NPR's Liasson, Slate's Dickerson, Time's Cox all downplayed Haggard's significance
SUMMARY: Although Rev. Ted Haggard was the pastor of a 14,000-member church and president of "the largest evangelical group in America," as well as a regular member of weekly conference calls with the Bush administration, National Public Radio's Mara Liasson, Slate's John Dickerson, and Time's Ana Marie Cox all downplayed the political impact of recent allegations that he solicited sex and drugs from a male prostitute.
After allegations surfaced that Rev. Ted Haggard, founder and former senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, had solicited a male prostitute for sex and drugs, National Public Radio national political correspondent Mara Liasson downplayed the political impact of this development, claiming, on the November 3 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, "I wouldn't call him a national leader, but he certainly is important in his own state." On the same day, on MSNBC's special, Decision 2006: Battleground America, Slate.com chief political correspondent John Dickerson and Time magazine columnist Ana Marie Cox similarly dismissed the news as "interesting in the evangelical community" but not likely to "have a big effect" politically.
But these assessments overlook the fact that Haggard was the president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) from 2003 until he stepped down on November 2 amid the allegations. Haggard's official biography describes NAE as "the largest evangelical group in America," and it has been widely reported that he takes part in weekly conference calls with White House officials. Indeed, Time -- Cox's own magazine -- named Haggard one of the "25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America" last year. An article in the May 2005 issue of Harper's Magazine reported, "No pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than does Pastor Ted."
On the November 3 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, co-host Steve Inskeep asked Liasson about the Haggard scandal:
INSKEEP: Let me ask about another thing that could be seen as a distraction, it's just developing in the last 24 hours. Ted Haggard -- prominent evangelical minister, opponent of gay marriage -- announced he's resigned after a male prostitute claimed they had a relationship. And this is a guy with -- with some connections to the White House.
LIASSON: Yeah, he's not -- I wouldn't call him a national leader, but he certainly is important in his own state. It's yet one more thing that -- that could further demoralize the Christian conservative base of the Republican Party and cause turnout among those voters to be lower than the White House needs.
In fact, Haggard is very much a national leader. His biography, posted on his personal website, speaks to his national prominence, noting his numerous media appearances and his designation in the February 7, 2005, issue of Time as one of the most influential evangelicals in America. From the bio:
Pastor Ted has been interviewed by [ABC's The View co-host] Barbara Walters, [former NBC News anchor] Tom Brokaw, [Fox News host] Bill O'Reilly, [MSNBC host] Chris Matthews, and more. Time included Pastor Ted in their list of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America. Harper's says, "No pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than does Pastor Ted."
Indeed, in the article on the New Life Church in the May 2005 issue of Harper's, contributing editor Jeff Sharlet described Haggard and Focus on the Family:
The press tends to regard [Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C.] Dobson as the most powerful evangelical Christian in America, but Pastor Ted is at least his equal. Whereas Dobson plays the part of national scold, promising to destroy politicians who defy the Bible, Pastor Ted quietly guides those politicians through the ritual of acquiescence required to save face. He doesn't strut, like Dobson; he gushes. When Bush invited him to the Oval Office to discuss policy with seven other chieftains of the Christian right in late 2003, Pastor Ted regaled his whole congregation with the story via email. "Well, on Monday I was in the World Prayer Center" -- New Life's high-tech, twenty-four-hour-a-day prayer chapel -- "and my cell phone rang." It was a presidential aide; "the President," says Pastor Ted, wanted him on hand for the signing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Pastor Ted was on a plane the next morning and in the President's office the following afternoon. "It was incredible," wrote Pastor Ted. He left it to the press to note that Dobson wasn't there.
No pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than does Pastor Ted, and no church more than New Life.
Moreover, Haggard takes part in a weekly conference call with the Bush administration and has personally lobbied the president on specific policies in the past, as the February 2005 Time profile reported:
At a meeting with President Bush in November 2003, after nearly an hour of jovial Oval Office chat, the Rev. Ted Haggard, 48, got serious. He argued against Bush-imposed steel tariffs on the grounds that free markets foster economic growth, which helps the poor. A month later, the White House dropped the tariffs. Haggard wasn't alone in faulting the policy, and he doesn't claim to be the impetus, but as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, he gets listened to. He represents 30 million conservative Christians spread over 45,000 churches from 52 diverse denominations. Every Monday he participates in the West Wing conference call with evangelical leaders. The group continues to prod the President to campaign aggressively for a federal marriage amendment. "We wanted him to use the force of his office to actively lobby the Congress and Senate, which he did not adequately do," says Haggard.
Nonetheless, on the November 3 edition of MSNBC's Battleground America, Dickerson and Cox joined Liasson in downplaying the Haggard allegations when asked by MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell about the story's potential political ramifications. Cox highlighted the fact that Haggard is "two steps removed" from President Bush himself and suggested that Haggard's participation in "conference calls" is not very significant. Dickerson conceded that the scandal is "interesting in the evangelical community" but went on to describe the notion of it affecting the upcoming elections as a "stretch":
O'DONNELL: But does it play into this larger theme, which Democrats have tried to harp on, which is corruption in Republican or conservative ranks -- or hypocrisy, if you will?
COX: I think you can say hypocrisy, but he's a -- he's like a -- he's a little -- two steps removed from the White House, right? He had regular weekly phone calls with the Bush administration. I think he spoke to the president fairly regularly. But conference calls? I mean, that's -- you know, how -- well, although -- but it depends on what they say.
DICKERSON: It's a way -- it's a stretch, it's a stretch. He's not involved -- he's not in the White House, he's not a public official -- or an elected official. It's also quite dangerous for Democrats to talk about these kinds of issues. There's a lot of troubles on the Democratic side. It's an interesting story. It's very interesting in the evangelical community and in the religious community, but I think as a political story, it probably doesn't have a big effect.
Ana Marie Cox founded Wonkette, and now she is supposedly a member of the "right wing machine" as it is called?
No. MMFA doesn't evaluate whether someone is "right wing" or not. Instead they focus on what they say. If they propogate conservative misinformation they are called out, regardless of their politics.
what the funny little mission statement says, but this website violates its own mission statement daily. They often post things containing no misinformation but rather with quotes we're expected to find shocking.
So you think a dedicated liberal is going to spout conservative misinformation? Exactly. This isn't misinformation; it's a matter of opinion, a correct one I might add. This guy was known by exactly no one as a GOP big-wig. I had never heard of him. Not once. Most haven't. This will have no effect on the GOP, and simply because he made conference calls to Bush doesn't change that.
"They often post things containing no misinformation but rather with quotes we're expected to find shocking."
They also post outrageous rightwing statements. They used to have separate section for those and when some poor ignorant soul would assert the same thing you did, we'd explain the different sections to them. Now they lump them all together. I like the old way better. But, alas, it's not my site.
I've read this website for over a year, and I know how it used to be set up. It doesn't change that posting outrageous statements isn't a part of their mission statement. This isn't a big deal, it's just people need to stop citing "the mission statement" all the time around here (they always do whenever someone makes a comment similar to mine) when the website doesn't strictly follow their mission statement themselves.
Think of it as "The Prime Directive" in Star Trek. Half the fun of the show was when they broke it.
It's all clear now.
under this name?
when I said its all clear now. I was simply done arguing the point.
what i meant.
what your point was? (I'm being generous and assuming it was more than just some random shot at me because you don't like me.)
but you normally don't stop, even when you're "done".
Rightwing outrageous statements ARE in the area of media bias, for reasons I have already stated ad naseum, since you have been here for over a year, I assume you have already seen them
Where does the mission statement mention bias?
If your reporting is biased you are misinforming. That is not telling outright lies but giving one sided information as if it were factual. IF they were upfront in giving a biased opinion it would be different but by hiding bias as reporting it is a form of misinformation.
Misinformation.
reluctantrepublican / Friday November 3, 2006 07:00:22 PM EST
A Reluctant Republican, is that like a Gay Republican, or a Evangelical Anti-Gay Gay Minister??
Republican Party has succumbed to their Fascist's urge to grab power, and hold on at any cost. Ruluctant means you don't care enough to do the right thing. VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I'll help you, NO OVERSIGHT, NO DEMOCRACY!!! REPUBLICAN SINGLE PARTY RULE, NO OVERSIGHT, NO DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reluctant Fascist to be sure!
Why the idiotic rant? I'm having a rather mild toned discussion with someone, and you decide to but in and inform me of my fascist tendencies.
I refuse to support Democrats. As terrible as this Republican Congress is, I am confident Democratic control would be worse. If you would like to respond to this and give me your reasons why I am wrong, I'll gladly read it and respond. If however, you want to come back with your mantras and typical liberal "fascism" accusations, I'll gladly ignore whatever you have to say in the future.
I am not a big fan of Democrats, I am not one myself. I would however as soon put out my eye with a red hot poker as vote for todays republicans. I dont however see how any SANE person could think the Dems could be better than what THESE guys are doing.
I can see why you think that. I don't see why any one sees a huge difference between the two, personally. But my personal beliefs and philosophy tilt me only slightly to the Republican side; I'm sure the same for you tilts you to the Democratic side.
I attribute that to them both having to go to the same source for funding campaigns. Corporations and business where the lions share of the money IS. I think money is inherently more corrupting of our political influence than anything else. We make politicians whore for money from the time they run for county commissioner then wonder why they pander to powerful interests.
Obviously I mean how could any sane person think Dems or for that matter reptilian aliens be WORSE than what these Republicans are doing.
And Kerry forgot to use the word "us" in his speach about dumb military. I guess slips like that simply tell the world your true nature. Always kind of embarrassing when you try to make a point and you say completely the opposite thing. You would think (from what you tell us) that you have a little more knowledge of the english language than to make that kind of mistake.
I guess that's your typical freudian slip, huh? You didn't mean to say it, but it's how you truly feel....just like kerry's slip about the military.
Bush really meant that he never stopped thinking of ways to hurt Americans. Guess we should have called him on that. I guess it tells us how he REALLY feels, he hates Americans and never stops thinking of ways to hurt us. Or maybe the whole logic free indulgence is so much hooey. Pretending Kerry went to a campaign event with the intent of insulting troops is to stupid, its beneath you. If you are going to attack our position at least leave the disengenuousness out of it.
What is his signifigance? He had conference calls with the Prez and runs the largest evangelical group. In other words, it will be devastating to... members of the group? And maybe the President on a personal level? But ask yourself: before the last few days, how often when you heard the GOP did you think this Haggard fellow? Vice-versa? I'm a Republican and a Christian and had never heard of this fellow before.
...it seems this guy is out there representin' and hanging with your leaders. Makes you sort of question the legitimacy of their moral high ground doesn't it?
I know thats what you want to make this; hypocrisy of the evangelical movement and "make you doubt" about their moral high ground. Fact is: I don't assume anyone has the moral high ground because I have no idea what they do behind closed doors. I'm not really involved in the evangelical political movement, precisely for that reason: They demand money for a whole assortment of causes, not all of which I agree with (some support mandatory school prayer; while I think students should have the right to pray in private or if they want to start a group to pray when it doesn't interfere with learning, I don't agree with forcing people to pray). Plus, I'd just rather give money to the local church.
This is no bait. I question the moral high ground of these people who perpetually presuppose that they can tell you or I what is good and 'moral' for ourselves. And, what do you know? One of the biggest anti-gay marriage harpies out there is found soliciting sexual favors from a male prostitute. It's beyond irony.
One can believe what he/she likes...freedom of religion is one of the founding tenets of our country. However, I object to the so-called moral highground that our current President (in my mind) and his buddys use as a tool to manipulate the emotions and fears of the US citizens. I ask you the question because you are a proclaimed Christian and a conservative and likely support the Bush Admin. I'm just not so sure that these guys are all what they claim to be. This latest 'revelation' with Haggard is a case in point.
"However, I object to the so-called moral highground that our current President (in my mind) and his buddys use as a tool to manipulate the emotions and fears of the US citizens. I ask you the question because you are a proclaimed Christian and a conservative and likely support the Bush Admin. I'm just not so sure that these guys are all what they claim to be. This latest 'revelation' with Haggard is a case in point."
I agree mostly with what you have to say, surprisingly. I agree that the Bush administration and the Republican party as a whole has taken advantage of Christian conservatives like myself. I do my best to warn others that President Bush and the GOP are not "God's Party." Many are under the confused notion that all evangelicals have been "duped" by the Republicans, and to a certain extent, they have.
But there are some like me, who know that Republicans and Democrats both are corrupt politicians whose most important purpose is to expand their power. I am highly skeptical of any politician who comes out and tries to flaunt their religion. I distrust televangelists and others who come out and insist on having money given to them "for God." I am really quite cynical. The Bible warns of people who use Christianity and appear on the outside to hold Christian morals but in reality, have no respect for God or His people. When that book (the name slips me at the moment) came out recently with the individual (again, name slips me) accusing Bush of insulting evangelicals behind closed doors, I knew a lot of Christian conservatives who simply refused to believe him. I saw that as stupid; why do people assume that simply because Bush's policies are slightly more in tune to our beliefs than the alternative, that he must be a good upstanding Christian man on our side? He's a politician, who loves power and money and influence. Would Jesus want us to put so much trust in fallen man? Of course not.
Now I realize this post may be deleted for being off-topic, but that's fine. I want to dispel the myth that all Christians are stupid and fall for whatever George Bush and the Republicans say. I support Republicans "reluctantly," because on only a few issues, they are more in line with what I believe is right than the Democrats; not a whole lot more. On top of that, I agree much more with their economic policies than the Democrats. I defend Republicans only when they're right or being unfairly attacked; other than that, have at 'em.
This only confirms what I've long believed: these large organizations are probably made up of people who mostly want money, power, influence, just like politicians, and frankly, with regards to some of the groups (not all), I think Jesus would be more prone to "turning the tables" in an encounter with their leaders than worshipping with them.
/rambling mode off :)
I don't think that those christians who believed in Bush were stupid. But rather when David Quo's book came out, confirming what I had suspect about the white house, I was angry and disgusted at the level of utter cynicism displayed by Bush and Rove. There many of us out there who don't use the word "christian" as if it were and ethnicity (and I'm not suggesting you do) but rather we live the christian ethic as a way of living. It's the foundation of my own personal code of conduct. And, while I may be labeled a liberal for it, I don't expect others to follow my code. I do it because it works for me. I don't tell others how to live their lives because at the end of the day I have to live with ... myself, and frankly I can be rather harsh. I take "do unto other as you would have others do unto you" quite seriously.
"I don't think that those christians who believed in Bush were stupid."
No, perhaps that isn't the right word. I would say, "naive" or "hoping" is more appropriate.
"But rather when David Quo's book came out, confirming what I had suspect about the white house, I was angry and disgusted at the level of utter cynicism displayed by Bush and Rove. There many of us out there who don't use the word "christian" as if it were and ethnicity (and I'm not suggesting you do) but rather we live the christian ethic as a way of living. It's the foundation of my own personal code of conduct."
I agree.
" And, while I may be labeled a liberal for it, I don't expect others to follow my code. I do it because it works for me. I don't tell others how to live their lives because at the end of the day I have to live with ... myself, and frankly I can be rather harsh. I take "do unto other as you would have others do unto you" quite seriously"
I take the latter quite seriously as well, and I'm glad to speak to you. I can't say I disagree with you at all.
One thing I have a question for you as a fellow Christian: what do you think of those both on the right and the left that insist that "you can't be a christian and be a *insert political label here*"? I think that besides a few enormously important issues, many of the issues facing us today could have Christian arguments formulated to support both sides. I'm personally a libertarian leaning conservative, and have heard before that I'm "selfish" because I, for instance, don't believe in universal healthcare. I hear how Jesus helped people. My argument, of course, is that while this is true, I personally don't think the government is effective in many areas with regards to "helping" people. Others may disagree. It doesn't mean I hold an un-Christian view, just as those who think differently are holding an un-Christian view. Most Christians agree that helping people is an essential part of our faith; we disagree on the methods of helping people. I prefer helping people through less power-hungry and viral means than the government, like charities, or volunteering to do something. One example: an organization my family belongs to where we send money to a child in India, to pay for them a good education. I think some government intervention is good but in many ways isn't.
We could probably talk for hours but this isn't the right forum for it; if you'd like, I could email you and we can talk about this type of stuff in further detail.
And, I do not suggest that Christians who follow the Bush crew are 'stupid'. In fact, I believe they (as everyone) have been taken for a terrible ride by these liars. Are Democrats angels? Hell no. But, at this point... the Republicans have proven themselves to be much worse.
You mention that you agree much more with the Republican economic policies than Democrats. I ask you if you agree with the current Bush Admin's economic policies. At this stage in my life, I consider myself a true moderate... and I hail from a long line of Republicans who did believe in fiscal responsibility, smaller gov't, individual privacy, etc...
I fear (and believe) that this current cadre of criminals have taken their base and the true, honest conservatives for a ride by lying to them at every turn. Fiscal responsibility? Give me a break. It's non-existent at this point. The Democrats look like penny-pinching misers compared to this group.
I hold that, as Dan Grady states before every post, if we don't get some Democrats back into the game... our so-called Democracy is over. Plain and simple. Once that happens... I would love to see 2nd, 3rd, 4th parties sprout at the state and local level... raise the political awareness of our populace beyond petty soundbites and rhetoric. But, right now... we have (I believe) one choice = hire back the Democrats so we can institute some level of accountability back into our gov't. This is our choice. Beyond the ability of a Diebold fiasco... it has to be a strong statement by the voting public (while we still have it).
"I'm not really involved in the evangelical political movement..."
What if you were, though? Do you think you could see the significance then?
Bush got a lot of mileage out of evangelical votes in 2004. Are we supposed to believe that because you don't subscribe to their beliefs, or are familiar with their prominent faces, that this is a non-story? That this rather severe blow to the credibility of anti-gay preaching isn't going to curb their votes?
I don't get it. Kerry makes a stupid gaffe and therefore people are supposed to vote against Democrats all over the country, but this won't cause "value voter" Republicans to stay home? The Repubs have been spouting the "party of God", "family values" garbage for years, and this guy isn't a terrific example of how phony that image is? Especially since the Foley scandal wasn't all that long ago!
I don't think it will, really. They're voting for Bush; not this fella'.
I agree though that some evangelicals are in for an eventual rude awakening when they finally realize that Bush and the GOP isn't really "God's party" at all. I realize it, but I know many Christians don't. It's sad, and I try my best to remind them that Bush isn't God at all.
Bush is not running for anything
huge. huge mistake there. Maybe it has something to do with every ad I see on tv being about the candidate siding with Bush x percent amount of the time, or "he gave a blank check to Bush." Or maybe that I just went into a long rant about why I think it's wrong that so many conservative Christians support Bush through thick and thin when they shouldn't.
I mean its not stupid to hope for the best, to give the benifit of the doubt and take people at their word. I can see where the confusion came from that does seem to be the democratic tactic. Cant say I didnt see it coming.
So, how are they supposed to have this awakening if the stories are always downplayed?
They don't have to be voting for him. Why do Republicans court the favor of the evangelicals? For votes, right? I don't see how this isn't a double-edged sword;they align yourself with evangelical leaders, talk about their issues, and they gain the impression they share their morals...but then when a prominent evangelical leader is involved in a scandal, it doesn't reflect badly on those who have stood by them? Guilt by association may not be fair, but if they can have virtue by association, then the opposite should be true as well.
At the very least, it's obviously just as likely as people voting against Democrats around the country because of what Kerry said. I don't think guilt by association works against the Democrats while Republicans are impervious to it.
I don't think the Kerry comment will have any effect. It did perhaps get those who already planned on voting in "anger mode," but thats about all. Likewise, I don't think anyone cares that Bush had a speaking relationship with a man who in private and secret bought drugs from a gay prostitute and may have had sex with him.
"Pastor Ted, who talks to President George W. Bush or his advisers every Monday, is a handsome forty-eight-year-old Indianan, most comfortable in denim. He likes to say that his only disagreement with the President is automotive; Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas Pastor Ted loves his Chevy."
[link to www.harpers.org]
Surely if this sort of thing seeps into the public consciousness, any homophobic and/or evangelical elements have to be somewhat discouraged with the Republicans. I have to imagine I would be.
But we do agree that if this isn't going to help Democrats, then Kerry's comments aren't going to throw the election the other way. At best, it's a wash, and the Dems will keep the advantage most people claim they have.
I think we're just going to disagree. I will give an analogy in parting:
Let's say you cannot stand the idea of ever buying horror movies and watching them. You have a friend who agrees. You discover he does in fact buy horror movies an watch them in secret at a later time.
Does that make you a hypocrite? Of course not. There's no evidence showing Bush knew what this man was doing and so he was not being hypocritical. In fact, there's no evidence that this man even had sex with this prostitute (I'm not that tempted to put all my trust in what a prostitute says.)
The minister could be considered a hypocrite; not the President for associating with someone who, unbeknownst to him, was a hypocrite.
"There's no evidence showing Bush knew what this man was doing and so he was not being hypocritical."
Um, I never said he was, or suggested it in the least. I wasn't addressing whether it was right or wrong, I was simply addressing the idea that there wouldn't be any ramifications for Republicans after they made all the efforts to associate themselves with evangelicals. Remember;"Guilt by association may not be fair, but if they can have virtue by association, then the opposite should be true as well". I wasn't arguing fairness, I was arguing results.
A much better analogy;you're running for class president of a very conservative Christian high school. You've made great friends with the leader of a pro-abstinence group and she has been singing your praises all over school. Four days before the election, it comes out that she's pregnant, and the news is all over school. Now obviously it's not fair for that to affect you, assuming you've been abstinent, but would you really not be worrying that it could cost you the election?
reluctantrepublican / Friday November 3, 2006 06:51:59 PM EST
So, you were invited to those weekly meetings with the height of world power.
You could tell me why a sitting President uses the Evangelical Right as a campaign branch of his political party.
You could also tell us how this is not an example of the intentional underming of the "Separation of Church & State."
We should just not concern ourselves with fanatics and their coziness with Presidential Power!!
Schmuck!!!!!!
Stupid! Idiot! Schmuck! Moron! Stupid-head idiot moron schmuck!
Do you see how dumb name-calling looks? Then why do you keep doing it?
Also, I don't think you ever explained your rant accusing me of fascism. How would you like it if I baselessly accused you of fascism? I think I'll do it from now on. I'll just call you a fascist, because you don't agree with me.
I'm shaming myself by even trying, but I will now respond to the "arguments"(?) in that post.
"So, you were invited to those weekly meetings with the height of world power. "
???? I was making a point purely in terms of political strategery. It will be impossible for Democrats to tie this guy to the GOP under the guise of "hey he had weekly conference calls with the President... this somehow links him to his drug use!" It just doesn't work. Until now, no one ever pictured this man when they thought of the GOP or even the evangelical right. Democrats aren't going to change that in a few days. It's bad politics to try to make a big deal out of something many don't care about.
"You could tell me why a sitting President uses the Evangelical Right as a campaign branch of his political party. "
Um, because they vote for him?
"You could also tell us how this is not an example of the intentional underming of the "Separation of Church & State." "
You could start with where the quotes for "seperation of church & state" come from. Can you cite the document that contains that phrase? Give it a shot... I dare ya...
What is so wrong with a President trying to appeal to a large voter base? Yes; he speaks at evangelical events from time to time. So what? They're people too, believe it or not, and have voting rights. They are a large voting bloc and he wants their vote. It violates no laws to try to pander to a voting bloc, no historical documents of the U.S. including the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
"We should just not concern ourselves with fanatics and their coziness with Presidential Power!! "
We should stop using hyperbole in every post we make and using exclamation points and Capitalized Political Catchphrases!
"Schmuck!!!!!!"
See the first sentence.
Regarding your comment about the separation of church and state, it is not specifically mentioned in any governement document although it is considered by the writer of the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson) to be included in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and is also cited in writings by James Madison (the auther of the Bill of Rights).
So, at least these two founding fathers considered it as a foundation of our countries government.
spelling correction
does mention "a wall of seperation between church and state", but I was specifically asking this fellow where the quotes come from because I wanted to see if he, like many seperation of church and state fanatics, actually has no idea where the idea comes from and what it truly means.
You can read Jefferson's letter here: [link to www.usconstitution.net]
Read that and tell me if it sounds like what many people have now come to believe what the phrase means.
It's probably too late too respond to this, but I will anyway.
I'm not sure what you think people believe by the words.
I personally believe that it means the government should not be sponsoring, supporting, pushing etc. in any way any religion.
It doesn't mean that religions should be oppressed, just the opposite. It means all religions and religious viewpoints are considered valid and one is not superior to any other.
Therefore, no religion is considered aligned with any government institution or function.
What do you think it means?
We are not entrapped in the Manichaean worldview where something is either rightwing or leftwing and never the twain shall meet I dont care if she is a rock hard liberal if she is repeating or pushing conservative media information THAT is what she is doing. Other than if its a credibility issue its not about WHO said it. It is about what is said. Sometimes really good people do really bad things, sometimes the New York Times allows itself to be used by a Judith Miller to spread propaganda, that doesnt make the New York Times rightwing, nor even if it WERE a leftwing propaganda machine (which it isnt, they employ and publish many rightwing editorial writers) would it make it impossible for them to slip in some rightwing propaganda. This really isnt a hard concept for someone to understand but for some reason it seems to hit right in the conservative blindspot.
There's no misinformation there. Cox clearly was giving her opinion (which though we all hate it, journalists do every single day) and her opinion is well-founded. How exactly does someone in private possibly (I'm not so quick to trust a prostitute as the left apparently is) doing something impact the Republican party as a whole? So Bush made conference calls with this guy every Monday-- so? So therefore, he's somehow hurt by the fact that the guy he was friends with, unbenknownst to him, was possibly having sex with a gay male prostitute? No. That argument is beyond absurd.
"So therefore, he's somehow hurt by the fact that the guy he was friends with, unbenknownst to him, was possibly having sex with a gay male prostitute? No. That argument is beyond absurd."
If it's "beyond absurd", then there must be no chance at all that this could hurt Bush. So the White House must not be embarrassed about any connections to him, if your contention has any grounding in reality. Right?
----
Q: This Reverend Haggard out in Colorado, is he someone who is close to the White House? There had been reports that he was on the weekly call with evangelicals. Is that true?
FRATTO: I'm actually told that that's not true, that he has — in terms of a weekly call that he has? He had been on a couple of calls, but was not a weekly participant in those calls. I believe he's been to the White House one or two times. I don't want to confine it to a specific number because it would take a while to figure out how many times. But there have been a lot of people who come to the White House….
----
Isn't it shocking that they would try to distance themselves from him? Why would they, if the concept that it could hurt Bush is so absurd? Hmm...
"(I'm not so quick to trust a prostitute as the left apparently is)"
Do you believe Haggard?
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
Even if you were right that there was no misinformation here. I will agree her take on whether it will have a political impact does not rise to the level of disinformation, however her saying he wasnt a national leader certainly does the man was a leader of a a National Evangelical group. That makes him a National leader by definition, I mean how are you president of a group called the NATIONAL Association of Evangelicals and yet NOT a national leader?
Even so, the statement I was responding to is this one by you
this... is.... a.... joke
Ana Marie Cox founded Wonkette, and now she is supposedly a member of the "right wing machine" as it is called?
I dont know how the response ended up so far down the line. My response points out that only by being overcome by by Manichaen either or thinking could that statement even come close to making sense.
Hasn't bought a little crystal meth and paid a homosexual for a massage?
Maybe he was just practicing what he preaches, you know "hate the sin, but love that sinner".
your frustration at what this and other hypocritical religious leaders in the past have been caught doing, but hopefully you don't assume all Christians are out buying meth.
No frustration at all. I don't believe that every Christian is a hypocrite. Just as I don't believe that every Christian is against ESCR, pro war, pro tax cut or against the poor.
I dont assume all Atheists are out buying meth either
Neither do I.
It's the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Evangelical Anti-Gay Gay Ministery" that has the kind of sway with our President to have a weekly audience!! Was it God who spoke to George Bush to go to War, or did he meet by committee.
The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Evangelical Anti-Gay Gay Committee?"
No big deal, let's talk about John Kerry???
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Won't be responding to you anymore, because you've proven yourself to be capable of nothing but hyperbole and insults.
LIASSON: Yeah, he's not -- I wouldn't call him a national leader, but he certainly is important in his own state. It's yet one more thing that -- that could further demoralize the Christian conservative base of the Republican Party and cause turnout among those voters to be lower than the White House needs.
She says this guy isn't national, which is wrong on it's face. She either didn't know what she was talking about as NPR's National Political Correspondent (but still commented), or she knew better and glossed over it. Whether incompetence or bias, it's still not flattering coming from NPR which is suppose to be better at fact-checking, depth of reportage, etc. This person is suppose to be a correspondent, not a pundit or politico. Mara similarly glossed over the RNC's "This Is What's At Stake" advertisement which appeared on television and GOP.Com. That advertisement got plenty of "play" in the press. As a National Political Correspondent, she had no trouble referring to the hundreds of ads that will be airing from now until election time. But she didn't want to talk about that particular ad on that particular day because it was the right hitting the left below the belt. Mara Liasson is a hack who should finally just move completely to Fox News and the Leni Riefenstahl Fellow.
LIASSON: Yeah, he's not -- I wouldn't call him a national leader, but he certainly is important in his own state. It's yet one more thing that -- that could further demoralize the Christian conservative base of the Republican Party and cause turnout among those voters to be lower than the White House needs.
She says this guy isn't national, which is wrong on it's face. She either didn't know what she was talking about as NPR's National Political Correspondent (but still commented), or she knew better and glossed over it. Whether incompetence or bias, it's still not flattering coming from NPR which is suppose to be better at fact-checking, depth of reportage, etc.
This person is suppose to be a correspondent, not a pundit or politico. Last week, Mara similarly glossed over the RNC's "This Is What's At Stake" advertisement (with Osama) which appeared on television and GOP.Com. That advertisement got plenty of "play" in the press. As a National Political Correspondent, she had no trouble referring (today) to the hundreds of ads that will be airing from now until election time. But she didn't want to talk about that particular ad on that particular day because it was the right hitting the left below the belt. Mara Liasson is a hack who should finally just move completely to Fox News as the Leni Riefenstahl Fellow.
I am a big fan of the beltway Boobs(morty and freddy and Der Krauthammer + liasson) mainly because Liasson has that "NPR" below her name , which I guess is a Pavlovian trigger to "liberal".
She's basically in the same role as that Susan Estrich monkey- the rightys spend 15 minutes vomiting their propaganda, and she says "yeah, we're horrible, but we're not COMPLETELY horrible"
See? fair & balanced.
"mr. lay? i think he supported my opponent."
And to think Ana Marie Cox made her name at Wonkette talking about "rear entry." Now she has a gig at Time and is obeying her corporate masters. Stupid Wench.
I am noticing that some comments, which appear to be appropriate and on-topic, are being deleted from some threads. Shameful.
Who woulda guessed...another holier-than-thou southern Bible belter priest being busted in kinky sex? Bet he also talked against "sin" and "adultery" and "them evil homosexuals". They repeat it those words so much, don't they? Obsession.
Such hypocrites.
What Kerry says is what ALL liberals believe then since this god-worthy leading minister(sort of a high ranking guy) likes prostitutes and dope does this mean ALL Evangelicals are like him?? Who do I believe, my President and Vice President or real Christian values??