"Why do people choose the substitute over God himself? Probably the most important reason is that it obviates accountability to God. We can meet idols on our own terms because they are our own creations. They are safe, predictable, and controllable; they are, in Jeremiah's colorful language, the 'scarecrows in a cornfield' (10:5). They are portable and completely under the user's control. They offer nothing like the threat of a God who thunders from Sinai and whose providence in this world so often appears to us to be incomprehensible and dangerous . . . [People] need face only themselves. That is the appeal of idolatry."
- David F. Wells
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Read the following carefully: If you are a conservative Christian, the media wants to stop you from going to the polls, and they are manufacturing news stories designed to do just that. That's my assertion. I will now back it up.
From The Wall Street Journal- Wednesday, October 27th, 2004 (Page A-1, Left Column)
Block the VoteThe idea is that if they break your support for your guy, and you are naturally so opposed to the other guy, that you will just stay home. The article gives examples of both parties practicing this sort of thing. It usually comes in the form of an ad focused on a particular issue. The article continues...
As a Final Gambit, Parties are Trying to Damp Turnout
Attack Ads, Fliers Encourage Opposition to Stay Home; focus on Christians, Blacks
At a time when Mr. Bush needs a large turnout of conservative Chrsitians on Nov. 2, amplifying conflict between the White House and a Leading figure on the religious right (Pat Robertson) served a pointed purpose: trying to reduce the opposition's voter turnout.
"That was brilliant," says Bob Mulholland, a top Democratic aoperative in California. "You try to discourage the opponent's base with bad news."
Gambits like this mark the flip side of the massive mobilization efforts of both presidential campaigns to turn out their bases on election day. Both camps are doing what they can, in ways both overt and subtle, to convince the other side's supporters that they shouldn't bother voting in the first place.
There's sometimes little distinction between a traditional negative ad and one designed to discourage voting. But politicians suspect suppression when a rival spreads negative information among a core constituency that usually votes for one side or stays home - such as conservative Christian Republicans or black Democrats.They are trying to discourage the base. And if they can get you to stay home, their side wins.
Republicans see suppression efforts in Democrats' attempts to sow doubts about Mr. Bush's character and his fealty to social conservatives. They believe Democrats will use the Internet to spread fresh rumors about Mr. Bush's youthful behavior among conservative Christians. Bush strategists saw a similar effort when both John Edwards and John Kerry went out of their way in the recent debate series to mention the fact that Mary Cheney, the vice president's daugher, is gay.
Mr. Bush doesn't need any convincing that negative information can suppress turnout. His strategists think Mr. Bush lost the popular vote against Al Gore - and nearly the entire election - because of a late 2000 disclosure of a past drunk-driving arrest that dulled enthusiasm among conservative Christians.Here's my assertion. The media is using the tactic of suppression. They are purposefully manufacturing stories designed to separate Bush from his base. What made me first think that? They got to our very own honorary Thinkling Quaid.
Quaid cites two news articles as reasons that he had second thoughts about voting for Bush. They succeeded in their intent. Think about it. Both stories were released on the same day - exactly one week before the election. One story is about Bush possibly being in favor of gay civil unions and the other about Bush believing that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God. But notice the lead off on these two stories.
WASHINGTON - Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President Bush?s tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people ? laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.And the headline? Bush's gay union stance irks conservatives Notice it doesn't simply cite the interview, the quote or his position. The point of the story is that the position disillusions his base. Is this coincidence?
?I don?t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that?s what a state chooses to do so,? Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.
The next story from ABC starts this way:
While the president often refers to God during public addresses to his supporters, Bush's religious convictions don't always seem to reflect those of the conservative Christians who make up his political base.That's how it starts! It's like saying, "Are you Conservative Christians who are reading this paying attention? Bush may not be your guy after all. Read on and you'll really be ticked off, you Evangelical Right-wing fanatic you. Maybe you'll be so ticked off by this next quote that you'll stay home and won't vote for Bush.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson, Bush said he believes that both Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
"I think we do. We have different routes of getting to the Almighty," Bush said. "But I want you to understand, I want your listeners to understand, I don't get to get decide who goes to heaven. The Almighty God decides who goes to heaven and I am on my personal walk," he said.
The media has picked up on the agenda of the Democrats. We've already seen ample evidence that during this election cycle the media is trying to influence the outcome. Here's just another way. Why do I say this? Where are the alternative stories about Kerry alienating his base? Where are the stories that begin: "Kerry angers animal lovers by hunting openly" or "Kerry alienates Hollywood elite by speaking in churches"?
Don't let them get to you. Go vote. Bush is still your man. Look, this is politics. If he was only 51% better than Kerry than you should still vote for him. There's no such thing as the perfect candidate. You pick whatever guy is mostly right and vote for him. That's the way democracy works.
It bugs me when the media turns "public reaction" into a story. You can always find people who react negatively to anything. How is that news? In this case, it's not... other than it helps the media discourage you from voting for Bush.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/1567.
Comments on "The Liberal Media Doesn't Want You To Vote":
2. Shrode
- 10/28/2004 8:53 am CDT
Well, the media didn't manufacture Bush's statement. He did that himself.
That's true. But why ask him about (either issue) unless it was in hopes of getting something you could use. His statement about Muslims and Christians praying to the same God is quite old. (He said that pretty soon after 9-11). And though they didn't manufacture the statements, they used it. Again notice the headlines and leading of the two stories. The gay union one spends the whole time talking about how mad groups are about it, rather than just reporting on the fact he said it, or that it opposes the Republican Party Platform. It's not until the bottom that they cite a pro-marriage amendment group that says that Bush is right.
And in the Muslim/Christian God article, the headline says that's what it's about and the lead is that he disagrees with most Christians. But then the majority of the story has to do with Bush answering questions about a possible terror attack on election day, and about which states are still battlegrounds. Their headline and initial focus was on the statement he made, even though the actual article and interview are about very different subjects. He gave them fodder, and they used it.
And when your strongest backers are miffed about something you've said, I think that's newsworthy. The debate on Bush's Christian/Muslim/God statement rages on at WORLD's blog, for instance.
Strongest backers? That's to be debated, but they are strong. Maybe it's a little newsworthy. But where are the stories about libs being ticked about things Kerry has said? Either the news isn't reporting it, or the liberals are better than conservatives at keeping their mouths shut. They know that a partial win is better than a total loss. So you don't hear PETA griping when Kerry hunts. And you don't hear the ACLU griping when liberal churches promote Kerry.
Maybe we conservatives should learn a lesson. When our guy says something we disagree with we should keep our mouths shut. Any perceived dissension in the ranks is seized and exploited by the media.
3. Quaid
- 10/28/2004 9:34 am CDT
"They got to our very own honorary Thinkling Quaid."
They got me.
Actually, no. Bush got me. This isn't some manufactured quote or story invented by a reporter.
Bush said something I disagreed with.
Bush took a position that has been debated, to a certain extent, during this campaign.
Nobody got me. Period.
Do I think the media is doing what you're suggesting? Quite possibly. Probably.
My reaction to Bush's statements came not from the liberal media, however, but out of his own mouth.
4. Jared
- 10/28/2004 9:50 am CDT
But where are the stories about libs being ticked about things Kerry has said?
They probably don't exist, because libs believing dishonesty is okay so long as it gets a conservative out of office.
When our guy says something we disagree with we should keep our mouths shut. Any perceived dissension in the ranks is seized and exploited by the media.
Nah. We should value truth and integrity, like we always have.
I agree that we shouldn't overreact (as I believe Quaid has) to things like this, but I also don't think we should overreact when our overreactions make the press (as I believe you have). I don't deny the media has a liberal bias and would like Bush gone. I agree with your title. I just don't think this is good evidence of those claims.
5. Alan
- 10/28/2004 10:32 am CDT
Phil, I understand your concern about this. But shouldn't we just realize the media isn't ever on our side? Isn't this not even in the category of "old" news anymore? We have to understand that they have different rules for us because we have different rules for ourselves. For the left wing, power is the goal at any cost. I hope we are not reaching the point where we will abandon principle for the sake of power. We have to exercise that critical voice in order to keep the powers that work the nominating process to some modicum of honesty.
And at what cost do we keep our mouths shut when our candidate says something we don't like? I think what that gets us is the Republicans inviting the moderates in to the dining room for a feast, while we stay in the kitchen preparing the meals and eating the leftovers.
It seems like that's what got us into this position to begin with. You would have socked me in the mouth if I had told you ten years ago that, come 04, you would be adamant about re-electing a man who supports same-sex "civil unions," shot federal education funding and domestic spending in general through the roof, created a new welfare program for senior citizen medications, ran up a huge budget deficit, participated in a polytheistic national worship service, and insists that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
At what point is "our" candidate no longer our candidate? Your answer seems to be so long as he is a hair's width better for us than the other guy. To me, that kind of thinking is what makes evangelical Republicans the new black Democrats.
6. Shrode
- 10/28/2004 10:37 am CDT
Quaid,
First of all, I hope you didn't take what I wrote personally. I have respect for you and your views. I also went through some similar thoughts when Bush first made his "Christians and Muslims pray to the same God" comment after 9/11. I totally sympathize. I also didn't mean to imply that you are unable to filter the facts through the media. You are right Bush said those things. My point was that the media reported them in hopes that people like us would notice and would discourage us, just as you were discouraged.
Jared's right. I'm probably overreacting a bit. Supporters negative reaction to somethign their guy says is somewhat newsworthy. And I probably wouldn't be accusing them as I am if it weren't for all the other shenanigans they've pulled this election cycle.
I admit my evidence is fairly weak at this point. But I thought I had enough to at least call attention to it.
And I'm not sure that Bush's statements are as contra-evangelicals as the newsstories seem to report. (I admit they are contra Quaid) But many "evangelical christians" do believe that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God. And some evangelicals do argue that "civil unions" is a states rights issue, not a federal one. And so I think the media may be exagerating their claims in these two stories.
So Quaid has trouble with Bush's statements. I respect that. But my premise is that he responded exactly as they wanted him to. (Again, Quaid no offense.) And I'm afraid some others who aren't as clear thinking as Quaid will be convinced to stay home. Thereby handing Kerry the Oval Office.
7. Bradley
- 10/28/2004 10:51 am CDT
"But many 'evangelical christians' do believe that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God."
Not if they know the verrrry basics of Christianity, which is pretty much required in order to be a Christian. I'm not saying that it's impossible for a Christian to think that, but many evangelical christians - true ones - there's no way they believe that muslims pray to God.
just my thoughts on that :)
8. Shrode
- 10/28/2004 10:52 am CDT
But shouldn't we just realize the media isn't understand your concern about this. ever on our side? Isn't this not even in the category of "old" news anymore?
Yes. And so it's not so much the bias that bothered me here. It's the fact that there was a deliberate effort to keep us from voting, and Quaid's example showed me that it might work. Part of the reason for this post was to convince those who might be tempted to stay home to go vote anyway.
We have to understand that they have different rules for us because we have different rules for ourselves. For the left wing, power is the goal at any cost. I hope we are not reaching the point where we will abandon principle for the sake of power. We have to exercise that critical voice in order to keep the powers that work the nominating process to some modicum of honesty.
You are of course correct. But part of my point is that politics is about winning. And as a citizen of a democracy we should vote for those who most closely represent us, and the fact that there is no representative that matches our ideals exactly is not a good enough reason to not vote.
At least with Bush you know babies have at least a little better chance of making out of the womb alive.
And at what cost do we keep our mouths shut when our candidate says something we don't like? I think what that gets us is the Republicans inviting the moderates in to the dining room for a feast, while we stay in the kitchen preparing the meals and eating the leftovers.
Great point. Perhaps my point was similar to yours. The libs seem to be better at "politics" than we are because they operate by different rules.
It seems like that's what got us into this position to begin with. You would have socked me in the mouth if I had told you ten years ago that, come 04, you would be adamant about re-electing a man who supports same-sex "civil unions," shot federal education funding and domestic spending in general through the roof, created a new welfare program for senior citizen medications, ran up a huge budget deficit, participated in a polytheistic national worship service, and insists that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
I might have at that. 
I remember during the 2000 primaries being opposed to Bush because he wasn't conservative enough for me. He's still not conservative enough for me, for all the reasons you list above plus some more. But he's closer to me than Kerry is. And I believe he's trustworthy. And I believe that he will kill terrorists.
At what point is "our" candidate no longer our candidate? Your answer seems to be so long as he is a hair's width better for us than the other guy. To me, that kind of thinking is what makes evangelical Republicans the new black Democrats.
Another great point. Yeah that's my answer. Though I would argue that Bush is more than a hair's width better than the other guy. "Our" candidate is no longer our candidate when the other guy is closer to us than "our" guy is. Reagan switched parties. So have many other old-style conservative southern democrats I know. There will probably come a day that it's time for us to jump ship too. I just don't think it's today.
9. Shrode
- 10/28/2004 10:56 am CDT
Bradley, I didn't say they were right. But many who claim the "evangelical label" and believe much as we do, have some false beliefs. That is one of them. I still remember hearing my freshman buddies at Baylor University (Baptist School) talk about how they learned in their Old Testament Survey class that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same god.
Perhaps a more accurate way to say it as we all 3 CLAIM to pray to the same god. Many evangelicals would miss the distinction I think.
10. Bradley
- 10/28/2004 11:08 am CDT
True that. Crazy how much false teaching there is huh?! One of my friends who recently graduated from seminary said that out of over 100 seminaries in America, only about 6-10 of them teach Biblical inerrancy. Now, I don't know if he was speaking about Chrisitian seminaries only, but that's insane!
Peace
11. Marla
- 10/28/2004 11:34 am CDT
Great discussion, Shrode, and I agree with your fine-tuned observation of media bias. Liberals are almost never called on the carpet for their hypocrisy but the slightest hint of inconsistency in a conservative, esp. a Christian, is magnified a hundredfold--anything to help create or capitalize on division in the rightwing ranks while bolstering an imagined leftwing solidarity. I say this both as a reader and as one with a good five years of being in the trenches with the media elite (Berkeley journalism school and SF Chronicle), who truly are just that (Christopher Hitchens being one exception, as demented as he can be). You're not overreaching, though I do agree with the other points made here also.
12. Ellen
- 10/28/2004 12:13 pm CDT
"But many 'evangelical christians' do believe that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God."
Here's a little something to chew on...Our God is in heaven, being glorified by the saints. Islam's "god" is in hell, torturing the lost.
When Muhammad first told of his encounter with "Allah", he believed he was being tortured by a jinn (demon)]
In qur'an 72:1, Muhammad said that it had been revealed to him that a group of jinn had heard a "wonderful recital" of the Qur'an. It guided them to the right path and they had come to believe it.
What would you all believe about a "holy book" that had been endorsed by demons?
I do not believe that Muslims even worship the God of Abraham, even an error-filled belief. There are too many things in the Qur'an that would indicate that the entire religion comes directly from the pit of hell.
If Bush left his religion entirely out of it, I could vote for the Bush, the politician. Voting for Bush, the Christian is difficult.
Reagan did not run on his religion, he ran on politics. Bush should have done the same.
;-) Ellen
Do Muslims *really* come close to worshipping the same God we do?
13. Rong
- 10/29/2004 12:52 am CDT
I'll just be so happy when this is all over. No offense at all intended but I am absolutely sick of politics at this point. Of course if Bush does win we'll have to put up with another 4 years of listening the left whine like pesky mosquitos that he stole the election again.
YEESH! Another thing that I'm sooo looking forward to.
14. Shrode
- 10/29/2004 2:04 am CDT
Marla, thanks for the props!
Ellen, thank you for your comments. My only point when I said that many evangelicals believe that muslims and christians worship the same god, is that Bush's comments on the subject were not quite as divisive as the article claimed. They were exagerating their case. And when one says "muslims and christians worship the same god", the accuracy of that statement depends on how you mean it. Do you mean it theologically or historically? Or do you mean it as reality, or as what each religion believes for itself?
I'm sure you and I agree, but I just want to make something clear. I personally DO NOT believe that we worship the same god as the Muslims. The attributes do not match.
My Dad was once pursued and harassed by creditors looking for another man with his same name. But they were not the same person. (and would not have been even if they shared some of the same history - hometown etc..., and some of the same attributes- haircolor etc...) Just because the God of the Bible and Allah share the same name and some of the same attributes, and some of the same background does not make them the same.
If you got mugged today by John Smith and the police arrested 3 John Smiths you would pick the one who mugged you based on physical attributes. Allah and the God of the Bible do not have the same attributes. They are NOT the same.
Or perhaps we should put it another way? Since there can only be one omni-present, omni-potent god, then allah doesn't exist? And therefore, though they speak of the one true God, they are mistaken about his attributes. And so they pray to a charicature of God? I wonder if this is similar to some Christians today who pray to a cosmic, genie/santa clause who shares the same name and history as the God of the Bible, and perhaps they believe he is the God of the Bible, but really the god they pray to is a caricature of their own making?
And perhaps this is an accurate descripition of JW's, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Unitarians and anyone else who claims to pray to the God of Abraham, but their beliefs about his attributes don't match Scripture?
15. jen
- 10/29/2004 3:49 am CDT
when one says "muslims and christians worship the same god", the accuracy of that statement depends on how you mean it. Do you mean it theologically or historically? Or do you mean it as reality, or as what each religion believes for itself?
I think that a lot of Christians believe that we and the Jews and Muslims worship the same God because all three faiths are rooted from Abraham. Some may believe it's true theologically, because they're misinformed. Others historically (I'm one of these) because of the genetic ties to Abraham. We can't really know what the President means when he says that Christians and Muslims worship the same God - it could be that he's trying not to alienate Muslims by recognizing the historical ties and so his statements are welcoming and unclear. Actually, that's pretty typical of this President on some things, no? And we don't know what the media parsed out of a fuller statement in their editing booths.
16. tychicus
- 10/29/2004 8:10 am CDT
The "liberal media" is close to becoming a canard. Is radio part of "liberal media"? Not in San Diego. Nothing but righty bomb throwers here. The San Diego Union Tribune sure isn't "liberal". I'm sure the big 3 slant that way on their editorial boards but you can read strong conservative columnists at all three.
I think you're problem is with Pres. Bush's own words and with Pat Robertson. "Liberal media" had nothing to do with it.
Well, the media didn't manufacture Bush's statement. He did that himself.
And when your strongest backers are miffed about something you've said, I think that's newsworthy. The debate on Bush's Christian/Muslim/God statement rages on at WORLD's blog, for instance.
But I'm with you that the media would like us to give up on our guy. And I'm with you on not holding Bush's fuzzy theology against him on election day. I really don't know anything about his faith, except that I think he's a Christian.