Now that the pro-Western government in Lebanon has been “put in its place” by Hezbollah - and by extension Iran and Syria - what is Israel up against - and what narrative will the Islamists use to heal the wounds and consolidate their victory?
Explaining why Lebanon’s Pro-West Sunni government is afraid of Hezbullah and Iran, Zaatera writes:
“The people of the Umma [the Muslim Nation] and in particular the Sunnis, are as captive as they are perplexed. On the one hand, they know that what’s happening in Lebanon is an integral part of the battle that the Americans and Israelis are waging against forces of resistance and opposition in the region. Read the rest of this entry »
In describing the cancelled panel, Dr. David Scasta sounds like he had been searching all along for the reasonable middle. The Bryant Park Project’s Rachel Martin sometimes tips towards typical media mayhem — “You think it’s important to engage the people at the fringe, at the very extreme side?”
Dr. SCASTA: If you grow up in a tradition, particularly a conservative tradition, conservative religious tradition, in which you’re going to Hell if you’re a homosexual person, it begins to influence how you approach therapy. I mean, if you literally believe in a literal hell where you are going to burn, and fry, and be in excruciating pain not just for a moment, but for eternity because you are a gay person, then how do you go to psychotherapy in which somebody like me would be telling you that to have a happy life in this life you need to learn to accept who you are? Read the rest of this entry »
Much has been written in the foreign press about the real purpose of Pope Benedict XVI’s unprecedented election-year visit to the United States. Some charge that he came to bolster the only pro-life candidate, John McCain. Others have surmised that the Pope came to make common cause with President Bush to oppose the perceived threat of an expanding Islam.
“As for Catholics in the United States, almost a third of the population has been brought up in that faith, but today only 24 percent of Americans call themselves Catholic, less than a half of those who identify themselves as Protestant/Evangelical - almost 52 percent. The study clearly shows that the strongest adherents of the Catholic Church are amongst recent immigrants. Forty-six percent of U.S. nationals born outside the country are Catholic, while 24 percent of them Protestant.”
“The situation changes when we consider the religious affiliation of those born in the United States: fifty-five percent are Protestant and 21 percent are Catholic. In other words, a significant percentage of those who were Catholic in their infancy, have over the years decided to change their affiliation, switching primarily to Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.”
In other words, the longer immigrants remain in the U.S., the greater the likelihood that they’ll switch to another denomination or religion.
“To the Pope’s misfortune, the dynamics of change are influenced by factors beyond his control.”
By Carlos Martínez García
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
April 23, 2008
Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)
The results of the trip are more media than real. Benedict the XVI’s visit to the United States ratified a pastoral line that doesn’t confront problems at their root but treats them superficially and postpones their resolution, to the detriment of the millions of Catholics whose disillusionment with the leadership of the Catholic Church continues to deepen.
A good number of commentators and analysts expressed surprise and even praised the papal decision to meet with some victims of clerical pedophilia in the United States. They forget that due to the peculiarity of United States society, both in terms of its religious composition and the vigilance with which it monitors leaders of any kind, Pope Benedict XVI was practically obliged to show some sign that these outrageous abuses will not happen again.
We know of the magnitude of the sexual abuses perpetrated by Catholic priests in that country thanks to the mobilization of those who were assaulted and the solidarity of people who assisted them in disseminating news about the size of the problem and suing the pedophiles in court. It was an organization of citizens and its insistence on documenting and making public the sexual attacks of clergy in that country, which made it possible to make the issue a public one of such national significance.
The various centers of ecclesiastic authority, both in the U.S. and Rome, did everything possible to conceal the scandals. When they failed in the attempt, they imposed damage control measures and tried unsuccessfully to minimize the problem.
It was an entire network of complicity within the U.S. Catholic Church that permitted thousands of cases of sexual abuse, not the isolated behavior of this or that cleric. In this regard there is convincing data:
“A study ordered by the North American Episcopal Conference in 2004 … concluded that the number of children victimized by about 5 000 priests over the past three decades was over 11,000. Since many cases have been resolved according to the culture and civil law of the United States, the relevant statistics include $2 billion that has been paid in out in this regard, which has contributed to bankruptcy of more than a few diocese” (from The Pope and Clerical Pedophilia in Mexico [El Papa y la pederastia clerical en México] by Miguel Ángel Granados Chapa, Proceso).
The Pope pronounced words and promised actions favorable to Latin American immigrants, the majority of whom entered the United States without a visa. The productive apparatus in the United States has benefited on a great scale from these so-called illegals by paying them low wages and providing them with almost no social benefits. For the most part, these people come to that nation as Catholics and are the main factor in the growth of Catholicism there. This reality has another less well-known side, which is creating concern at the Holy See in Rome.
What emerges from watching the endless YouTubing of Jeremiah Wright is not the picture of a religious or political fanatic but a world-class attention-seeker. In those operatic video clips, there is a dashiki-dressed performer playing to the crowd, a soulmate, not of Louis Farrakhan, but of Bill Maher, whose imprudent comments on 9/11 cost him his network gig.
Now Obama’s pastor is back on stage, coming out of his recent retirement, with Bill Moyers on PBS tonight and at the National Press Club in Washington next Monday, flamboyantly defending himself to the possible political detriment of his former congregant:
“I think they wanted to communicate that I am unpatriotic, that I am un-American, that I am filled with hate speech, that I have a cult at Trinity United Church of Christ. And by the way, guess who goes to his church, hint, hint, hint?”
If Hillary Clinton’s campaign were paying him, the Rev. Wright couldn’t being doing more for them than to keep Obama’s embarrassment front and center in the days leading up to the final critical primaries.
But we may be underestimating him. By continuing to call attention to himself, Wright may be deviously trying to show that Obama is not under the Svengali-like influence of a dangerous man, just bedeviled by the antics of a showoff.
If so, that would be too subtle for most voters. All that may register with them is Obama’s unfortunate choice in a spiritual adviser.
“Bush sees the world in terms of good and evil, and he considers that only a united front encompassing all 2.2 billion Judeo-Christians will be able to resist Islam. Recent decades have seen increasing religious tension and the spread of theocracies, which now encompass almost all Arab countries.” Read the rest of this entry »
“No one should believe that the Iraq War is really that high on the Pope’s agenda. When it came time for the Holy See to endorse a candidate for the last presidential election, the then chief-inquisitor who became today’s Pope found it more important to support the candidate who opposed the legality of abortion than the one who stood against the war. This meant that Bush garnered the support of about a million votes that otherwise would have gone to Kerry. Bush is President, so to speak, due to Benedict’s grace.”
Etschmayer goes on to say, “As Benedict XVI is a Pope of restoration, when he visits the United States during an election year it symbolizes a policy that is anti-liberal and is a sign of support for the only conservative candidate: John McCain. McCain’s talk of remaining in Iraq for even 10,000 years if need be changes nothing. In the end, the fact is that this Pope by far prefers a Christian theocracy that fights bloody wars over a liberal, non-Christian democracy that avoids conflict.”
By Patrik Etschmayer
Translated By Patrik Etschmayer
April 17, 2008
Switzerland - Nachrichten - Original Article (German)
The headlines looked to be rather promising for opponents of Bush: The Pope would give Bush a few verbal slaps in the face, unambiguously criticize him and perhaps the Pontiff would even administer a real beating. But one should not be deluded: Standing on the same foundation, these are two men that think reason and reality should take a back seat to belief in a world as one wishes it to be.
This unity stood out when George W. Bush integrated a core-belief of the Pope into his speech of welcome by stressing that it is important for the nation to heed “the dictatorship of relativism.” Ultimately, this means that both Bush and the Pope stand for an absolute believe in a God that accepts a diversity of faiths only in the sense that there are people left to convert.
It’s perhaps a little ironic then, that the relativism both of these men fight so passionately against exists between themselves, as Bush is a member of a Methodist Church while the Pope is the world’s top Catholic. As far as the Protestants, the Pope has already made his opinion quite clear: When he declared that the Protestant churches were in fact not real churches at all, it triggered considerable consternation among ecumenical [inter-church] organizations.
In this light, the Pope’s criticism of George W. Bush’s Iraq policy is doubly interesting and curious. It’s probably too simplistic to use oil to explain Bush’s drive to invade Iraq. This was certainly a major motivation but there might as well have been the hope of having his “Christian” army plant a flag of victory over the stylized Islamist fanaticism of Saddam Hussein, whose rhetoric certainly contained a religious component. Recall when Bush initially spoke of a crusade, it looked simply as a clumsy choice of words. But who today uses this expression in a military context? It’s quite possible that he actually meant it in a literal sense. A man that continuously stresses doing the Lord’s work will also be drawn into war for his master.
And no one should believe that the Iraq War is really that high on the Pope’s agenda. When it came time for the Holy See to endorse a candidate for the last presidential election, the then chief-inquisitor who became today’s Pope found it more important to support the candidate who opposed the legality of abortion than the one who stood against the war. This meant that Bush garnered the support of about a million votes that otherwise would have gone to Kerry. Bush is President, so to speak, due to Benedict’s grace.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the Pope’s visit to the United States.
The impact that Martin Luther King had in the United States is well-known to us. The effect he had on the rest of the world less-so.
Referring to the 1958 Montgomery Bus Boycott boycott, Enrique Dussel writes for Mexico’s La Jornada, “It was a routine ‘event’ that would launch Martin Luther [King] into history. Such ‘events’ are always of humble origin, but resonate strongly with the public. As with the ‘water war’ or the ‘gas war’ that ended up toppling two Bolivian governments, what began small ended up having a huge impact. … Dr. King became involved in the boycott and led demonstrations … and was was transformed into a leader of Afro-American multitudes who had already begun mobilizing.
In describing his growth into a global leader, Dussel writes, “Martin Luther began to discover other forms of oppression. So his discourses began to include all of the poor of the United States, from the urban working poor, Hispanic farm laborers and the marginalized, to the jobless. And after 1964, he began using his leadership to oppose the Vietnam War. In that year he received the Nobel Peace Prize. … But there is more. His discoveries led him to accuse his own country of being the cause of misery to other peoples. In 1967 he led the ‘Poor People’s March,’ which lifted the issues of racial and economic injustice to the national and global level. He reached out beyond the poor of the U.S. to those of Africa, where the slaves originated, and to Asia and Latin America.”
Dussel concludes, “It seems as though he had overstepped the limits of allowable criticism. … And so on April 4, 1968 (the same year as the May unrest in Paris and Berkeley, and the October Massacre in Tlatelolco), the life of Martin Luther King was cut short.”
By Enrique Dussel*
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
April 4, 2008
Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)
Forty years ago on April 4th, Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis! It’s an anniversary that provides food for thought.
Martin Luther, an Afro-American from a Baptist community, was born in the midst of economic depression in 1929. As his father was a pastor and having obtained a doctorate in Boston [Boston University, in systematic theology], he took charge of a community of believers in Atlanta, Georgia [actually, it was in Montgomery, Alabama; the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church]. The struggle for the civil rights was picking up, but it was a routine “event” that would launch Martin Luther into history.
Such “events” are always of humble origin, but resonate strongly with the public. As with the “water war” or the “gas war” in Bolivia, what began small ended up toppling two Bolivian governments. One shouldn’t dismiss “events” that could develop into storms - an issue exposed by Alain Badiou in his “Being and Event,” and which Walter Benjamin referred to as “now-time” in regard to the arrival of the messiah.
In this case, the “event” was the simple fact that an Afro-American woman, tired after finishing work, refused to give up her bus seat to a White person who wanted to take it, as the established custom and the discriminatory laws of the south dictated. The woman preferred to have the bus stopped. The police were summoned and a full-blown confrontation ensued. But the best part is that the other Afro-Americans on the bus not only got off, but they declared a boycott of the bus company. The controversy spread. The local pastor, Dr. Martin Luther King, became involved in the boycott and led demonstrations. Meanwhile, every Afro-American in Atlanta began to walk to work, sometimes over long distances and for days or even weeks.
The bus company sued the movement because it went into bankruptcy. King was accused in a court of law and found guilty of causing economic damage the company by holding the boycott and had to suffer incarceration. All this had the effect of raising the social pressure, and the young, 26-year-old pastor was transformed into a leader of Afro-American multitudes who had already begun mobilizing across the country for the fight against racial discrimination.
In 1956, a law was decreed to end racial segregation in the United States (which is not the same as making it a reality), and slowly but surely, Afro-Americans began accruing political clout. Martin Luther’s leadership continues to inspire, not only in his native state, but across the country. Reflecting on Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of “non-violence” (which was inspired by the ancient Jain school of Indian thought), he began a true strategic struggle against racism in the United States, a phenomenon as old as slavery, which was established in the 17th century. Martin Luther was arrested again several times. While “non-violence” isn’t a universal principle, it’s a strategy that works in a country that respects the rule of law (for the powerful, of course, not for the poor).
It was August 28, 1968 when he delivered his most famous speech before 200 000 people in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.
Gradually, the Atlanta preacher [Alabama, actually] began to realize that that Afro-American people had been discriminated against since the dawn of modernity; since the onset of European slavery that involved over 15 million Africans. It was a terrible kind of oppression, and yet it was an oppression that went unnoticed by French Revolutionary and Enlightenment thinking. Then Martin Luther began to discover other forms of oppression. So his discourses began to include all of the poor of the United States, from the urban working poor, Hispanic farm laborers and the marginalized, to the jobless. And after 1964, he began using his leadership to oppose the Vietnam War. In that year he received the Nobel Peace Prize.
As the grim milestones in Iraq pile up, Americans aren’t the only ones wondering how long the war will go on. Jean-Claude Kiefer writes for France’s Dernieres Nouvelles d’Alsace, ‘the United States has been discredited; Islamist terrorism is expanding; there is extreme tension throughout the Middle East; the Israeli-Palestinian crisis with Hamas has radicalized Gaza; Iran has been declared a regional power and may soon go nuclear; the regimes of the pro-Western Arab states are shaky; and the major routes of oil - which is already very expensive - are threatened … And this is not an exhaustive list!’
By Jean-Claude Kiefer
Translated By Philippe Guittard
March 23, 2008
France - Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace - Home Page (French)
Tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, millions of refugees, nearly 4,000 American soldiers killed in daily attacks, a country devastated … And, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, a bill of direct and indirect costs of $3 trillion which was paid for on credit, and which has greatly contributed to the decline in the dollar! And yet to draw up a complete accounting of five years of war in Iraq is impossible. Read the rest of this entry »
I was born to and raised by former members of the Black Panther Party. I also grew up around my parents’ friends (other former members). Throughout a childhood filled with love and support, the ideas of militant activism rubbed off on me. You could say I was an honorary member of the now-defunct Black Panthers. I fell in love with them. Their struggle. The strength of seeing those black people carry guns in unity. A Black Militia for social activism. But my parents weren’t starry-eyed militants. They were realists. For every romantic notion, I was fed caution. I was told to judge people not by skin color but by actions. I was told to follow the laws of the land and to protest peacefully. Many times they hammered their caution home with looks that would peel the armor off a tank. In the end, they created an independent thinker. A son that volunteers his time to help others. A son that is more optimistic than pessimistic. But they still wax poetic about their Black Panther and militant days. Some of their friends lay the black nationalism on thick over the BBQ. I call these people my friends also. They’ve helped me with homework (thanks Mr. G for your invaluable Calculus lessons), helped me with relationships, and just plain helped me with life. Even though some of things they say are on a par with Minister Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Jeremiah Wright and make me cringe many times.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright… Senator Barack Obama… Relationship. Mentoring. Friendship. All parts of the human experience. Not easily shaken off. Yet this is what running for the President of the United States is about: shaking off “damaged goods” even if you respect, care about, and/or love those “damaged goods”.
The whole Wright-Obama saga (and thanks to my fellow co-bloggers and commenters for their insightful thoughts on this subject) has made me take a look at my associations and friendships. I realize that those friends of mine who have said and continue to say disparaging, inflammatory, and hateful things about people are still my friends. Their impact on my life has been too great. I can’t just drop them. They mean too much to me. They are an integral part of my life, my wife’s life, my children’s life. Even though some of the words out of their mouths embarrass and sometimes repulse me.
Senator Barack Obama has made his choice. His friendship with Rev. Wright means too much to just cut off. He can’t destroy the man that impacted his life so much. Sure Rev. Wright has left his unofficial role with the Obama Campaign, but Senator Obama will not throw him under the bus. Obama must feel that Rev. Wright has not done enough “dirt” (positives outweigh the negatives) to cancel his friendship with him. I admire that since I feel the same way about some of my friends.
Relationships are funny things. We can be impacted by the strangest of characters. One person’s hero may be another person’s villain. Senator Obama’s emotional soft spot has been exposed for all to see. And in the uncaring, unflinching, and harsh world of American politics, a emotional soft spot is easy leverage; manna from heaven.
I mentioned at the top of this post that I feel bad about what I’m going to do here. (I stole that line, by the way; it’s Nora Ephron’s opening for her devastating profile of Dorothy Schiff’s New York Post. Now that I’ve given credit, it’s not plagiarism, it’s an homage. See how it works?) I feel bad because my old buddy Leo Morris, who edits the op-ed pages, is going to bear the brunt of this — the investigation, the uncomfortable announcement to readers, the search through the archives for more time bombs, the embarrassment of being took by someone any editor would trust, a self-styled intellectual and senior White House aide, for crying out loud. But either this stuff is important or it isn’t, and I say it is.
Do Iraqis want Americans out of Iraq? It’s a question that people around the world have been asking for years and by and large the answer has been yes. But now that the prospect of a U.S. pullout has become somewhat more tangible, it seems that some Iraqis are emphatically asking Americans to stay. In this ode to the Americans and Iraq’s Christians from Iraq’s Kitibat newspaper, Khadir Taahar writes, ‘Iraq’s political, economic, scientific and industrial future all depend on the strategic relationship with the United States of America, which liberated Iraq, and whose presence on its land is a divine and priceless gift which no intelligent man keen on securing Iraqi interests can afford to lose.’
By Khadir Taahar
Translated By James Jacobson
February 9, 2008
Iraq - Kitabat - Original Article (Arabic)
I write this article to thank my Iraqi Christian friends … who have provided so much humanitarian assistance to me, a son of their Muslim homeland. I send a message to the sons of the Iraqi people at home and abroad … reminding them that the souls and hearts of the Christians are with the sons of their country, whether they remained in or emigrated from the land of Iraq.
In complete isolation from Arabs and Muslims, I lived in the Diaspora because of my writings and opinions, which differed from those of almost everyone … When I felt the need for help I could without hesitation take recourse to my Iraqi Christian brethren. I have always found in them the utmost magnanimity and brotherhood.
I write to my friend Anan BeDaweed … who has kindly remained in touch with me and has incurred great difficulty defending my right to freedom of expression, despite his strong opposition to my writings which are critical of the Kurdish parties … Anan is a secular Kurd, which works to my advantage since he objects to those who wish to silence my views.
As for my friend Adil Baqal … in his generosity and morality he carries the spirit of a clan chief from deep in southern Iraq … Adil, despite his personal religious faith, has critical views about the true purpose of religion … he cannot accept the religious preoccupation with ideology … The dominance of the clergy and the way they manipulate the feelings and minds of the people … He believes that religion is a private issue between the Creator and his creatures, and that no intermediary is needed … Adil Baqal is only the most recent person to reproach me for my writings which are so critical of the Kurdish parties.
“The irony is that the occupier, by which we mean the Americans, the British and the rest of the countries of the occupation, are of the Christian religion, and yet we have heard of no non-Muslims who have collaborated with them.”
By Dr. Fawaaz al-Fawaaz
Translated By James Jacobson
February 5, 2008
Iraq - Kitabat - Original Article (Arabic)
Before I go any further, I would like to say that I am a Muslim man, but that I see facts as being separate from religious bigotry or fanatical ethnic affiliation. When it comes at the expense of others, I do not believe we should see things from the emotional perspective of the group alone.
After the arrival of the occupier, we saw that most of the collaborators were Muslim - not ordinary Muslims - but clerics. Clerics must be the most committed to religion, to the Prophet and to the family of the Prophet, and there are times that we need to seek out the religious instruction of these men, to help us and keep us from straying from the faith. But like it or not, we have seen that the best collaborators were clerics. So there is no choice but to remind everyone of the emergence of clerics who put on the garb of politics to achieve dirty ends that expose Read the rest of this entry »
Obama listed falsehoods that appeared in an e-mail campaign aimed at Jewish voters.
“I never practiced Islam. I was raised by my secular mother. I have been a member of the Christian religion and an active member of a church,” he said. “I was sworn in with my hand on my family Bible and have said the Pledge of Allegiance since I was 3 years old.”
Obama, who also answered questions about his Iran and Israel-Palestinian policies, as well as noting that he had rebuked his church’s past association with Louis Farrakhan, concluded: “My strong and deep commitment and connection to the Jewish community should not be questioned.”
You can read more from the JTA and listen to the conference call here.This Washington Post column by Richard Cohen does a good job of detailing Obama’s church’s recent identification with Louis Farrakhan, whom the church said, “epitomized greatness” and why it feels problematic to some people.
As I’ve been trying to choose between the Democratic primary choices, I’ve spent more time looking at their statements and positions on Jews, Israel and the Middle East. Here’s Obama in today’s call on his church’s connection to Farrakhan:
Asked why it was sufficient for him to denounce his church’s recent praise for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan but not resign from the church itself, Obama repeated his condemnation of Farrakhan’s “reprehensible” anti-Semitic views. Then he added what sounds like a promise: “My church has never issued anti-Semitic statements, nor have I heard my pastor utter anything anti-Semitic. If I have, I would have left the church.”
Are we okay with this stance? Would not resigning from a group led by individuals who laud someone like Farrakhan be good enough for other politicians or civic leaders, or have we, in the past, demanded that such people more firmly condemn a person who is considered by some to be homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist? Is there more Obama should be doing vis a vis ensuring his church’s “clean hands” or should we just not impute any uncleanliness to Obama?
December 29th, 2007 by SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Sister Sujita Kallupurakkathu, the global leader of the Sisters of Notre Dame, the religious community of 2,400 nuns serving in 17 nations, was born into a middle-class Catholic family in southern India, earned degrees in social work and communications from Bombay University, and learned many of her most important life lessons in an Indian slum. This interesting profile of a nun comes to me from Holly who read it in The Blade.
“This general superior of the Sisters of Notre Dame says it is only by living with the poor that one can truly understand their plight and help them achieve a sense of dignity. The Sisters of Notre Dame worldwide focus on providing education, social services, and pastoral care. In India, Sister Sujita said the nuns’ primary concerns are education, health, and direct involvement with the poor.
“The religious order educates more than 21,000 children in India, most of whom are in rural areas and otherwise would not get an education. In the beginning, the nuns gathered the children under a tree and students wrote in the sand because there were no school supplies.
“She helped the Sisters of Notre Dame establish micro-loan programs for women in the ghetto, helping to empower these people and helping them live with dignity as they develop small businesses.
” ‘I used to imagine Jesus among them and that really opened my eyes how to relate to them. It was always a tremendous help for me,’ she said. ‘I could not always preach about Jesus but I could always be like him. Nobody could prevent that. That is where I learned more and more to be like Christ’.
“The nun said that living with no material possessions is liberating. ‘It gives you freedom. I feel very free when I have less. So my motto is: ‘Be more and have less’.”
(Photo of Sister Sujita above courtesy THE BLADE/HERRAL LONG)
This is a Guest Voice column by Michael Reagan, Ronald Reagan’s oldest son, who is also a popular radio talk show host. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
Smart Strategy is No Accident
Making Sense, by Michael Reagan
In addition to seeing Mike Huckabee suddenly surge in the polls, the nation is also witnessing some of the smartest campaign strategies any candidate has displayed in a long time. The former Arkansas governor has shown he can play the game with the best of them, and better than most.
Let’s start with the Huckabee Christmas commercial, obviously aimed at evangelical Christians who constitute more than 40 percent of Iowa voters. Huckabee not only preached a sermon to that choir of Iowa voters, he spoke in front of what appeared to be a cross that appeared prominently in the background above his shoulder.
It’s important to keep in mind that this TV ad did not occur in isolation — it was an obvious response to Mitt Romney’s brilliant speech on his faith given the week before — a speech that won almost-universal praise. If the Rev. Mike Huckabee wanted to be seen as the Christian candidate, it required a response.
That’s what the latest Huckabee Iowa TV ad was — a 28-second answer to Romney’s speech.
That ad, one of the most brilliantly conceived and executed commercials ever seen, attracted worldwide attention. And no matter how many denials he and his supporters offer, that was a cross in the background and it was no accident it was highly visible. Remember that nothing happens by accident in politics. When it comes to such campaign gimmicks as TV commercials, everything is planned, down to the last detail.
That is not in the background because it is a bookcase — it was there because part of it forms a cross, plain and simple — the rest of the bookcase simply fades from view. And you have only 28 seconds to discern the fact that the cross that looms so prominently is merely part of a larger object.
It was a subliminal message, just as it was a subtle way of telling voters, “I’m the Christian, Romney is the Mormon.”
While it may have been part of a bookcase shelf or, as some say, a window, it was there because Huckabee and his advisors wanted it there to remind voters in Iowa that the candidate is a real Christian candidate running for the Republican nomination — one who is not afraid to display his Christianity boldly in this secular age which scoffs at all religious beliefs.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Ed Rollins, his top campaign advisor, planned that ad. Ed Rollins is a political genius when it comes to those kinds of issues and he proved that when he worked so effectively to put my father in the White House.
Mike Huckabee won’t admit it, but that ad was carefully crafted, it was effective, and it was his answer to Mitt Romney’s speech,
It’s interesting to note how those in mainstream media, who have so much trouble dealing with the birth of Christ, went absolutely bonkers over someone saying that he is a Christian, that what we are celebrating on December 25 is the birth of Jesus Christ, and daring to wish his fellow Americans “Merry Christmas” instead of some innocuous muttering such as “happy holidays.”
In his ad, Huckabee was also challenging the media by rubbing his faith in their faces.
Huckabee did in 28 seconds what it took Mitt Romney much longer. That’s political genius at work.
December 21st, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Each day there’s a new story — or stories — about polls showing Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee becoming the break-away campaign 2008 favorite who seemingly came “out of nowhere” to negate the earlier conventional wisdom about who almost certain to win the Presidential nomination prize.
But is some of his highly-touted, solid Evangelical support more wannabe than reality?
When Mike Huckabee went to Houston on Tuesday to raise funds for his fast-rising, money-starved presidential candidacy, a luncheon for the ordained Baptist minister was arranged by evangelical Christians. On hand was Judge Paul Pressler, a hero to Southern Baptist Convention reformers. But he was a nonpaying guest who supports Fred Thompson for president.
Huckabee greeted Pressler warmly. That contrasted with Huckabee’s anger two months ago when they encountered each other in California. The former governor of Arkansas took issue then with comments by Pressler, a former Texas appeals court judge, that Huckabee had been a slacker in the war against secularists within the Baptist church.
The warmth in Texas and hostility in California reflects the dual personality of the pastor-politician who has broken out of the presidential campaign’s second tier. Huckabee can come across as either a Reagan or a Nixon. More than personality explains why not all his Baptist brethren have signed on the dotted line for Huckabee. He did not join the “conservative resurgence” that successfully rebelled against liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention a generation ago.
In short, Novak notes, Huckabee isn’t being given a free pass by some Republicans, who view him as another big government Republican:
Criticism from co-religionists stands apart from criticism by the Club for Growth, the Cato Institute and the Arkansas Eagle Forum of Huckabee’s 10 big-government, high-tax years as governor. Because no Republican candidate since Pat Robertson in 1988 has depended so much on support from evangelicals, opposition by Huckabee’s fellow Southern Baptists is significant.
He ends his column with a paragraph that suggests a Huckabee candidacy could have some “nuance” in terms of evangelical support:
Huckabee’s encounter with Pressler two months ago did not deter the judge from telling me this week much the same thing he said to the Journal’s Fund: “I don’t know of conservative appointments he made, and I don’t know of any contribution to the conservatives.” After Huckabee’s warm greeting in Houston on Tuesday, however, Pressler told me: “I would never do anything to hurt him.” But he did not go so far as endorsing Huckabee for president, and that sends a strong message to conservative evangelicals.
All of this does suggest that some of the breathless media and blog coverage about Huckabee could itself be tempered by unforeseen political events or less-than-monolithic evangelical support.
But, clearly, Huckabee is the one dominating political news on the Republican front and is the one who now seems to have the momentum. If he wins in Iowa, it’s likely to bump-up his tepid present numbers in New Hampshire and, due to the extent of his evangelical support, any post-New Hampshire primaries are likely to accentuate widening splits within the GOP coalition that came together effectively to elect Ronald Reagan.
Most of the news about Huckabee underscores a candidate on the ascent. Even negative news about him somehow frames him as the man on the rise who is under attack. Some examples:
–A new poll in Michigan shows Huckabee rising fast, former New York Mayor Giuliani sinking quickly and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with Huckabee breathing down his neck: Mitt Romney, 21 percent, Mike Huckabee, 19 percent. Rudy Giuliani, 12 percent, John McCain, 10 percent, Ron Paul, 4 percent and Fred Thompson, 4 percent. MOST SIGNIFICANT: In terms of poll numbers here, Paul hasn’t gone up more and Thompson looks as if his candidacy has experienced a virtual melt-down.
If Republican voters were hoping for a wide open presidential race this holiday season, they are clearly getting their wish. A new FOX News poll shows that Rudy Giuliani (20 percent), John McCain (19 percent) and the surging Mike Huckabee (19 percent) are clustered together at the top of the GOP hill—with Mitt Romney (11 percent) and Fred Thompson (10 percent) still within striking distance. Since a large share of Republican voters are still undecided (13 percent), this race is about as “up for grabs” as any in recent memory.
Giuliani suffered the biggest drop in support since November, losing a full 13 points. On the other hand, Huckabee has shot up from 8 percent in November to 19 percent in the current poll. Romney (up 3 percent) and McCain (up 2 percent) scored small gains in the last month.
As has been widely reported, the overall character of the Republican race has changed dramatically over the last several months. In fact, as late as September, Huckabee registered only 2 percent in a FOX News poll. Barely three months later he is a now co-front-runner.
That’s quite an accomplishment — and the point is the TRENDING is on Huckabee’s side (so far).
–Salon’s columnist, centrist Walter Shapiro (one of the best and most-perceptive columnists in the business) says Huckabee’s success is due to his effective use of populism — and in that he most resembles Democrat John Edwards. A small piece of his column:
Of course, Huckabee is laying it on thick, but the candidate is peddling his common-man persona more than any specific set of policies. This time around, Romney (the governor’s son) and McCain (the son of an admiral) lack convincing hard-scrabble stories from their early years. And the Bush family is not exactly the embodiment of portraits in populism…..
…..But the Democrat whom Huckabee appears to be channeling is John Edwards, who never missed an opportunity to remind voters back in 2004 that he was “the son of a mill worker.” At a chaotic rally in a cramped room in a West Des Moines shopping mall Wednesday night, Huckabee lifted a signature Edwards phrase, promising that when he triumphs in Iowa on Jan. 3, “America can say thank you for restoring faith in a political system that’s not just run by corporate greed but is run by ordinary citizens.” Huckabee followed up in Marshalltown by uttering a line of such naked populism that the Baccarat crystal probably rattled in corporate dining rooms around the country: “Wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who doesn’t find himself wholly owned and completely tied to the biggest corporations in the country?”
And, indeed, that would explain what’s happening in the polls far more than just attributing it to a vote for the religious right and a vote to keep a Mormon from getting the nomination: Huckabee is picking up support from voters who seek a populist….and adding those to the others who support him for religious reasons. Will this be a strong enough coalition?
–Bloggers are more interested in him than ever — but is his organization professional enough yet to take advantage of those bloggers who might be sympathetic to him? Right Wing News’ John Hawkins has tried in vain to contact the Huckabee folks and writes:
I’m not trying to beat up on Huckabee here, but if you’re a top tier contender for the presidency, you ought to at least be organized enough to answer queries from the press within three days time. The fact that Huckabee’s campaign wasn’t able to pull that off tells me that his campaign hasn’t completed the transition from a shoestring effort that got by on the strength of Huckabee’s charisma and religious background to the sort of well organized campaign that someone in his position needs to have.
(FOOTNOTE: Although some campaigns have occasionally run as on TMV we are seldom contacted by campaigns and never invited on candidate conference calls, including by candidates reportedly seeking votes from centrists and independents. This is due to the fact that our writers reflect differing views and our posts on a given candidate can be critical of a candidate one day and more sympathetic the next. Also, as a site TMV does not endorse candidates.)
–The Washington Post’s Perry Bacon, Jr. notes that Huckabee’s faith-based politics has friends and foes in both parties. But again: who is dominating the media coverage and is a new “product” for voters to consider? McCain, Romney and Giuliani have finessed some old positions but they are like “pre-owned” cars billed as “pre-owned” versus “used.” Huckabee is the new car on the lot.
All of this taken together indicates Huckabee is “the” present candidate of maximum interest in terms of media coverage and blog coverage. Polls show he’s on the ascent in many areas.
But his camp should take note of the unintentional, non-scripted election news cycle that hits candidates.
First stage: The candidate on ascent.
Second stage: The highly popular candidate stumbles.
Third stage: The candidate on the descent.
Fourth stage: The comeback candidate.
Right now Huckabee is on the first stage — and others are in different stages.
Is there anything in his background or the way his organization is run that’ll propel him to stage two?
The answer — one way or another — should come within a month or two…
December 12th, 2007 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
(photos on next page)
There was a fight on the Q train. The last car was filled with people rolling toward Brooklyn.
A young man, accompanied by his girlfriend, had just been wished Merry Christmas by another group on the train.
The young man happily answered back with, “Happy Chanukah.”
That’s when all hell broke loose.
One of a group of other young people on the train immediately hiked up his sleeve to reveal a tattoo of Christ. Fourteen men and women jumped the “Happy Chanukah” man, yelling, “He said, ‘Happy Hanukkah, that’s when the Jews killed Jesus…’ dirty Jews and Jew bitches.”
Much screaming, bellowing, blood loss and broken bones later…
The man who said “Happy Chanukah” is Walter Adler, 23, an honors student at Hunter College, who now has a broken nose and a split lip.
He had managed to pull the emergency brake as the train was hurtling toward DeKalb Ave. station
A horde of police came aboard. They arrested 10 people, charging six with assault and four with unlawful assembly.
Two of the men arrested that night have been arrested for race crimes before.
There’s a back-story: In the midst of the melee, Adler thought, “I’m bleeding all over the place, there’s lots of people, why isn’t anyone else doing anything?”
But one stranger on the train had risen to help. And he flailed away for all he was worth to help protect Adler as best he could. A bantam-weight man from Bangladesh. A young soul studying to be an accountant. His name is Hassan Askari. He is 20 years old.
Hassan Askari has two black eyes from the fight. But he also has a new friend. Adler.
Adler says Hassan is a hero. Hassan says his parents taught him to help those in need.
Like many a persons who, when faced with sudden threat, and through whom fierce angels suddenly surge , whatever one would call that Force of those moments of tension, that Force retreats when the threat is past….
leaving just the humble human form standing there, mumbling things like Hassan is saying now, “I just did what I had to do.”
And the ones who assaulted the travelers? Thus far, six were charged with assault, four with unlawful assembly. There may be additional charges.
from the NYPost by Jennifer Fermino, Erika Martinez and Peter Cox
One of those collared straphangers yesterday denied making anti-Semitic taunts and said his mother is Jewish.
Joseph Jirovec, 19 - the son of a city firefighter who is currently serving in Iraq - has pleaded guilty to a 2005 bias crime against blacks.
“We are not racist against Jewish people. That whole hate-crime thing is ridiculous,” Jirovec said.
He claims Adler’s group was drunk and taunted his group, and one yelled, “We killed Jesus.”
Jirovec will soon begin serving six months for his role in the attack against four men in Gerritsen Beach.
“I’m trying to stay out of trouble,” he said. “When I get out, I want to go into the military.”
(I sense what some readers might be thinking. Me too.)
Below are some of the pictures of the alleged attackers:
But, before we go there, just this. As you may have deduced, Hassan the brave Bangladeshi is a Muslim. And of course, Walter Adler is a Jew. And in that effusiveness that is beautiful, and for which many a Semitic person is known, Adler said… “A random Muslim guy jumped in and helped a Jewish guy on Hanukkah - that’s a miracle…”
Let us all who wish to, hold the thought that someday, in our lifetimes, such a matter will NOT be a miracle, that it will instead, be only USUAL and ordinary. And blessed, as always.
Here is a video of Walter Adler (who is no weakling), his heartfelt lady friend, and a gentle Hassan Askari speaking about what happened. Many will like what Askari says about his way of seeing others through his Muslim faith. Many will like what Walter says at the end about transcending all the religious arguments that keep people on ’sides’ rather than in harmony.
![[NZZ am Sonntag, Switzerland]](http://worldmeets.us/images/bushpope_nzzamsonntag.gif)
