A Nation United – Finally

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

I’m hearing all over the news of how this country is “so divided” and that Bush will need to reach out to Democrats to bring unity back to our land.

I’ve heard media and Democrats lament how our country has supposedly never been as divided as it is today, and how they wish we’d all return to our days of unity.

Baloney. It’s all baloney from sore losers. While I can’t imagine how difficult it must be for Kerry and his supporters, who fought so hard for so long, to concede defeat (as it would be for any presidential candidate), I still don’t buy the “nation divided” line, and I regret that he used it in his concession speech today.

Rush Limbaugh has pointed out that those who wax eloquent about the good old days of unity are those who reminisce about liberal unity – the days when the House and Senate were dominated by Dems for 40 years, and when the media backed them up with their own brand of liberal truth masked as “journalism.”

But even then, the nation was as divided as it is today, as is evident by presidential elections. There were no presidents elected by 70 or 80 percent margins; it was always somewhere around 52-48…always a nation divided virtually in half. When Reagan won in what was called a landslide, he won with only about 58 percent of the vote. Even with that “landslide,” he still was not given a GOP Congress. It was a nation divided.

When Clinton was president, the nation was divided. He was elected by less than a majority of Americans – more than 50 percent of America voted against him. And two years after his election, the nation became even more divided when they changed the look of Congress, and gave Clinton a fully GOP dominated House and Senate.

Where were the cries then for Clinton to “reach out” to the Republicans, or to the majority of America that voted against him? Where were the cries of a nation divided then?

The din of the collective liberal whining about “a nation divided” only came when Bush and Gore took to the campaign trails in 2000, and media and the Dems realized America liked Bush, and there was a danger that we could have a Republican president, House, and Senate. Gore created the catastrophe of the 2000 election mess in Florida – a useless and childish political temper tantrum that only confirmed again and again that Bush won Florida. Gore and his cronies had no desire for unity, or else they would have graciously accepted the heartbreaking loss of the Electoral College votes while winning the popular vote. They screamed of disunity, as they faced their worst nightmare – a Republican president, House, and Senate.

(By the way, major kudos to John Kerry and his team who have decided not to follow in Al Gore’s litigious footsteps from 2000, and to accept the will of the voters. I’m utterly and pleasantly shocked, and I greatly respect Kerry’s decision to let it go.)

The fact is that we finally are a nation united. President Bush has won re-election by almost 4 million votes, or 51% of the popular vote. The House and Senate have both gained Republican seats, strengthening their already-existing majority. We again have a Republican president, House, and Senate. And Republican governors now total 27, as opposed to 21 Democratic governors. In my state of Georgia, Republicans now have a majority in the State House and Senate – a first in our state since Reconstruction. We also have a Republican governor who was elected 2 years ago, also a first in Georgia since Reconstruction. The Southern Zell Miller Democrat is now a Republican.

It just doesn’t get much more unified than that.

Dems are calling for Republicans to reach out to them now and unite the country. Who are they to demand that?! News flash - they lost. Again.

No, it’s now time for them – the liberals – to do the reaching out to the majority of the country.

It’s time for Dems and the media and Hollywood to realize that we are a united country – united in purpose and goal around current Republican values.

If there is to be healing, it is for them to begin facilitating it. They not only drew first blood, they drew second, third, and fourth blood, even without retaliation by their victims. Their unconscionable slanderous and libelous lies were created and used for the past four years --actually, quite a bit longer, but especially during this election cycle –to divide us further, and to inflict mortal wounds on those who dared to oppose them. It is for them to begin administering first aid – or better yet, to provide the surgeons necessary to heal the wounds they chose to inflict on our country.

But their attacks failed, thank God. And despite their best efforts to slice us in two, we are a country united…finally.

--Debbie Payton

George W. Bush, President of the United States

Much of the nation is suffering from sleep deprivation today, half of us buoyed by the news of a George Bush victory, and others depressed by that and the broad Republican thumping of the Democrats nationally.

Initial Thoughts on the Election

Much will be said about what was a remarkable election. Here are a few early thoughts:

1. Victory of the Cultural Conservatives: As a member of the conservative evangelical community, I am pleased by impact of this community on the election. The difference between 2000 and 2004 is probably the response of evangelicals, and their dominant part in the high turnout. The story became the evangelicals, not young people (their 17% was the same as in 2000).

2. Emergence of Moral Values: We are also pleased by the emergence of moral values as a rationale for voting choices, but we are shocked by it. Neither of the candidates talked all that much about moral values, certainly not as much as Iraq, terrorism, or jobs, yet exit polls showed that Bush supporters had moral values in mind just as often as those issues.

Since discussion of the interplay of faith and values with the institutions of government and the media is the stated purpose of The Rooftop Blog, we are delighted by the reemergence of these issues.

3. Unexpected Popularity: What a great surprise to see the popular vote going to Bush in such large numbers. Zogby and many others were wrong (a few others predicted a three-point Bush lead). Trashes all the talk of the illegitimate presidency.

4. A Little Courage at NBC (But Not Too Much): We switched from Fox News to NBC for most of the night, to get a sampling of what the broadcast networks were saying. We felt Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert were terrific, and loved the electoral college map on the ice at Rockefeller Center. NBC was the first network to give Bush Ohio; then they appeared panicked when the Kerry camp objected and worked hard to justify their decision (later affirmed). NBC officially gave it to the president at 11:40 a.m. Wednesday, about one half hour after Kerry called Bush. At that time, NBC gave Nevada to Bush--but during the night they said that they would not call any more states for Bush until the Ohio issue was resolved because it would force them to announce the presidency for Bush. The courage only went so far.

5. The Call for Unity: As soon as it was plain that Bush would win, the Democrats began somberly requiring that Bush reach across the great expanse of the parties (after all almost half of the nation voted for someone else), and seek to unify the parties. Bush has that impulse, but after he kicked Kerry’s butt all across the country, and the Republicans increased their majorities in both the House and the Senate, the conciliation needs to start on the other side of the aisle. More on that soon.

6. What Are the Democrats Going to Do?: When they look at sea of red on the electoral map, so similar to 2000, what are national Democrats thinking? It might be they should nominate someone from the Midwest or the South again, not Massachusetts! But more than that, they need to listen to reasons people voted for Bush. People want strength and moral values; there are a lot of cultural conservatives in America. Imagine that.

Kerry had hardly completed his concession call to Bush when Dee Dee Myers was on the tube explaining how moderate Hillary Clinton is, and how she is strong on moral values. The sprint to the right begins—with Hillary in the lead.

Reflecting Early on the Possibilities of Defeat

As we started election night listening to Sean Hannity and then watching Fox News, Sean’s optimism felt hollow and the underlying mood at Fox was somber, as they sought to explain away the early exit polls that suggested Kerry strength.

It seemed grim for the President, when polls showed that the Bin Laden tape had not provided a bump for Bush over the weekend, and Zogby was turning against him because of youth cell phones, and then the state polls were marginal, and on Tuesday Zogby put Virginia in the toss-up category.

At that point I thought about what should be said about President Bush the morning after his defeat. No need to do that now, but what I would have said is that President George W. Bush would be remembered as a great president because he lifted America from the ashes of 9-11-01 and demonstrated the strength and resolve to bring us through the fear and uncertainty to a place where we believed that the nation would recover and would exact justice. The clip of Bush speaking to workers on the rubble of 9-11 remains the symbol of his presidency. He nearly lost his bid for re-election because he had the courage to be unpopular and to persevere in a war that became more difficult than anyone had anticipated.

It is good Bush does not have to campaign for himself again, for he is a flawed politician because of his personal limitations but also because he is a good man, which often does not produce the characteristics necessary for political success.

It may take a few more cups of coffee, but soon it will be an extraordinarily bright day, indeed.

--James Jewell

The Certainty of a Disappointed Half Nation

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

After the outpouring of so much money and emotion, so many words, so many oddly divergent polls, and so many partisan predictions, it really does finally come down to voting.

The presidential campaigns have internal polling that gives each more information than we have on the likelihood of victory and the most likely scenarios. If you’ve listened closely over the last few days, you’ve heard the partisans select a single or a few polls, an anecdote and a narrow trend to explain their confidence that the nation or a battleground state is going their way. If you are like me, you’ve listened most diligently to the predictions you’ve wanted to hear. I know a number of possible scenarios for a Bush victory, and know which polls support those eventualities.

Very soon, we hope by the end of the day, we will know who has prevailed, and while no one knows with certainty who that will be, what is certain is that nearly half or slightly more than half of voting Americans will be disappointed, angry, frightened and/or depressed. There is no unity in American politics. There will not be—and almost never is—a popular mandate. A landslide in a presidential elections is a few points over 50%, or more accurately 50.1% in many states.

Two presidential candidates in the last 28 years have received more than 51% of the popular vote—George H. W. Bush received 53.4% in 1988, and Ronald Reagan a whopping 58.8% in 1984.

Here’s the breakdown since 1976:

2000
Bush 48 Gore 48+ Nader and other 4
1996
Clinton 50 Dole 42 Perot 8
1992
Clinton 43.3 Bush 37.7 Perot 19
1988
Bush 53.4 Dukakis 45.6 Other 1
1984
Reagan 58.8 Mondale 40.6
1980
Reagan 50.7 Carter 41 Anderson and other 8.3
1976
Carter 50.1 Ford 48

The wonder and success of the American political system is that half of the nation recognizes the rule of law and yields to the results of the election.

The election of John Kerry would be a tragedy for America, because of what it will mean for American strength and security and it because of its impact on the judiciary. But nearly as dangerous—perhaps more dangerous—would be a denuding of the election process and a weakening of the power of the ballot box with another round of bitter litigation.

This dangerous precedent—the legacy of Al Gore’s unwillingness to accept the results of a close contest—chips away at the tradition of the 50% whose candidate does not win acquiescing to constitutional order. Those who lose grant the victor and the inexact art of democracy its day, and maintain confidence in the election process. By turning to the courts, which are also made up of partisans, we chip away at the contract that holds together a divided country and we tarnish the model of our representative democracy.

The disappointed half-nation must recognize the results of the election, regardless of how close. When the integrity of the people’s vote is tainted, we do great harm to the Republic.

--James Jewell

Wizard of Oz Election 2?

Monday, November 01, 2004

With the independent cyncism of a pollster, John Zogby said in yesterday’s Palm Beach Post that for the second presidential election in a row, he is posing a Wizard of Oz question. It goes like this: If you have to vote between The Scarecrow, all heart and no brain, and The Tin Man, all brain and no heart, whom would you chose? By Zogby's reckoning, it was a revealing referendum on George W. Bush (The Scarecrow) and Al Gore (The Tin Man). It also works for this election, he said.

"Who would have thought," Zogby said, "that the Democrats would have found another Tin Man?"

Time for Truth

Can there be any doubt that politics has become the ultimate playground for deception, or at least obfuscation. At the end of a hard fought and particularly nasty campaign with the cacophony of war on the soundtrack, the most enduring national sentiment will be one of cynicism. For the entire nation has been persuaded not that one candidate has a superior political philosophy or more enlightened approach to foreign policy, but that one of the candidates is an unscrupulous liar.

When all of the votes are counted (and all the courts done ruling), half of the nation will believe that a liar has been elected as the next president of the United States. When truth becomes the casualty of political rhetoric, trust in the people and institutions of government is the ultimate victim.

“The issue of truth has a far deeper moral and political seriousness than it receives now,” argues Christian sociologist Os Guinness in his book Time for Truth. While there are morally permissible lies, Guinness shows, “it is another thing still to see lying only as a minor problem, a ‘utility sin’ in the sense that boasting is lying in the service of pride, slander is lying in the service of envy, and so on. . . . It becomes pernicious when people go from there to trivialize lying as a form of social and semantic gamesmanship of no consequence.”

Successful political rhetoric has become the ability to speak persuasively without telling the truth and responding earnestly without answering the question, rather than the ability to tell the truth persuasively and answer a question directly and compellingly.

One biographer wrote of John F. Kennedy’s manipulation as a master of “using candor in lieu of truth.” People would walk away “thinking they’ve been told the truth. But, in fact, they’ve really been told nothing of true importance. The small and candid moments set up the big lie.

Because this manipulation is an art form in modern society and we have so severely trivialized truth, Guinness’s charge is pointed and sobering:

“The discipline of living in truth is urgent today because modern life reduces community and accountability to its thinnest, thereby tempting us to live in a shadow world of anonymity and nonresponsibility where all cats are gray. In such a world, becoming people of truth is the deepest secret of integrity and the highest form of taking responsibility for ourselves and our own lives.”

--James Jewell

A Month on the Rooftop

This is the one-month anniversary of the new Rooftop Blog. We are enjoying the journey, although it is requiring a few new disciplines because the desire to add quality content and to build traffic can overwhelm other responsibilities. Nonetheless, it is invigorating to react daily to news and developments, and to become part of the national conversation. We do wish more people were listening to what is being said from the rooftop, but we are encouraged by the relentlessly increasing number of guests.

We hope you will review the October 2004 archives for what we believe were thoughtful pieces on hurricane relief (Oct. 4), Wiccan (Oct. 5 & 28), coordinating journalism and faith (Oct. 8), meltdown at TBN (Oct. 13), capitalism in China (Oct. 15), the ills of the faith-based initiative (Oct. 20), Pat Robertson nonsense (Oct. 23), the Red Sox, political commentary, and much more.

Thanks for visiting. Stop by daily and let us know what you think.

--James Jewell and Debbie Payton

Political Rhapsody: Don’t Miss The Campaign’s Funniest Video

Friday, October 29, 2004

Something to lighten-up the final campaign weekend--you’ll love this spoof, the funniest campaign video I’ve seen, especially if you’re a fan of Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody. Democrat or Republican. With the Pentagon methodically dismantling the New York Times missing explosives story on which Kerry has based an entire week of campaigning, the Democrats may need some levity.

--jwpj

The Final Issues of the Incessant Campaign

This is either going to be a very close election or it’s not. That is crystal clear. With a swing of just a percent or two in several states, it appears the election could produce a win for Kerry in a squeaker or an electoral blow-out victory for Bush.

Negative Campaign is Redundant

Reaching this point of any campaign, the negativity grates on our souls. But we must recognize that today—and perhaps this isn’t all that new--to say someone is conducting a negative political campaign is redundant. They all seem to turn negative, unless a race isn’t a real contest.

It is clear to me that Kerry as the challenger has been particularly negative, but I am roundly partisan, and the record of the incumbent is always fair game.

Don’t you get the impression that everyone, including media, are tired of all this? When television hosts ask questions, and all you hear from both sides is the same talking points we’ve heard for months, don’t you want to reach through the television and slap the party hacks. Say something new!

The negativity makes a quote sent to me by a friend apropos for today:

“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right,” said H. L. Mencken.

It doesn’t seem to be dampening the spirits of potential voters, however, and a new report signals the highest voter registration in more than three decades, with more than 143 million Americans on the voting rolls (10 million more than were registered to vote in 2000.

Send the Lawyers Home

Will the incessant campaign become the interminable court drama? That would be the worst possible result. For the sake of democracy, send the lawyers home. Accept the results of the election.

In Tuesday’s election there will be no sizeable group of people who will be disenfranchised except the citizens of Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and other American protectorates. Go home.

As we try to export democracy to places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, what is the lesson of elections that end up in the courtroom?

One public official remarked: “I could think of no worse example for nations abroad, who for the first time were trying to put free electoral procedures into effect, than that of the United States wrangling over the results of our presidential election, and even suggesting that the presidency itself could be stolen by thievery at the ballot box.”

But the official wasn’t talking about today’s effort to expand democracy. The speaker was Thomas Jefferson. Man, is he speaking to the 21st century.

Death of Media Fair Play

Whether or not explosives were pilfered from an ammunition dump is a valid question, and I believe it is a good investigative piece for media. It could go to question of whether the application of a military plan missed something.

But it would be better done after the war. War is absolute chaos, and there are many important objectives to be accomplished as a force seeks to vanquish the foe. Could a warehouse of explosives have been overlooked? Of course. Was it? We don’t know. What we do know is that if it was left unguarded and somehow the bad guys were able to steal the munitions, it happened last April or May, as in 2003. We also know is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of Bush or Kerry to lead the nation, and it should not have been raised at this point in the campaign.

The most troubling part of the story is the effort of a United Nations official to impact the American election, and the complicity of two of the traditionally most respected news organizations, the New York Times and CBS News. CBS’s intention to air the story 36 hours before the election is beyond the pale of media fair play. CBS News will emerge from this election the most damaged media entity and it is likely that there will be big changes in the offing.

Can you imagine how Edward R. Murrow would feel about his network criticizing soldiers in the field during a time of war. He’s doing somersaults in his grave.

What Impact, Azzam the American?

ABC seems to have handled professionally the question of whether to air the new terrorist video, waiting for some verification of its authenticity from the CIA or FBI. Talk radio was ablaze yesterday with accusations that ABC was holding it because its potential of refocusing attention on terrorism, not Iraq, would help Bush. For whatever reason, last night they aired the message of a speaker who identifies himself as "Azzam the American" praising the Sept. 11 attacks, and saying new wave could come at any moment. Certainly chilling, although we’re getting used to the threats.

Will it have an effect in the final days of the incessant campaign, soon to end?

--James Jewell

A Scary Halloween Story

Thursday, October 28, 2004

In the arena of political correctness gone amuck, it doesn’t get much funnier than this. Did you see the Fox News piece by Shepherd Smith last night about the school district in the state of Washington that was banning Halloween this year. This wasn’t particularly surprising, because schools often derail celebrations that have gotten out of hand in the past, or caused violence, or were just too much of a distraction from studies.

But no. The superintendent was stopping all Halloween observances because the mocking portrayal of witches and goblins may be offensive to those of the Wicca faith. “We’re just trying to get our students to respect all faiths and traditions,” the superintendent said.

If that isn’t strange enough, the school district hadn’t received any recent complaints, and when Fox News could track down a witch or two, they said they weren’t offended in the least. They thought the costumes were cute. “The Superintendent must be off his broomstick,” said the Wiccans.

So let’s unpack this. Although Halloween is a bastard of the holy observance of All Saints Eve (or is it All Souls?), the portrayal of witches and devils and such would be fine if it only offended the Christian faith. But if we might be offending Wiccans, none of whom we could find who were offended, stop the celebration.

If we could just find a few Wiccans who are offended by Halloween, it would give us Christians more reason to get out and make fun of the witches.

Like I said, this is really just too funny to be real.

(Of course, Wicca isn’t funny at all. As Steve Russo writes in the new book They All Can't Be Right , "Wicca is the fastest growing religion among high school and college students today. Pop culture today is filled with examples of Wicca and witchcraft...including Buffy, the Vampire Slayer and Charmed. Numerous books - including...the Harry Potter series... - encourage teenagers to explore the world of Wicca.")

--James Jewell

Once in a Red Moon

Baseball is often a microcosm of larger life. It is usually predictable, but there are no certainties. It consists of much tedium, during which time you have to pay attention to the small details to get ahead. Even the best hitters are out more than 60% of the time. A small number of teams get most of the attention. Some of those who excel give credit to God; many take it for themselves. There’s almost nothing you face in baseball that has not been faced a thousand times before, and if you search hard enough you can determine how it turned out.

For baseball fans, the Boston Red Sox sweep of the St. Louis Cardinals to win the 2004 World Series is a rich story of one of the beloved longtime baseball franchises finally overturning the impossible by accomplishing the impossible. It violates the percentages and predictability of baseball for a team to fail to win the World Series for 86 years. That’s nearly impossible--not to mention wrenching, when you see fly –by-night, Johnny-come-lately teams like the Florida Marlins rise up and snatch the Series on a whim. The Red Sox won by doing what no team had ever done, the impossible, winning four after being down three in a post-season series. Then doing what many had done—sweeping a series. Since there was something surreal about the Red Sox run, it was appropriately played out under the red moon of a full lunar eclipse.

There’s a new identity for the Red Sox, whose fans were faithful but realistic. They knew the Sox would have their run, but lose at the end. When the celebration is over, there will be a crisis of sorts for Boston and its team. What is the endearing new identity for a team that not only plays well, but wins it all in convincing fashion.

They’ll live with it. And we’ll all start rooting for the Cubs.

--James Jewell

Why Are Most Reporters Unchurched Liberals?

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Thoughtful journalists recognize that while objectivity is the professional standard, writing and reporting about anything with more than an inch of depth without reflecting who you are is in reality an impossible dream. Opinions are projected most clearly and obviously in an editorial section, or in a television news segment titled “Opinion,” or “Commentary,” but the opinions of reporters, editors, and producers are reflected in their assignments, story placements, angles, headlines, language, inferences, attitudes, inclusions and omissions, interview selection and editing, and so much more. It is less obvious than editorial positions and therefore more insidious and ultimately more effective.

It has become so accepted among Americans that media are biased that it is a factor in the continual erosion of mainstream media audiences. Bias against conservative and Christian worldviews is documented regularly by groups such as Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media. For a scholarly view of these issues, consult the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Occasionally, members of the establishment media admit bias openly and honestly. In July 2004, Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, said: "There's one other base here: the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."

While this should be pointed out daily, and groups such as MRC and AIM are vital, the assertion that mainstream media lean heavily toward liberalism is beyond debate today.

In our work, we’ve faced enormous ignorance toward things of faith by media. It’s natural. National and major media representatives are far less likely to be involved in organized religion or to identify themselves with the church, or simply to attend church. While 41% of Americans attend church at least once a week according to both Gallup and Barna Research Group, and two-third of Americans have attended church in the last six months, among major media it is no greater than 30 percent, and among national reporters in the single digits.

The most interesting question is “why” media are mostly liberal and generally disinterested in matters of personal faith.

Here are several possibilities, which I would love to have discussed and augmented by readers.

1. Today’s major reporters were steeped in the idealism of the 60’s, which led them to journalism to change the world. This idealism or utopianism breeds liberalism.

2. As a result, those who turned to media at that time are now in the seats of power in major media; they are liberals, which impacts hiring and promotion, making it difficult for a conservative to emerge.

3. From the water cooler to the editorial meetings, anything that doesn’t align with prevailing liberal thought is scorned and outvoted.

4. Young reporters yield to the peer pressure of those already in the industry, perpetuating the liberal mindset and their desertion from the church.

5. There is something about the daily cynicism that leads to liberal thought.

6. Those involved in the search for knowledge come to believe that this requires openness and tolerance that they are told comes only with a liberal view of the world.

7. It’s part of spiritual warfare and the forces of evil are winning in the newsrooms of America.

What do you think? Why are people working in the media world markedly more liberal and unchurched than the society at large? We need to understand this to combat it. While establishing alternatives such as Fox News Channel, talk radio, and the blogosphere is way one to go, we should also find ways to address the media culture as a whole.

Reporters, editors, and producers can be viewed as landscape artists, called on to paint in living color the scenes they observe in our world. But their denial of personal faith and the full spectrum of creation has left them color blind, and as they reach for their palettes, they can portray the world around them only in shades of gray.

What will it take for the newsrooms of America to paint in full Technicolor?

--James Jewell

Picking the Presidential Winner With 1 Week to Go

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

The means of electioneering, message spin, and the nuancing of public opinion becomes tragically ridiculous at this stage of closely contested campaigns. It’s a shame that so many people seem to make up their minds in the final days before voting, because no one should listen to campaign rhetoric in the last week. It becomes overly shallow, strident, and caricatured. Anyone who is undecided at this point should stay home.

At any time, and especially during these stretches of inane closing banter, it is easy to view politics as a parlor game. Clearly, compared to the battle for hearts, minds, and souls of people and the larger questions of eternity, who flies in Air Force One is not all that important. There is, however, reason to be passionate about the 2004 political choices.

George W. Bush is a man of moral clarity and authentic personal faith who understands the evil of Islamic extremism and the need for national strength and, if necessary, lonely sacrifice to protect America from the forces that seek to destroy it.

I have been praying every day that God will save our land. It is my strong conviction that we will be in grave danger in many fundamental ways if the Senator from Massachusetts prevails next Tuesday. The re-election of President Bush is vital to a future of peace, safety, and moral fortitude.

With one week to go, those who agree with this sentiment can be provisionally encouraged. Yesterday’s national poll numbers were promising, and the electoral map had a clearer shade of red.

I’ve been told for some time now that the only poll worth paying attention to is the Zogby poll. Zogby called the 2000 election dead on, and as his website boosts: “came within one-tenth of one percent of the presidential result in 1996.”

Yesterday afternoon (Mon., 10/25), Zogby’s daily tracking poll showed Bush’s national lead expanding from two to three points (Bush 48%, Kerry 45%).

Zogby said, “President Bush continues to gain ground over Democratic nominee John Kerry. . . .The President has opened up a 12-point lead among Independents. While each candidate is polling solidly among most of his base constituency, Kerry should be concerned that his numbers among Hispanics appear to be anemic.”

Zogby has been tracking the 10 states he and most people think will determine the winner. Yesterday, his tracking polls in these states showed:

Colorado—Kerry 49, Bush 45
Florida—Bush 49, Kerry 46
Iowa—Bush 47, Kerry 45
Michigan—Kerry 52, Bush 42
Minnesota—Kerry 46, Bush 45
New Mexico—Bush 49, Kerry 44
Nevada—Bush 48, Kerry 44
Ohio—Bush 47, Kerry 42
Pennsylvania—Kerry 47, Bush 45
Wisconsin—Bush 48, Kerry 45

Democratic-leaning Electoral-vote.com, which has a daily count on its site using the poll numbers from various pollsters, had Bush up yesterday 285 to 247. Electoral-vote.com’s picks match Zogby’s top 10. The surprise on this site is Arkansas, which is seen as a toss-up.

It’s hard to believe Arkansas will end up a blue state in the sea of southern red—I’ll give that one to Bush. On the other hand, Electoral-vote.com has Hawaii listed as a Bush state; that would be a shock—I’ll give that one to Kerry.

Other than that, barring an effective last minute smear—such as the DUI revelation four years ago—it's not likely any of these will change. Earlier it looked as though Michigan and Minnesota may be headed Bush’s way, which would have been earth shattering. They’ll probably stay blue. Iowa has been voting for the Democrat in recent years; it would be one that may slide to blue.

I’ll take my electoral guess one week out—Bush 287, Kerry 250.

And I’ll pray that no one listens to the candidates, surrogates, and pundits in the final week.

--James Jewell

A Defining Bush Moment Before September 11

Monday, October 25, 2004

Taking a life to save a life, was President Bush’s short-hand debate description of embryonic stem-cell research, which while terribly simplified is not a bad summary of the immoral foundation of medical research depending on the death of fetuses.

“Prior to September 11, the defining moment of the Bush presidency had been the president’s decision to limit embryonic stem-cell research,” said Chuck Colson on his BreakPoint commentary Friday. “And while that issue has been overshadowed by the war in Iraq, it hasn’t gone away. In fact, it’s back with a vengeance, and that means it’s time for Christians to understand the facts and what’s at stake in the debate.”

Colson’s daily piece—four minutes on many radio stations and in print on his website—has been a good stop for a brief discussion of current issues from a Christian perspective for more than 10 years.

--James Jewell

The Campaigns Are On Message, and So Is Everyone Else

Mercifully, there is only one week of campaigning remaining. Not that politics isn’t engaging; I just haven’t heard an original thought coming from the candidates, reporters, or commentators (with the possible exception of Dick Morris) in weeks.

Journalists aren’t doing much real reporting on the political campaigns these days, opines the Columbia Journalism Review, because technological advances and 24-hour news stations “have reporters on what amounts to a constant deadline, processing a never-ending torrent of digital spin.”

The editorial continues: “It’s often debatable who is actually framing the stories — the journalist or the campaigns. The poor reporter out on the trail, under orders to break news and remain “objective,” usually doesn’t have time to reflect, or even to really report in a way that gets beyond the spin. The spinners know this, and exploit it.” This system encourages busy reporters — even good ones — to lean on someone else’s version of the truth instead of assembling a more complete version of their own. In this echo chamber, where reporters talk to the same sources and to one another, storylines rapidly calcify.”

Even our favorite talking heads and political voices sound like they’re reading off the daily message points of the DNC or RNC. Over and over again. It would be great to hear something original in the campaign’s waning days. But it’s not likely.

--James Jewell

Anti-War Democrats Quoting Pat Robertson?

Saturday, October 23, 2004

The sage of Virginia Beach is making headlines again, and for the first time in history the secularists and liberals believe him. What an interesting twist. What an embarrassment.

Come to find out, Robertson sat President Bush down before the Iraq war and told him how dreadful it all would be. God had told him that. And Bush just wouldn’t listen, and told Robertson there would be no U.S. casualties.

Oh please.

Contrary to last week’s interview, earlier this year Robertson said on Hardball that in his meeting with the President, he said, “You better prepare the American people for some serious casualties, and Bush responded, “Oh, no, our troops are, you know, so well protected, we don't have to worry about that.”

I doubt that, but even that’s a whole lot different than saying there will be no casualties. Of course, there have not been serious casualties. 1160 deaths is lousy, but that cannot be considered heavy losses. More American were killed before lunch in one day at the Battle of Gettysburg.

There has always been something very cocksure about Pat Robertson that makes the skin of even many evangelical Christians crawl. Perhaps it’s the way he says that God tells him what’s going to happen, whether it’s the path of hurricane or a presidential election.

In February 2004, Robertson told viewers of his 700 Club program on the Christian Broadcasting Network that “I’m hearing from the Lord it’s going to be, like, a blowout election in 2004. It’s shaping up that way.” Robertson said the revelation came amid several days of prayer at the end of 2003.

“I’ve had a pretty remarkable track record” when it comes to anticipating future developments based on God’s words, Robertson told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

(I wonder where the results of the 2004 election can be found in the Word. If we could find it, it would save a lot of time and money. Stop the polling. No more anxious moments.) God certainly knows the outcome of this and every other political race to come. I just do not believe he’s telling.

In 1988, Pat Robertson beat George H.W. Bush in the Iowa caucuses and became a temporary frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Those were heady days for Robertson, but he seems to have faded inexorably from the national spotlight since those days. Now, he’s back. Pat and the anti-war liberals. What strange bedfellows.

Recently I saw a not-so-scientific Internet poll on the most embarrassing Christians in the last hundred years, and it was neck and neck between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

Robertson has often been the victim of his own intemperate statements, and so it appears here that he made what is certainly either a misstatement or an exaggeration. It is too bad this has become the focus of his news coverage because his new book, Courting Disaster, sounds interesting and important. It explores how the judiciary is usurping the power of the people.

Last week Robertson tried to launch a media tour to promote his new book. Instead he launched his foot right into his mouth. Again. I wonder if God told him this would happen.

--James Jewell

Polling Frenzy: Here are the Numbers

Friday, October 22, 2004

The first thing I did this morning was check for any new national poll results. It’s what I’ve been doing every morning for a few weeks, to get a sense of whether there is any movement. Where are things trending? I know that the next president will be determined in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, or perhaps where the political season begins, in Iowa. But the state preferences and trends do seem to follow the national ones, so they’re worth watching, too.

The partisan talking heads pick a few polls each day on which to base their comments, and most commentators have staked themselves to the position that the polls are “all over the place,” essentially canceling each other out.

Well, let’s dip our toe into the polling pool and see what it says today. We’ll check back the next two Fridays:

Latest as of Oct. 22

National

Fox News
Bush 49 Kerry 42

Wash Post/ABC
Bush 51 Kerry 45

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Bush 52 Kerry 44

Time
Bush 48 Kerry 46

Newsweek
Bush 50 Kerry 45

CBS News
Bush 47 Kerry 45

Zogby
Bush 46 Kerry 45

Pew Research Center
Bush 47 Kerry 47

Associated Press/IPSOS
Bush 46 Kerry 49


Key Battleground States

Penn. (NBC/Knight Ridder)
Bush 45 Kerry 46

Iowa (NBC/Knight Ridder)
Bush 49 Kerry 43

Ohio (Gallup)
Bush 47 Kerry 48

Florida (Mason Dixon)
Bush 48 Kerry 45

Michigan (Detroit News)
Bush 47 Kerry 43

Wisconsin (Gallup)
Bush 49 Kerry 46

--James Jewell

Longing for the Situation Comedy

Thursday, October 21, 2004

As frightening as it is, television is perhaps the greatest single conduit of values in American culture. That has worried parents in every generation since the advent of television, but it has certainly never been as bad as we face today, with the dominance of reality shows that demonstrate moral depravity, bad taste, and utter stupidity.

It is difficult to criticize the decision of many families to totally eliminate television from daily life. When I visit two of my sisters, one of whom has a small tribe of children still at home, I can’t even find a television. On one trip, I finally did find a television to watch a football game that was important to me. I just couldn’t get a signal.

Today, there is very little worth getting a signal for. This came to mind as I was watching The Left Wing season premier last night. I’ve always been able to sift through the liberal dialogue to follow interesting story lines. But the clunky and caricatured dialogue of the military leadership and the president, the peace-at-all-costs story line, the Israel bashing, the not-so-subtle parallels with Bush’s Iraq decisions—just about put me over the edge. I’ll give it another week or two to see if they balance things out, even a little bit, to determine if I’ll make it a Wednesday habit in 2004-05.

But I digress. There was an interesting article in yesterday’s USA Today by Stephen Winzenburg, a professor at Grand View College in Des Moines, titled Survival of Sitcom Requires Return to Family, Moral Roots.

Winzenburg suggests: “To bring the situation comedy back to life, shows must be situated within a value structure. . . Most of the comedies being pushed today emphasize rule-breaking and dysfunction without consequence. . . Instead, the industry needs to bring back the traditional foundation, in which contemporary issues and characters struggle within a moral culture. Until that happens, the situation-comedy format will remain on its death bed.”

--James Jewell

The Impossible Dream

I spent some of my childhood in Boston, something I haven’t talked much about in recent years or particularly during this presidential election. This morning, of course, I am a native son.

If ever there was a time in sport that screamed that it is never hopeless; never give up; battle every inch until you no longer have breath—it is the impossible victory of the Boston Red Sox over the New York Yankees in seven games, after being down three games to none. It isn’t just that there has never been a team to overcome a 0-3 hole in postseason play. The Red Sox had never beaten the Yankees in the post season. That’s a never never.

The Red Sox were one pitch, one swing, one out away from elimination several times in games five and six. Game seven was a blowout for the Red Sox, but it still carried enormous tension because of the history. Somehow the Sox would finally lose. The curse of the Bambino. The mystique of the Yankees. All that.

All that didn’t matter, and although it’s just baseball, the great lesson is that facing even the longest odds, the most impossible situation, the worst history, the understanding that everything must go right for you and just one thing needs to go right for the other guy—even then, it is not hopeless.

It can make one an optimist, even a guy from Boston.

--James Jewell

OFBI: The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

The polls show that most of us who are people of faith will be voting for George W. Bush, and we are indeed praying that he will prevail. If he does, the next thing we should work for is the elimination of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

What?! Take away the government gravy train headed for religious institutions? Let me explain why the OFBI is a bad idea.

When did health care costs become such a problem? When did patients lose the right to make their own health care decisions? With the creation of full-coverage health insurance. When someone else began paying the bill, they rightly got to determine the rules and how the money is spent.

Why are teenagers so anxious to leave home? Because while Mom and Dad pay the household bills, Mom and Dad rightly get to determine the rules and how the money is spent.

Why is the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the office that will help religious organizations obtain government contracts and funds to provide social services, such a deplorable idea? Because whoever pays the bills rightly gets to determine the rules and how the money is spent.

When I worked for U.S. Congressman John Linder (R-GA), I requested information from the Congressional Research Office on government funds going to religious organizations. I received a report written about a request from a Christian school for government funds. The school was denied the funds because the government stated that the religious and educational purposes of the school were “inextricably intertwined,” and funding the school would be like funding a church.

When the government gives money away, it rightly gets to determine the rules and how the money is spent. Frankly, the government should not be involved in social work in any way, as that is not the role of our government according to the Constitution. The more money the government gives away, the more places they have to determine the rules and how the money is spent…and the more control they have over our lives. That’s fine if you’re a Congressman or the military, because you are specifically doing the work of our government.

But it’s not okay if you’re a church or a faith-based organization providing social services. If you are, then your social services and spiritual content should be “inextricably intertwined” or you are no different than any other humanistic humanitarian organization, and you should quit masquerading as a faith-based program.

The rules of taking government money are there to protect the people from whom the money was taken in the first place – the American public. Blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, gays, pro-lifers, pro-choices, liberals, conservatives, and the list goes on. It is wrong to take money from a pro-lifer and give it to Planned Parenthood. It is wrong to take money from a Jew and give it to a church like The Salvation Army that teaches Jesus “is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me.” A homosexual doesn’t want his or her money going to a Christian school that will not hire homosexuals.

If the government gives contracts and funding to faith-based organizations, those organizations will of necessity turn into today’s YMCA. (Does anyone even remember that the “C” stands for Christian? I doubt The Village People did.) Faith-based organizations will not be able to witness to those they assist. They will not have the right to refuse to hire people who do no subscribe to the tenants of the stated faith of the organization or church. They will not be able to pray in Jesus’ name before they feed their hundreds of clients. And rightly so, because part of their money will have come from people who do not support those beliefs, and from people who are vehemently opposed to them.

I have heard leaders of faith-based organizations say, “Yes, we’ll take the money provided there are no strings attached.” How arrogant. How selfish. They want the right to take the money from gays and Buddhists, then determine how the money is spent – ways that many gays or Buddhists would despise. They are thinking of only the recipient (themselves) and not the giver (the taxpayer).

Even if the rules for faith-based organizations would be flexible now due to an empathetic Administration, they are likely to change down the road, recognizing that the giver of the money has the right to determine the rules and how the money is spent. Rules that atheists and pro-choicers and Jews can live with. And those rules of necessity will say that an organization cannot preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified with money that came from the personal pocket of the local Rabbi. And when you are dependent on money that becomes 30% or 60% of your budget, will you be able refuse further issuance of that money, and look in the face of the one you are serving and say, “I can’t serve you today?” Will you have the courage to pay the piper, cut that money you are now dependent on out of the budget--thereby cutting your services--and start a new fund-raising program to replace that government money and rebuild your organization?

Faith-based organizations would do well to take the high road. If money is offered from the government, refuse it and instead rely on the One you say is sufficient to meet your needs, and Who will do so for the purpose of making your ministry prosper. The One who gave you that ministry in the first place.

The Office of Faith-Based Initiatives will force faith-based organizations that take their money to become solely humanitarian in word and in deed. This is not paranoia, it is fact based on our government’s laws and regulations that must be equally mindful of the giver as well as the recipient. And it’s the right perspective for the government to have.

Because whoever pays the bills rightly gets to make the rules.

--Debbie Payton

The Death of Humanitarian Adventure

Terrorists kidnapped the head of CARE in Iraq yesterday, once again violating the international social compact that has enabled humanitarian groups to provide relief to all parties in a conflict or to victims of natural disaster in the midst of civil unrest. In this case Muslim thugs have violated their own doctrine protecting women from harm, as well.

After Afghan terrorists downed a civilian aircraft earlier this year, killing a pilot whose mission was to transport people who were repairing roads, Stu Willcuts—a veteran of international aid and the president of the world’s premier humanitarian aviation service, Air Serv International—wrote to readers in the relief and development community:

With the bombing of UN offices in Baghdad and now recent incidents, I’ve realized how complicated the equations of mission have become, and how much greater the risk is than at any other time in my more than 30 years of relief and development work.

Those of us in the humanitarian community must come to grips with the new contract. We know that under the new contract a sense of adventure is not enough. Traditionally, many people engaged in international humanitarian missions as a way to find new adventure, while “doing good” at the same time. Today, that is not strong enough motivation. The risks are too great.

Perhaps what we fear above all is what the new contract says about values. While the desire to continue serving reflects the core values of our staff and others who labor even with the dangers starkly placed in front of them, they must face a world where far darker impulses are at work. It is troubling to confront in multiple countries a small group of influential people who live a value system that would put in the cross-hairs people who come with a cup of cold water and a bag of grain.

That alone is enough to sober not only those of us flying planes over troubled lands, but all who care about the forces in conflict in the world community.

-jwpj