The New York Times' effect on McCain

“We can try to understand the New York Times’ effect on man,” the Bee Gees sang around three decades ago in their smash hit Stayin’ Alive. Since the New York Times’ latest tabloid journalistic, thinly-sourced, slime job/hit piece, “Stayin’ Alive,” politically speaking, is what John McCain is trying to do. Although, since the story broke, the “effect” for McCain has not be so bad after all, and could even turn out to be quite a blessing-in-disguise for him.

In fact, since the story was published, the NY Times has come under more scrutiny than McCain has. How ironic, but not surprising, is the fact that the article appeared at all in the NY Times is more of a story than the story itself. It is not surprising because the story is full of innuendo and circumstantial evidence. It practically begs readers to draw their own negative conclusions regarding the almost certain Republican presidential nominee, John McCain. This after the NY Times endorsed McCain in late January.

The story implies an affair, around a decade ago, with a female lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. I use “implies” rather loosely, because there are no named, on-the-record sources and all that the unnamed sources reveal is that certain people around McCain, suspecting something romantic was going on, tried to limit Iseman’s access to the Senator.

All of this is, “according to two former McCain associates,” whom the article later admits, “had become disillusioned with the senator.” Were they disillusioned to the point that they perhaps wanted to hurt the Senator politically? Did their disillusionment come about as a result of being “former” associates (Were they fired?)?

Both Iseman and McCain have directly denied any affair.

The story first surfaced around two months ago, on December 20 in The Drudge Report under the headline: MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY. Drudge reported that, “Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES…and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!”

Drudge continued with, “The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication. The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.” There was no mention of an affair in this report.

Drudge also reported that, “McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report.” Keller, on the Times website, the Friday after the story ran, said, “I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision [to publish] with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.”

Regarding it as more than a “cheap shot,” The Weekly Standard reported that, “The editors of U.S. News & World Report and Time magazine both said publicly that they would not have published the article. It was not, to borrow a phrase, fit to print. The piece was so underwhelming that many believe the paper must have more evidence that, for whatever reason, it decided not to publish.”

However, just as one person’s manure is another person’s fertilizer, McCain is looking to cash in on the Times ineptitude. A campaign aide stated two days after the story ran, that a campaign fund-raising letter ripping the story and pleading with contributors to fight back “was the most successful to date.”

With this latest sorry effort, all the Times has done, besides galvanize conservatives against them, is reinforce the belief of many that The Gray Lady is going a bit senile.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Case for John McCain

Just how conservative is John McCain? It has been particularly interesting to watch, listen, and read about this issue. With the withdrawal of Mitt Romney, it also will be interesting to watch as McCain tries to sell himself to those skeptical of his conservatism. Many conservatives have contended that he is a liberal masquerading as one of their own. Some conservatives have gone so far as to say that there is little difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, and the country would be served equally well with either one occupying the White House. This all makes for high drama, and high ratings, but I don’t buy it. I do not see McCain as a liberal, and I don’t think it was reasonable to conclude that he was more liberal (in general) than his chief rival, Mitt Romney.

I’m not alone in this assessment either. National Review, a leading conservative journal (and an endorser of Romney), recently noted that, “McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney…This is an abiding strength of his candidacy.” Bill Bennett, in a recent article concluded that, “There is a great deal of difference between Senators McCain and Clinton (and Obama).”

The McCain haters, at least those with an audience, pinned their hopes on Romney. It is beyond me how a governor from “The People’s Republic of Massachusetts” became the darling of many diehard conservatives. His record as Governor is as liberal as one would imagine.

For example, in 2002 Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League’s candidate survey with, “I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose…Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs…” Interestingly, he refused to respond to the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. His platform during the 2002 governor’s race said that he “would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts.”

Twice Romney sought and received the endorsement of the homosexual group, Log Cabin Republican Club. During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, his organization distributed bright pink flyers during Boston’s annual Gay Pride events, which said, “Mitt and Kerry [his running mate] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights regardless of their sexual preference.”

Now Romney ran for President as a pro-life, pro family conservative. I’m not saying he wasn’t sincere in his policy reversals, but his conversion at least appeared politically convenient. However, I would have enthusiastically supported him over Clinton or Obama.

Some claim that if McCain gets elected, he will make a political “left turn.” Why were those supporting Romney so sure that he wouldn't pull the same thing? As has been widely reported, McCain’s lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 83. This puts him right behind Fred Thompson’s 86, who was the favorite of most conservatives early on. From 2003 to 2006 McCain averaged a 79% rating from National Right to Life and during that same period he averaged a 0% rating from the pro abortion groups Planned Parenthood and NARAL. From 2003 to 2006 McCain averaged a 6.5 % from the liberal National Organization for Women, and a 100% from the conservative Concerned Women for America. (Interest group ratings for many politicians can be found at www.vote-smart.org)

The Family Research Council, founded by James Dobson (who refuses to personally support McCain’s candidacy), as recently as 2003 rated McCain 100%. Interestingly the founder of the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, found it acceptable last November to endorse the thrice married, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani (who also was once a darling of other very vocal “conservatives”).

President Bush is no perfect conservative either (whatever that is). However, he has been steadfast as Commander In Chief, has given the country tax cuts, has overseen significant economic growth, and perhaps most importantly, appointed the strict constructionists Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court.

Whatever a conservative’s concerns with John McCain, and there are legitimate ones, the dual roles of Commander In Chief, and appointer of Federal Judges, should be enough to cause any reasonable conservative to give him some benefit of the doubt.

Concerning McCain as Commander In Chief, even some of his most outspoken critics such as conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, admit that, “The world’s bad guys would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the U.S. through terror.” Contrast that with Barak Obama, who has about the same foreign policy experience as I do, or with Hillary Clinton who said recently that her first act as President would be to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 60 days.

On the Federal Judiciary, the Wall Street Journal recently said, “there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006.”

Given all of this, I will eagerly vote for John McCain in November over the likes of Clinton or Obama. If you call yourself a conservative, I hope you will do the same.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Our Nation's Greatest Asset

As we approach “Super Tuesday,” which involves primaries or caucuses in 24 states, including Georgia, the political rhetoric is going to reach a level that is almost unbearable. As the candidates talk about domestic issues, such as health care and education, one phrase that will almost certainly be uttered by practically every candidate will be, “our nation’s greatest asset.” The use of this phrase will be in reference to our children. I believe they are just a bit off base with this bold declaration.

I’m not sure if it is appropriate to refer to any one item as a nation’s “greatest asset.” I believe that certainly there are many important factors that support a strong and healthy nation. Children would be on the list; however, ahead of them I would place a few things—foremost would be strong and healthy marriages. (I can’t believe I have to say this, but by marriage I mean the union of one man and one woman.)

I believe that at the foundation of any great nation there must be a healthy view of and a great respect for marriage. That is the best hope for our children. Government programs and politicians’ promises mean very little when children are growing up in homes full of conflict and strife, or in homes where the marriage between their parents has ended.

Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on. Each of these institutions lies at the heart of a great nation.

If politicians want to demonstrate that they care about children, then taking a strong stand for marriage (along with modeling a strong and healthy marriage) would be a great start. In “Marriage and the Law: A Statement of Principles” published by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, the authors note that, “Children raised outside of intact marriages have higher rates of poverty, mental illness, teen suicide, conduct disorders, infant mortality, physical illness, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. They are more likely to drop out of school, be held back a grade, and launch into early and promiscuous sexual activity, leading to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and early unwed parenthood.”

I submit that the single most damaging phenomenon to children in our culture is not poverty, or a depraved media, or poor education, but the breakdown of the traditional family. Too many children are not growing up in homes with their mother and father present and active.

I would also submit that the greatest gift that parents can give a child is a strong and healthy marriage. Recently my wife and I have been participating in a Bible study on parenting. The study is called “Growing Kids God’s Way” from the worldwide ministry of Growing Families International (www.gfi.org).

Early in the study, marriage is referred to as, “the Crown of Creation.” The study points out that the husband-wife relationship “must be viewed as the priority relationship in the family,” with, “all other relationships (functioning) subject to that of the husband and wife.” They added that, “You can never be a better parent than you are a spouse.”

 I believe that after an individual’s relationship with his or her Creator, the “priority” relationship in the universe is the husband/wife relationship. When this foundational relationship breaks down, many suffer. The study also notes (as I alluded to earlier) that chaos in the family equals chaos in society.

If we want to solve the many social ills that plague our culture, changes need to begin at home. Traditional marriage needs the respect and support of government, the law, the church, and individuals alike. Otherwise, our nation as we know and love it is in great peril.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

"Peace" Has Been Hijacked

What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you see a person wearing the words “peace” on an article of clothing? What do you think when you see the “peace” symbol stuck on the bumper of an automobile? Sadly, if you’re like me, your first thoughts usually are not something positive. I have a few t-shirts with Christian themes on them. One has a large image of the earth with the words “Peace on Earth” on it. I’ve never worn it out of the house. So, what is wrong with “peace”? Regretfully, I believe the word has been “hijacked.”

Instead of visions of tranquility and harmony, when I see “peace” brandished about, my thoughts go to words or phrases like: pacifist, appeaser, anti-war activist, or political agenda. It’s a shame. Peace should not be a dirty word.

“War is a dreadful thing,” said C.S. Lewis, but he adds, “I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely wrong.” Loving your enemy does not mean you allow him to go unpunished. Given that, Lewis concludes, “It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy…All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery.”

So, if war is sometimes just then peace can sometimes be sinful. Peace for some may mean torment for others. Peace now may mean greater suffering and loss later. Peace may also mean that evil prospers.

Part of the problem is with semantics. Many consider peace to be the opposite of war, or, at least, the absence of hostilities. However, my Dictionary of the Bible states that, “Peace is the presence of God, not the absence of conflict. Christ brought, preached, and is our peace.” Jesus never told the Roman Centurion to lay down his arms. He did say, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you (emphasis on “I” and “my”). I do not give to you as the world gives.” Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians says, “For he (Christ) himself is our peace…”

What has happened with “peace” is very similar to what has taken place with the rainbow. The rainbow, which throughout most of history has been associated with a covenant promise that God made to mankind, now has been “hijacked” by the homosexual movement. Who do we see brandishing the flag with a rainbow on it? If a car or a shirt has nothing but a rainbow on it, my first thoughts do not go to Noah and the account of the Flood. Again, it’s a shame.

To many folks peace begins with tolerance. (Another good word that has lost its true meaning. I use it in this sense.) Tolerance in its corrupted sense has its roots in moral relativism, which, of course, means the loss of moral absolutes. So this hijacked form of peace is rooted in a world in which morality is divorced from God, Who is the giver of true peace. So we have the height of irony: many seeking peace ignore the Author and Giver of peace.

In a world full of evil, where atheistic dictators kill millions of their own people, where radical Islamists call for adherence or death and for the annihilation of a whole nation of people, we cannot afford to follow the philosophy of those who would do little more than chant, “all we are saying is give peace a chance.” As we choose our next president, we would do well to remember this.

Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Truth of Christmas

Prior to our Revolution, most crown-appointed governors in the Colonies remained loyal to the king. One such governor wrote to the Board of Trade in England stating that, “If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.” This attitude gave rise to a cry that was resonating throughout America: “No king but King Jesus!”

That is the ultimate truth of Christmas: the true King has landed. “Hark! The herald angels sing; glory to the newborn King!” Just prior to His death, as Jesus stood before Pilate, the Roman governor, Pilate asked Him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” After some discussion Pilate concluded to Jesus, “You are a king, then!” Jesus answered him saying, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world…”

Christmas isn't simply about a birthday. It is about the birth of a kingdom. Where is this kingdom? It is wherever He is King. It exists now in the hearts of all who believe that Jesus is all that He claimed to be.

Sadly, this is, of course, nonsense to most. For example, one author I read recently describes the “hidden meaning” of Christmas as a: “festival of the human heart. It is a time of year when all the universe conspires to raise the vibratory level of consciousness on earth to one of peace and love toward ourselves and one another. This season resonates to the sweet, childlike innocence that resides in all of us; A time when the heavenly forces inspire us to shift our focus away from fear and toward one of joy, and healing.” Huh?!

This type of ignorance of the truth of Christmas is far too prevalent in a nation that was founded largely by Christians and upon the principles of Christ. This is not the fault of our politicians, our judges, the secularists, or the atheists. The fault lies with me and with you, if you call yourself a Christian. Far too often we look to blame the problems in our nation on the immorality of others. Don’t get me wrong, we must always speak the truth, (in love), when it comes to sin, but we must never forget what we, as Christians, are called to be: “the light of the world.”

Also, we should not hesitate, as John Jay, member of the First and Second Continental Congresses, author of the Federalist Papers (along with others), and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court put it, “in the interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians as (our) rulers.” However, electing Christian politicians will not solve our problems either. If it would, then Christ came in vain. As Dwight Eisenhower once said, “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America.” Our hope does not lie with men (or women), but with the King of kings.

Christ taught us to pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The Creator of the universe, however, will not force Himself upon even the weakest of men. Neither should we try to force others to accept the greatest gift ever given to mankind. A holy end can never be achieved by unholy means.

As we celebrate Christmas this year may all Christians remember that after the gift of Christ, one of the greatest gifts we've been given in this nation is our freedom. And with this, let us also remember, as the Apostle Paul implored us, “…do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” In doing this we will show others the “true meaning of Christmas.”

Copyright 2007, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com