment of the population. What these bigoted anti-Christians do not realize is that they equate the far-right Falwells and Robertsons with ALL Christians, and that is as far from the truth as one can get. They fail to see the diversity within the Christian community, and what a vital contribution these have historically made to this nation.

We are sad indeed if we allow ourselves to be divided and conquered! Read up, folks!

P.S. Don't the anti-Christian bigots who decry the far right's extremism know that their influence on the government has radically waned? If not, they should read more.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), February 24, 2000.