| |
2004 << >> Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Specter's Pants On Fire But Rove Takes Him At His Word
November 11, 2004
Specter’s Pants On Fire But Rove Takes Him At His Word; CNN’s Bruce Morton Gets A History Lesson; And NPR’s Overly Simplistic Simon Is Afraid, Very Afraid, Of The “C” Word
By John Lofton
In his attempt to quench the firestorm of Christian/conservative opposition to his becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has opted for an age-old tactic of numerous politicians: Don’t tell the truth about what you really believe and have said.
A recent “Associated Press” story (11/4/04) reported that Specter had “bluntly warned” President Bush “against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or who might otherwise be considered too conservative to win confirmation.” This “A.P.” story quotes Specter as saying:
“When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely.” Mr. Bush, he added, “is well aware of what happened when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster….I would expect the President to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.”
Get it? Of course you do. What Specter is telling the President is crystal clear. He’s saying: Look, I’m going to be the next Senate Judiciary Committee chairman. So, forget about sending to the Senate any judicial nominees who are pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-Roe v. Wade. In fact, forget about nominating any judicial nominees who are too conservative.
OK. So, when Specter’s obvious threat hits the newspapers, network and cable TV shows, the Internet and various radio talk shows, all Heaven breaks loose. Christian/conservative groups and individuals --- most of whom voted for Mr. Bush, who campaigned for Specter and is responsible for his being re-elected --- flood Capitol Hill demanding Specter’s scalp and saying he must not be named Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.
Specter, his pants bursting into flames, then says, with a straight face, that it’s all a mistake. He insists, on CBS’ “Face The Nation” (11/07/04), that he has “never applied a litmus test” when it comes to judicial nominees. He says those trying to stop him from being Senate Judiciary Committee chairman are people “who do not like my independence.”
But, of course, Specter DOES have a pro-abortion, pro-Roe v. Wade, anti-pro life litmus test. On November 4, 2004, on ABC’s “World News Tonight,” I saw Specter saying, in a press conference: “I have said that bluntly during the campaign, that Roe versus Wade was inviolate” (emphasis mine).
Note, please, the word used here --- “inviolate.” It means that which cannot, must not, be violated. In other words, for Specter, Roe v. Wade is, in effect, a sacred text. For him, this Supreme Court ruling, which has “legalized” abortion and resulted in the deaths of more than 40 million innocent, unborn children, is holy writ, inerrant and infallible.
Sounds like a “litmus test” to me.
As for Specter’sself-proclaimed “independence,” such an assertion is preposterous on its face. He is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the pro-death lobby, a knee-jerk supporter of abortion, including partial-birth abortion which is actuallyinfanticide.
Still, incredibly, despite Specter saying Roe v. Wade is “inviolate,” Mr. Bush’s chief political guru, Karl Rove, has said on “Fox News Sunday” (11/7/04) that Specter is “a man of his word, and we’ll take him at his word” that Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees will be treated fairly!
A footnote: On ABC’s “This Week” program (11/7/04), Dr. James Dobson, head of “Focus On The Family,” commenting on the possibility that Specter might become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Specter “is a problem, and he must be derailed.” Interesting. But, how did Specter become this particular “problem?” Who put him on the rails, on the fast-track to becoming Senate Judiciary Committee chairman? Why he was put there by being re-elected with the crucial help of President Bush who was enthusiastically supported by, among others ---Dr. James Dobson!
* * *
Speaking of Christian bashing, Scott Simon, host of National Public Radio’s “Weekend Edition Saturday,” is afraid --- very afraid. In fact, Simon is so afraid of the “C”-word thing that when he recently interviewed (11/6/04) former White House Bush speechwriterDavid Frum, he said he had to ask Frum “a very blunt question.” Which was? Well, Simon said“a lot of people in this country are concerned that” --- sorry for the interruption. Maybe you should sit down for this.They are concerned that a re-electedBush Administration is going to try to impose --- “a Christian vision on U.S. policy, a fundamentalist Christian vision on U.S. policy.”
Yikes! Bad enough that a mere “Christian vision” vision should be imposed on anybody. But, a “fundamentalist” Christian vision?! Now, that’s --- well, it’s --- you know --- if you work at NPR --- scary. True, such a Christian vision being imposed on most of the rest of the country is not quite as frightening since most of the rest of the country already claims to be Christian. Simon, however, is thinking about his own fear and not the less dangerous specter of Christians having Christianity imposed on them.
In any event, Frum, to his credit, declines to Christian-bash. A self-described “medium observant Jew,” he says that during his more than a year in the Bush Administration, he “never felt a moment of discomfort,” the people there were “extraordinarily accepting and tolerant of all kinds of differences in human nature.”
This particular hole coming up dry, Simon drills another one: “I have to ask. Sexual orientation, too? There are gays in the administration?” Well, yes, says Frum. There are “gays” (he uses the plural) in the vice president’s family and one of them was on stage, with her “longtime companion,” when the President gave his acceptance speech at the GOP Convention. Harkening back to Simon’s alarm regarding thatC.V.I. (Christian Vision Imposition), Frum says, concerning the religious question: “The Constitution is there; it sets rules. Will we seemore overt Christianity in the language of American political leaders? Probably in the future we will because the country is becoming more religious. The leaders will reflect the nation.”
But, we do not need a more “religious” country. We do not need more politicians simply talking more explicitly Christian talk. What we need is for our rulers in civil government --- at all levels --- to obey God’s Word not just drop His Name at an annual prayer breakfast. More specifically, to bless our nation, we need President Bush to impose his Christianity on himself.He needs to understand how his faith must govern his job. He needs to understand that the Lord Jesus Christ is the King of kings and Lord of lords --- Lord over all, including politics. This means Mr. Bush’s government may not, must not, do anything for which there is no Biblical authority. It must operate within the bounds set byGod’s Law.We must all pray that our President, by God’s grace, comes soon to this realization.
* * *
We all know that the national media tilts to the Left with a Liberal/anti-Christian bias --- particularly theCable News Network. Still, it’s a shock to personally experience such blatant prejudice, as I did at the end of our Presidential campaign.
As Michael’s director of communications, I got a call from CNN saying they wanted to do a report about our campaign on their program “Inside Politics.” The reporter would be former CBS News correspondent Bruce Morton.
When Morton and I talk to set something up, he says he’s been looking at our Web page. He wants to know if Michael is elected, “will he repeal the First Amendment which separates church and state?” I tell him that there is nothing in this Amendment calling for such a separation.
Morton: “Well, it says you can’t have an established religion and your guy sounds as if he wants one….He wants a Christian country and that sounds like establishment to me. But, I am no Constitutional scholar.”
Indeed he is not. I patiently explain to Morton that what our Founders did not want was a national religion established by theFederal Government. I say Michael doesn’t want this either but he does not believe --- like our Founders --- that you should separateGod and government. Referring to our campaign themes --- God, family, republic --- I note that the Declaration Of Independence speaks ofunalienable rights, from God, that it is the purpose of government to protect.
Morton: “Yes, I’ve read it, thank you.”
But, Morton persists: “So, you would leave the First Amendment alone?”
I tell him I’m trying to take his question seriously but I can’t. I ask him what have we said that indicates we would not leave the First Amendment alone?
Morton: “Well, you appear to want a specifically Christian country.”
I reply: “Well, no, we actually want a Christian world. But, again, we do not want a Federally-established national religion. And, again, we believe what our Founders believed, that our unalienable rights come from God and it is the role of the civil government to protect these God-given rights.”
Morton: “Good enough.”
I reply: “God bless you.” He hangs up.
Here’s what CNN broadcast in its entirety. Morton says: “Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party is on the ballot in 36 states. He wants a government that believes in God and is much smaller than the one we have now. No Federal money for old age pensions or education, for instance.” Then a film clip of Michael is shown saying: “We need to honor God, defend the family, and restore the Constitutional republic.”
Return to the Author's Corner: JLOF
Back to November, 2004
|
|
