John McCain comes under a lot of fire from the ideological right. He's not their kind of conservative, but Teddy Roosevelt might approve.
As the Republican primary season has progressed, the cries from the extreme right have become more and more shrill, and as he took the lead in the polls in every Super Tuesday state this week, the outrage against John McCain reached an almost surreal level. It's been particularly intense on talk radio, led by Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, but even dragging in relatively sane talkers like Neal Boortz. It's spread to the blogosphere and into print and even onto Fox News.…
Article comments
26 - Baronius
B-tone, I'm an absolute nut about dozens of things. I can open the dictionary to a random page and find something to get fanatical about. (My blood pressure is 340/310.) But I'm willing to admit it.
27 - Baritone
Baronius,
Being opinionated and being fanatical are two different things. I actually don't have a lot of things that make me go ape shit. There are a few.
Blatant dishonesty is one. Especially when it is couched with a veil of supposed wisdom or superior knowledge, such as what Limbaugh and many evangelists do for profit. It's people such as those who truly give capitalism a bad name.
I may get a bit carried away here in response to what I feel is either dishonesty and/or bullshit. But I don't froth at the mouth or have a vein across my reddened forehead ready to explode in such instances. I do have strong opinions about certain things, but I don't come from a base of fanaticism, at least not as I would define it.
B-tone
28 - Hairless Simian
It really bothers me listening to Limbaugh to hear him say some ridiculous thing, basically made up from whole cloth about someone like McCain and then a few days later his callers will start calling in and repeating that canard as if it were some sort of established fact, and then they'll start calling other shows and repeating it as if it were fact, and then my wife or my kids will come up to me and say it as if it were fact, and it remains completely untrue.
I used to think he was amusing, but now I realize that he's just a vile propagandist.
29 - Baronius
Dave -
"It's the difference between wanting to help people because it's the Christian thing to do, and wanting to use the power of government to force Christianity on people because it glorifies you and your beliefs."
Hardly.
First of all, there is this question of the tyranny of the majority. In ending slavery and prohibiting alcohol, there was no sense that the majority lacked the right to enact laws. The "power of government" has always been an option. Indeed, the Founders understood that. They protected the states from the power of the federal government, and left most power to the states and citizens, including the right to create laws. So the first distinction you make (helping people vs. power of government) is not historic. And that little tidbit of "forcing Christianity on people" isn't really worth comment.
As to the second distinction (doing the Christian thing vs. glorifying one and one's beliefs), well, that's a matter of motive. You're in no position to judge if the abolitionists or pro-lifers have egocentric motives. I understand the appeal of pointing your finger at those you disagree with. But it's not grounded in anything.
30 - Baronius
B-tone - Very well.
31 - Baritone
Baronius,
Indeed!
32 - Dave Nalle
You're in no position to judge if the abolitionists or pro-lifers have egocentric motives.
Dead wrong on that one. I'm in the same position as any observer who can see what they do or did and judge them by their actions.
The abolitionists sought to protect the basic human freedoms of a group of people. Whether it was from a religious or ethical motivation makes little difference. It was a good thing purely on its own merits.
The current religious right seeks to limit the rights of others both as groups and as individuals. That is inherently a bad thing in exactly the same way that the efforts of the extreme left to limit free speech and religious freedom is bad.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone could disagree with the basic axiom that freedom is good and taking it away is bad - regardless of the motivation of the people involved.
Dave
33 - Arch Conservative
"They need a party which accepts that, and if John McCain can show them the door maybe they can go find that party."
No!
We're going to show him the door in November if he wins the GOP nomination.....
A big fuck you thanks for nothing to senator mcrazy when we don't vote for his old ass. Maybe he will get so angry when he loses in November that his head will finally explode!
34 - Dave Nalle
The polls show McCain as the only one with a chance of beating the democrats, but you reject him. You'd rather be self-righteous than win the white house.
Don't you see what's happening here? Mainstream and traditional republicans are in full-on rebellion against the religious right. They're tired of pandering to bigots and hatemongers to get votes and they want them to crawl back into the hole they crawled out of.
McCain's victory today, which looks to be even stronger than predicted is the writing on the wall that the GOP is STILL the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Goldwater and not the proper abode for neo-stalinists, christofascists and later-day dixiecrats.
Dave
35 - Baronius
Dave, I'm not opposed to freedom. Democratic freedom includes the right to govern one's society. That means the right to enact laws that a majority see as beneficial, even if the laws are really stupid.
Of course, it's more accurate to say that our system is a Constitutional republic. But the essence is the same. Within a reasonable range, we have the right to do whatever we want to, and to pass whatever laws we want to. It's illegal to keep an alligator in your bathtub in Arkansas. I don't know why, but it is. That law takes away the freedom to keep alligators in your bathtub. Eliminating that law would take away the freedom to legislate.
This is exactly where the Supreme Court has been overstepping its bounds. It has the authority to nullify an unconstitutional law. It can't nullify a crazy law, because they have no right to decide what laws are crazy. I don't know how the Court can overturn a state law against alcohol. I just don't see it.
But back to the subject (or at least the subject I feel like writing about). Whatever your interpretation of the Constitution, you can't deny that the Republican Party has a history of religious activism. It's not a creation of Jerry Falwell. The GOP's history is steeped in it. At no point, however, has a wing of the party attempted to impose the particular religion that underlay its activism. The contemporary religious right isn't doing so.
36 - Baritone
Baronius,
If you believe that there is no significant effort by the religious right to establish an American theocracy, you just haven't been paying attention. There are several well researched and well written books recounting those efforts. There are dozens of established groups whose stated goal is to establish a biblically based government replacing the constitution. Many have received "faith based" funding from the Bush administration. These people are not simply on the fringe. AND most of them are registered Republicans.
B-tone
37 - Irene Wagner
Ultimately, those in charge of the Religious Right (not the footsoldiers, but the generals) are not about religion, Baritone. They're about war.
Observe the boudoir-ful of strange bedfellows who signed on to the Project for a New American Century's
"Statement of Principles."
38 - Irene Wagner
There, Baronius and Baritone, I've found a way to unite you, if not with each other, at least together against me!
Seriously, though, click on the link above, and take a look at the gang at the bottom of PNAC's Statement of Principles ("We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.")
Gary Bauer (formerly president of pro-life activist James Dobson's Family Research Council), Donald Rumsfield, Elliott Abrams (a leading neoconservative with some Iran-Contra Affair skeletons in his closet), Norman Podhoretz ("grandfather of neoconservatism'), Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush.
If this a faith-based plot, Baritone, it's admirable (not) for the distinctive way it brought Jews and Christians together to work for the brotherhood of man.
Ron Paul, man, Ron Paul.
39 - Dave Nalle
you can't deny that the Republican Party has a history of religious activism
Can you deny that there is a difference between activism inspired by faith and activism on BEHALF of faith? The GOP has a long history of the former and a very short and unfortunate recent history of the latter.
Dave
40 - Irene Wagner
Yes, Dave Nalle, the neoconservatives have poisoned the politics of MANY diverse individuals. Exhibit A: politically involved Christians. Exhibit B: Senator John McCain.
Sept. ’83: “The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place…What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay.”
Aug. ‘90: “If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood.”
1999: On Kosovo: “We’re in it, and we’ve gotta win it!” And beyond: “I think the United States should inaugurate a 21st-century policy interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine, call it rogue state rollback, in which we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values.”
2008: “It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars. I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender, but there will be other wars.”
41 - Irene Wagner
I wouldn't call that McCain's ability to compromise. It looks more like a trend--a trend AWAY from traditional conservatism.
42 - Dave Nalle
Irene, you make the common mistake of associating John McCain with the Neocons when he's not connected to them in any way. McCain is an old-style Republican hawk leftover from the cold war era. He believes in the military and an aggressive foreign policy, but he has not signed onto the imperialistic philosophy of the Neocons and that's an enormously important distinction.
Dave
43 - Irene Wagner
The shift between 1990 and 1999 in McCain's philosophy on the proper use of the US military---what accounts for that? Had he, even he, POW that he was, suddenly learned something new about war?
I can't see any difference between the "new" McCain's foreign policy and that put forth by the Project of the New American century, whether his name is at the bottom of the list or not.
Neocon is as neocon does.
44 - Baritone
Irene,
The "war" that the evangelicals are so looking forward to is the one they believe will be waged at Armageddon. The slightly comical aspect of that notion is that until the fall of the Soviet Union, it was the evil commies who were the avowed enemy of Christ. But, when that threat wafted off into the wind, they then focused their attentions on the evil Islamists. I wonder, if they cease to be a threat in the coming years, who will the "true believers" take aim at? The Chinese? Ralph Nader? Hmmm.
B-tone
45 - Dr Dreadful
I wonder, if they cease to be a threat in the coming years, who will the "true believers" take aim at? The Chinese? Ralph Nader? Hmmm.
The Chinese, while an obvious target, possess far too many big ugly missiles and a big ugly army, and would be in a position to fight back rather handily. And that wouldn't be part of God's plan at all, oh goodness me no.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the new 'enemy' would be Europe - that whore-infested hotbed of hedonism.
So you might want to think twice about buying that one-way plane ticket to Frankfurt, B-Tone...
46 - Irene Wagner
Baritone and Dr. Dreadful, There are Christians in Iraq, Iran (some of them former Islamic militants--how's THAT for a peace plan?), China (google "Chinese House Church") and even the glamorously post-modern Europe. Christians in the Middle East and China (and India, and Indonesia) are undergoing persecution far more severe than what you two could ever possibly hope to dish out in an internet forum.
Every day, more formerly insular American Christians are becoming aware that the Body of Christ spans the planet, and that they're at cross-purposes with the Lord if they're trying to obliterate peoples amongst whom his Spirit is moving powerfully. I'm hopeful that will mean fewer wars for the sake of "security." How about you two?
Nice attempt at trying me to go on the defensive for being a Christian, but I'm still on the offense, waiting for an answer to my questions about McCain in #43.
47 - Dr Dreadful
Can't speak for Baritone, Irene, but in my admittedly somewhat flippant remarks I was thinking not of the vast majority of American Christians and certainly not of yourself, but of the evangelical hard core which for a time (not for much longer, hopefully) has had a dangerously high level of influence on Pennsylvania Avenue and in the Capitol.
The attitude of that core may be analogous to Ruvy's attitude towards Jews who live in the diaspora: that if they don't come to their senses and 'come home', then they will have only themselves to blame for getting caught in the crossfire.
As for McCain, I can't really account for his shift in attitude. Maybe having a hot wife has boosted his testosterone levels, I don't know. I'd prefer him over anyone else to get the GOP nomination, but I'm not too concerned about it. Neither he nor any other Republican is going to the White House in January '09.
48 - Colin
Thanks for the buns Doc, ate them with larva bread, there's lovely!
Actually, here in "glamorously post-modern Europe"! Really? Where? Not round yer. Errm, sorry, yes, there was an article in the (liberal) Guardian from a British bishop promoting American Evangelical Environmentalists as a factor in the elections, which, to me seems far more Christian than persecuting homosexuals. Should Jesus return to Earth - as I believe is prophesied - I don't think his first act is going to be the razing of gay bars.
49 - Baronius
Baritone - There are federal funds which go to organizations of every, or no, religious affiliation that are performing social services. They receive funds because of the work they do. They do not recieve funding based on their faith. They are faith-based organizations that receive funding based on their work.
If I were President, I probably wouldn't give money to anyone for social services. If I did give money to only Catholic groups, I'd be breaking the Establishment Clause. If I gave money to only the non-religious groups, I'd be treading on the Free Exercise and the No Religious Test Clauses. (Ask a Constitutional lawyer about it; they could answer it better than me.) If I were President and I gave a public cent toward the support of a religious group, I should be thrown out of office.
I don't see a problem with any of this. It's no different than St. John's Hospital receiving medicare reimbursements after treating patients.
50 - Baronius
Dave, I didn't follow your question #39. Maybe I explained some of it in my last comment, indirectly. I'm just not sure.
51 - Baritone
Baronius,
Much, if not all, the faith based funding these groups receive may in fact go toward social services, which I am not wild about owing to their religious base, but on the whole I have no great objections to, if they do provide helpful services to people in need.
That, however, does not obviate the fact that there remains for many of these groups the underlying goal of theocracy, a goal they have been actively, if at times quietly and behind the scenes, working toward for at least the last 40 years or so. They are nothing if not patient and dogged in their determination.
B-tone
52 - Irene Wagner
Dr. D. What makes you think that either HRC or O would be any less interested in, say, a pre-emptive strike on Iran than would be any of the Christian evangelical hawks whom you decry? Thanks for recognizing that I’m not one of them, by the way.
As to your answer to my question in #43: That sort of level is supposed to be kept in check by that sort of wife. President Clinton the First expressed quite a bit of frustrated machismo in Kosovo in the late '90's, and I'm not sure HRC's appeal had anything to do with that. Neoconservativism isn't just a "Republican" thing.
53 - Clavos
"Neither he nor any other Republican is going to the White House in January '09."
#47 " February 6, 2008 @ 13:40PM " Dr Dreadful
I'm filing that one.
Just in case. :>)
54 - Brad Schader
I am supporting McCain for President and I am a Republican hater. The main reason I am supporting him is that all of Bush's mistakes are going to come home during the next administration and I do not want a good person like Obama suck cleaning up someone else's mess. McCain supported the war, supported Bush, and is responsible for this mess in many ways so let him clean it up. The 2009 winner is going to be a one termer no matter which sides wins so why not let it be McCain. Save Obama for 2012 and allow him to use all 8 years for progress instead of 4 cleaning up.
55 - Dr Dreadful
Heh.
File it under 'A' - as in 'Arch Conservative-style wild predictions'.
;-)
56 - Dr Dreadful
What makes you think that either HRC or O would be any less interested in, say, a pre-emptive strike on Iran than would be any of the Christian evangelical hawks whom you decry?
I don't, necessarily. Their own words demonstrate that. Hillary, especially, has been consistently hawkish towards Iran. Obama has actually softened his stance recently and has expressed interest in opening a dialog with Tehran.
The difference is that a Clinton- or Obama-triggered attack on Iran is unlikely to be motivated by a hatred of people who worship the wrong kind of God. A far-right evangelical in charge of the button might easily decide that since the military were in the area anyway, it would be expedient to take out, say, Pakistan and Syria while he (almost certainly it would be a he) was about it.
57 - Dr Dreadful
BTW, Irene, like Clavos and others I think that you should definitely write some stuff for BC. You'd bring a fresh angle to the Politics section, much of which seems to take either an implacably atheistic or dogmatically religious approach.
You don't necessarily have to have your own blog. I do, although I haven't added anything to it for months. Clavos and STM, who are infrequent but valuable writers (as opposed to commenters) don't have blogs - at least, not that they're telling us about...
And you've demonstrated amply that you have a more than thick enough skin to deal with anything we might hurl at you. Get typing, I say!
58 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Irene,
This is off-topic, but since this is where you are hanging out (at the moment) and since I do not have your e-mail address, i cannot send this to you off-list.
So, I'm taking this opportunity to send it to you here.
Those others of you who are interested are of course welcome to investigate this as well.
This is the content of an e-mail that I sent out earlier this evening.
Received of the moderator of a Noahide list:
This Google video features Rabbi Zamir Cohen explaining the Jewish views on Gog u'Magog, the Arrival of the Messiah and the End of the World As We Know It. The video is over 90 minutes long and is in Hebrew, but there are English subtitles. You will want some quiet time so you can concentrate of following the English subtitles which can go quickly. This is a pretty thorough explication, covering a lot of things.
The English translation is pretty accurate, though at a couple of points, the multiples of zeros were off (probably due to the speed at which the transcription was done). At one point, the translation differed in that Rabbi Cohen never mentioned "Palestinians" in his presentation. He mentioned "Arabs".
While I disagree with a couple of the points Rabbi Cohen makes (like his apparent agreement with the Ramcha"l on the Temple descending from heaven), this is a minor issue in my eyes, compared to the major issue of getting the essential concepts underlying the Redemption and the Jewish view of history across to people who obviously do not understand them. It is far more important to focus on the events surrounding the likely development of the messianic world, the turmoil and conflict that will precede it, and what signs we should be looking for, than to argue over the American "presidential" race, or Christians trying to convert Jews in the American army (what the hell are they doing in an army that will come against Israel anyway?), or other Americo-centric issues, for example; or to argue and get all worked up over the criminal regime in Jerusalem.
Rabbi Cohen pointed out that the next major world conflict would be over Jerusalem, and to the degree that the United States speaks out against our control of this city, this would be a measure of how close the final War of Gog and Magog, and the subsequent Redemption is. His pointed observations of how our sages foresaw that 1) there would be a sovereign Jewish entity here, and 2) that it would be run in a way that was contrary to the Torah, are not only extremely revelatory but painfully on point.
This was posted to Google in May of last year. Could Rabbi Cohen have foreseen the coming of Russian ships to Latakia in November, or the German plans to send a fleet off Gaza, or the Americans weighing sending in an occupation force to Gaza and possibly Judea and Samaria? Could he have foreseen Annapolis? In the specifics, I doubt it. But in the general pattern of events, in terms of generalities, if you watch the video, you will realize that he did.
It is of interest to note that because the people of countries like India or China never persecuted Jews, they are not indicated as targets of Jewish prophecy. The Japanese did seek to persecute Jews during WWII but before that they hardly knew who or what we were.
The coming of the messiah is "the big one" as the late Redd Foxx used to say on Sanford and Sons. Everything else pales into significance compared to it....
All the best to you
Given that you were talking about pre-emptive strikes on Iran by wannabe presidents, what I say here is very much on topic. Given that there does not appear to be sufficient repentance in the world, either by Jews or non-Jews of sins committed, the prophecies of Daniel regarding the "king of the south" pushing at the "king of the north" and being crushed by him will come true. And Jewish sages have determined (a long time ago) that the "Persia" would head a coalition of Ishmaelites and the "king of the south" was this coalition. The "king of the north" will either be the American president or some big-wig in the European Union.
59 - Lumpy
Wow. Brad. Dude. Truly monstrous. How do u live with yourself?
60 - Irene Wagner
Dr Dread & Ruvy -- if I spend one more NANOsecond on this computer...Ruvy, I cut/pasted your comment into an email to myself...it looks interesting, with plenty of points for me to agree and disagree with.
Dr.Dread, there is something, I suggested it be run under "Satire" but it really isn't funny unless the reader likes Wallace Stevens AND Ron Paul, and maybe not even then. If 1) it actually gets posted and 2) anyone at all even bothers leaving a comment, negative or otherwise, I leave it to YOU to defend the honor of this Christian Paulite, because you set me up to it. I'll be in hiding. :)
61 - handyguy
As I've said before, I'll be able to relax a little if McCain is the GOP nominee. I wouldn't be horrified if he won, which is not the case with Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and others.
The fact that I and other liberals feel this way is part of what motivates the Limbaughites' allergic reaction to McCain. If liberals kinda like him, he must be the devil.
I'm not rooting for him to win, certainly. But he generally seems like one of the more honorable politicians of our era.
And if Obama is the Dem nominee, it will be a very different sort of campaign in the fall from the tawdry, ugly ones we've become accustomed to in recent years. [I voted for HRC in the NY primary, and I'd be happy to see her become president, but the general election campaign would make me queasy and unhappy, I'm sure.]
62 - Clavos
Irene,
I wholeheartedly concur with Doc D's #57.
You would be a valuable addition to the roster of writers here on BC IMO, and this from an individual who doesn't always agree with your viewpoints.
As I've said before, you have my respect; for the way you present your ideas and for the obvious thought and consideration you've given your positions presented here.
I hope you take the plunge soon!
63 - Dave Nalle
Irene, with any luck someone is going to email you account info shortly. When they do get your account set up and then take the piece you have ready to go and try entering it into the system. I'll try to help you from there if you have problems.
Dave
64 - Irene Wagner
Lent is starting, Clavos. Even though I'm not a Catholic--and I wonder, as Ruvy might wonder, about the connection between that season and the "weeping for Tammuz" spoken of in Ezekiel 8--I still think it's a good idea to take 40 days (as Jesus did in the desert) to think things over and wrestle with them in private with God. I surely do love to write, and I thank you again for your kind compliments and encouragement"I’m glad you think I might be good enough to write articles for BC. Maybe come Easter, or Pentecost, or, at the very latest Halloween! I’ll know whether God thinks it’s a good idea, too, especially if I would be presuming, most of the time except when I want to have fun as in the Wallace parody, to encourage people to have private “Lents” of their own.
Dave Nalle, thanks. The server has been slow today, so still no email. I want to go to church (but not to grovel!) now anyway, but after I get back and after I get the email, I will give it a try.
65 - Dave Nalle
The way the world moves today I'm not sure we have time to pause for 40 days no matter what the reason. But I do like pancakes.
dave
66 - handyguy
If someone else already mentioned this, apologies.
But one of the stranger recent comments I've heard was that Ann Coulter said that between McCain and Clinton, she would vote for Clinton, because she's more conservative than he is.
Intended as humor, no doubt, although AC takes even her "jokes" very seriously.
67 - handyguy
Now I see this was actually in Dave's article, oops.
68 - Michael J. West
I never realized before today that John McCain had actually taken the senate seat vacated by Bary Goldwater. How poetic!
69 - Irene Wagner
I'm not pausing entirely Dave Nalle, I'm cutting a few things out (you know, pretty much, except for, like NOW) for 40 days so I can replace those formally occupied hours with "focused pausing." (I never did get the email, but maybe it's for the best, 'til later.)
And by the way, it was NOT easy for me to write the unflattering things I did about McCain in #43, especially having read about his horrific years as a POW during the VietNam wa--I mean Conflict. But I still wonder, and thanks for trying to answer my questions, but I am yet wondering.
See what happens when you toss Colin pancakes when he asks for buns.
*pausing mode resumes*
70 - Dave Nalle
Intended as humor, no doubt, although AC takes even her "jokes" very seriously.
I guess her jokes must be serious, because I find very little about her to actually be funny.
Dave
71 - Johnny Sixgun
I remember a Republican party which was a lot less mean and a lot more open-minded than the party of Rush Limbaugh, and that was the party of Ronald Reagan. These neocon and religiofascist blowhards keep telling us that McCain is a move to the left for the party, but that's all in their fantasy version of reality. They praise Ronald Reagan to the skies, but the truth is that Reagan was more liberal than McCain and a hell of a lot more liberal than any of them are. If Reagan were alive he'd be supporting McCain just as Arnold Schwarzenneger and Rudy Giuliani and just about every Republican who's not an ideological fanatic is. They should split off, form a new party and run James Dobson for president and see how they do.
J6