SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (1668)12/25/2001 6:16:06 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office
Bush Emerges as Movement's Leader After Robertson Leaves Christian Coalition


By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 24, 2001; Page A02

Pat Robertson's resignation this month as president of the Christian Coalition confirmed the ascendance
of a new leader of the religious right in America: George W. Bush.

For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president
of the United States has become the movement's de facto leader -- a status even Ronald Reagan,
though admired by religious conservatives, never earned. Christian publications, radio and television
shower Bush with praise, while preachers from the pulpit treat his leadership as an act of providence.
A procession of religious leaders who have met with him testify to his faith, while Web sites encourage
people to fast and pray for the president.

There are several reasons for the adulation. Religious conservatives have regarded Bush as one
of their own since the presidential campaign, when he spoke during a debate of the guidance of
Jesus. At the same time, key figures in the religious right -- Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson,
Billy Graham and Franklin Graham -- have receded in political prominence or influence, in part
because they are no longer mobilized by their opposition to a president.
Bush's handling of the anti-terrorism campaign since Sept. 11 has solidified his standing
by painting him in stark terms as the leader in a fight of good against evil.

"I think Robertson stepped down because the position has already been filled," said Gary Bauer,
a religious conservative who challenged Bush in the Republican primary. Bush "is that leader right now.
There was already a great deal of identification with the president before 9-11 in the world of the
Christian right, and the nature of this war is such that it's heightened the sense that a man of God
is in the White House."

Ralph Reed, who once led the Christian Coalition and now is chairman of the Georgia GOP, notes
that the religious conservative movement "no longer plays the institutional role it once did," in part
because it succeeded in electing Bush and other friendly leaders. "You're no longer throwing rocks
at the building; you're in the building."

Conservative Christians tend to view Bush's recent success as part of a divine plan.
"I've heard a lot of 'God knew something we didn't,' " Reed said. "In the
evangelical mind, the notion of an omniscient God is central to their theology.
He had a knowledge nobody else had: He knew George Bush had the ability to
lead in this compelling way."

Bush himself dismisses the notion that he is part of some divine plan.
"He does not believe he was chosen for this moment," a senior aide said. "He just views
himself as governing on his beliefs and his promises. He doesn't look at himself as a leader of
any particular movement."

Still, some of those around Bush say they have a sense that a higher purpose is involved.
"I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this
with a great sense of humility," Bush aide Tim Goeglein, described as a "strong evangelical,"
told World magazine, a Christian publication.

Partially a victim of their own success, groups such as the Christian Coalition are finding
fundraising difficult. Some leaders, such as Focus on the Family's
Dobson, have retreated from political involvement.

Some religious conservative leaders have inflicted wounds on themselves. Falwell was roundly criticized,
even by supporters, for saying on television, with Robertson's agreement, that "abortionists
and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians" and civil libertarians were to blame in part
for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Franklin Graham produced a furor by declaring Islam a "very evil and wicked religion."


Voting patterns also show a declining religious right. Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist,
said that only 15 million of the 19 million religious conservatives who should have voted went to
the polls in 2000. "We may be seeing to some degree some return to the sidelines of previously
involved religious conservatives," he said.

And Bush, his advisers acknowledge, deliberately circumvented the power of the leaders
of the religious right, appealing to conservatives himself rather than paying homage to the
Christian Coalition during the campaign. "In the old days, Republican presidential candidates
went to religious conservative leaders to seek their imprimatur," said a Bush adviser.
"George W. Bush was able to go directly to those who sat in the pews."

Bush's effort succeeded. "He is the leader of the Christian right," said Marshall Wittmann,
a former Christian Coalition figure now with the Hudson Institute, a think tank. "As their institutions
peel away, he can go over the heads" of religious conservative leaders.


Bush, aided by speechwriter Michael Gerson, himself a religious conservative, speaks the
language of religion better than any president since Jimmy Carter, religious leaders say,
and Bush's policies appeal more to conservatives. To many outside the religious conservative
movement, Bush's faith-infused words may sound sanctimonious; to those within it, the words
sound familiar and comforting. Across the country, churchgoers share Bush's "testimony," his
discovery of God 15 years ago with the help of Billy Graham. "Reverend Graham planted a
mustard seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year," Bush's memoir
recounts. "He led me to the path, and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change in my life."

As Bush had embraced religious conservatism, religious conservatives have openly
embraced him. The Internet has several sites offering prayers for the
president's success. One example: "Call on the name of the Lord to hedge him in from
terrorists and violent people. Psalm 91:11-12; 1 Corinthians 1:10-11."

World magazine, which is edited by one-time Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, named Bush's
attorney general, John D. Ashcroft, its "Daniel of the Year."

Ashcroft himself considered running for president in 2000 as the candidate of the religious
right. "Just as the biblical Daniel faced an established idol-worshiping religion in Babylon,
so our Dans must not back down in the face of deadly persecution abroad or the scorn and
harassment that comes domestically from the academic and media high priests of our established
religion, secular liberalism," Olasky wrote.

The top Daniel, of course, is Bush himself, a view liberally offered by the many religious figures
who pass through the White House. In an account of one such meeting, Jean Bethke Elshtain,
a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, wrote of a "powerful and moving moment"
with Bush and an ecumenical group of religious leaders. "One of our group asked, 'Mr. President,
what can we do for you?' He indicated that we could 'pray for me, for our country, for my family.
' He believes in the efficacy of prayer and needs wisdom and guidance and grace, he said.
A Greek Orthodox archbishop was invited to lead us in prayer. We all joined hands in a prayer circle,
including the president."

© 2001 The Washington Post Company



To: Mephisto who wrote (1668)12/28/2001 12:18:29 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Let's not militarize the heavens
Seattle PI.com
Opinion
Thursday, December 27, 2001

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- By abandoning the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, are we going to live in a safer world? I think
not. Just the opposite, I fear.

President Bush wants to build a nuclear anti-missile shield
in the heavens someday to protect us. The idea may not be
far-fetched, but he is living in a dream world if he thinks
there will not be other ways to endanger us.

I hark back to the words of physicist Albert Einstein, the
brilliant scientist whose work contributed to the invention
of the A-bomb -- and later regretted it.

Einstein said: "I know not with what weapons World War III
will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks
and stones."

What a sad commentary on the future of civilization and
human progress.

Bush is taking us back to ultra-nationalism, to go-it-alone
thumbing the U.S. nose at the rest of the world after all we
have been through together. Since World War II, collective
security has been the goal, and it has worked.

Unfortunately, Bush tapped John Bolton, an ardent activist
against arms control accords, to be undersecretary of state
for arms control and international security affairs.

In an article Bolton wrote for the University of Chicago's
Journal of International Law last fall, he divided the world
into "Americanists" and "globalists." He scoffed at the
"globalists," declaring that "they want to bind the United
States into a web of treaties on everything from arms
reduction to the environment to human rights."

He said Americanists, which I read as isolationists, seek to
preserve U.S. sovereignty and flexibility in foreign policy.

Bush has now informed Russia that in six months we are
pulling out of the ABM Treaty, which has helped keep our
two nations in a nuclear standoff for three decades.

The ABM Treaty was ratified by the Senate, but Bush did
not seek approval of the lawmakers to withdraw from the
accord. He didn't have to since the pact includes a clause
permitting either party to withdraw after due notice.
Nevertheless, he should have consulted with Congress as a
courtesy in the democratic process.

The nuclear arms control treaties in the post-World War II
era were based on what Winston Churchill called "the
sublime irony of mutual destruction."

This is the first time in the modern era that the United
States has broken off an international agreement. Bush
apparently came into the White House with the premise
that the only good treaty is a dead treaty. His obsession
with militarizing the American skies is well known.

Surely the president realizes we live in one world, and,
given today's rapid communications and transportation, it's
an increasingly smaller one.

Both Russia and China -- and many European allies as well
-- are unhappy with Bush's decision, even though he has
tried to reassure their leaders that our "Star Wars" defense
would not be a belligerent act against them. Bush has said
it would protect against terrorists and rogue nations
seeking to launch a nuclear attack. And U.S. officials have
made vague comments about sharing technology in its
missile defense system with Europe and Russia.

But certainly that system would not work against terrorists
like Osama bin Laden, who used relatively low technology
and turned hijacked planes into deadly missiles in the
Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon.

Our European allies are wary because they don't think the
system will work or that it could be extended to protect
them, and they definitely see it as an example of U.S.
unilateralism leading to a new arms race.

The ABM pact is only one of several treaties that Bush
wants to scrap. Despite the taste of bio-terrorism the
American people have had with the recent anthrax scare,
the United States last week sabotaged efforts to salvage the
1972 Biological Weapons Convention by creating an
international inspection system to enforce it. The United
States, in scuttling discussion of the plan for a year, said it
would be counter to American business and defense
interests.

What can they be thinking of in the White House?


Since the president wants to forge ahead in testing the
missile shield, the administration has no interest in
reviving the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, which
the Senate rejected a couple of years ago. That was a victory
for Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., former chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is another foe of
international agreements.

Helms' successor as chairman, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.,
wrote in an article for The Washington Post that walking
away from the ABM treaty was a "serious mistake." He
added that "a Star Wars Defense ... would address only
what the Joint Chiefs of Staff consider "the least likely
threat to our national security."

Furthermore, Biden said, "Nothing could be more
damaging to global non-proliferation efforts than to go
forward" with missile defense. He said that it would cost a
quarter-trillion dollars and that Russia still has enough
offensive weapons to overwhelm any system we could
devise.

Biden also said that terrorists who are determined to do
harm "can employ a wide variety of means" and that
"weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological or even
nuclear -- need not arrive on the tip of an intercontinental
missile ..."

If those in power believe they can guarantee the safety of
the United States alone while the rest of the world is in
danger, we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Have we forgotten the lessons of two centuries of American
history?

Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers.
E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2001 Hearst
Newspapers.

seattlepi.nwsource.com

E-mail this story



To: Mephisto who wrote (1668)12/28/2001 12:27:21 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Is Bush Still an Enron Fan?
Los Angeles Times
December 25, 2001
E-mail story

By Robert Scheer:

If you follow George Bush's thinking on how to fix
our broken economy, you would throw a few
hundred million in tax breaks to his buddies who
bankrupted Enron. Not simply because they
bankrolled his ascension to the Texas governorship
and the White House but, more important, because
they are modern alchemists who make money out
of nothing.

Nothing is what Enron is to its once-loyal
employees, who lost those private savings accounts
that Bush is always touting; some of them will now
have to live on Social Security, which the president
is seems hellbent on bankrupting.

Nothing is what Enron is to its many small
stockholders, including California's public workers,
whose state pension fund was heavily invested in
the now-bankrupt company. Nothing is what Enron
is to consumers in California and half a dozen other
states forced to seek expensive long-term electricity
contracts because of Enron's shenanigans in the
energy market.

Nothing is what Enron is to the people of India and
other countries, still eating the ashes of spectacular
Enron promises.

But Enron's millions found their way into the bank account of company
Chairman Kenneth L. Lay--close family friend and financier of the political
careers of Bushes, junior and senior.

Equally fortunate was Jeffrey K. Skilling, the former CEO who masterminded
Enron's meteoric rise and who resigned in August, cashing out tens of millions
before Enron's crash.

Bush's Army secretary, Thomas White Jr., is another former top Enron
executive who also managed to sell his $50-million to $100-million stake in the
company well before shares dropped from $90 to 29 cents. Karl Rove, top
White House political advisor, had a smaller $250,000 stake that, as far as I
can determine, reporters have not asked him about. Neither have they asked
Bush's economic advisor, Lawrence B. Lindsey, or Trade Representative
Robert B. Zoellick, both of whom went directly from Enron to the White
House, if they are now in the ranks of the suddenly poor.

The most important question for America's economic future should be directed
to the president himself: Does he still believe in the miracle of Enron? Why,
after Enron's collapse, does Bush still insist on a stimulus package that rewards
high-flying executives while resisting extending unemployment insurance and
medical coverage to workers thrown out of their jobs because of the
mismanagement and other acts of economic stupidity by companies like Enron?

"Stupidity" is used charitably, when motives that appear more mendacious will
be explored, we hope, by congressional committees planning to get to the
bottom of the smelly Enron mess during February hearings.

Can it be a mere intelligence deficit that led Enron's ex-CEO to claim to the
New York Times that he didn't know how the company came to overvalue its
assets to the tune of $600 million, that he didn't know of the highly suspect
investment partnerships conducted by his chief financial officer--his most
trusted aide--and that he is without a clue as to the reasons behind Enron's
collapse?

"We're all trying to figure out what happened," Skilling said. That eerily dumb if
not totally disingenuous statement haunts at a time when we're trying to figure
out what happened to a U.S. economy that has fallen into recession on Bush's
watch.

Enron was Bush's model for economic progress, and Enron's Lay was the one
individual consulted most closely in private meetings with Vice President Dick
Cheney and other top administration officials during development of their
environment-busting plan to "solve" our energy problems.

Bush's Enron advisors were the chief zealots in his kitchen cabinet pushing for
unregulated markets combined with tax breaks for rich companies. Enron won
handsomely on both counts.

The idea that what's good for the super-rich is good for the economy remains
Bush's economic mantra. It's a bankrupt philosophy, as witness the Enron
debacle. For an even more ominous example, look no further than the current
total collapse of the dramatically deregulated economy of Argentina. Food riots
in a once prosperous society are not a pretty sight.

*
latimes.com
Robert Scheer writes a syndicated column.