« Tuesday Deadline Linkdump: the REVISED Rove edition | Main | New 7D personals sites »
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
The Weekly Post: from In a Mirror Dimly
Today's entry comes from Ed Cyzewski's In a Mirror Dimly. Cyzewski, an Arlington resident, is an evangelical Christian. He writes intelligently about John McCain's recent speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Here's an excerpt from Ed's blog:
It was bound to happen. If Senator John McCain wants a shot at the
White House in 2008, then he has to suck it up and court the religious
right. Apparently he has gone straight to the head man. After
criticizing Jerry Falwall as an agent of intolerance, McCain and Jerry
have tried to make nice for the sake of the common good: keeping
liberals out of the White House.
It's amazing how far two men will go to acheive a common goal. McCain
has to swallow his pride and have his picture taken with Falwell.
Falwell has to accept that McCain is not quite in the same camp on
issues such as gay marriage. I for one am glad to see a moderating
influence rise to prominence in the Republican party. I'm sick of the
religious right determining the agenda. I don't want the next election
to center on gay marriage. Way to bite the bullet John.
You can read the full text of the speech here. As turned-off as I am by Falwell and his agenda, I really appreciated McCain's speech. I guess I'm not cynical enough yet to dismiss his call to bridge the ideological divide in this country. I think it's a message more people need to be spreading.
On that note, I guess it's appropriate to mention that I'll be appearing on Charity Tensel's 5:25 call-in show on Channel 17 this Friday. It's called "She's Right." Feel free to give us a call...
May 17, 2006 at 08:53 AM in The Weekly Post | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b91969e200d8348b30de53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Weekly Post: from In a Mirror Dimly:
Comments
You can bet we won't be talking about how to keep liberals out of the White House!
I am having Cathy on to talk about blogging and to fill us in on what happened at the Leadership Champlain "New Media" panel that she was a part of.
Posted by: Charity | May 17, 2006 9:33:49 AM
In reading this post again through new eyes, i.e. on someone else's blog, I realized that it may come accross that I'm a Republican with my comment: "the common good: keeping liberals out of the White House." That was written from the perspective of what is the perceived good in the Falwell and McCain camps.
I'm a political hybrid with leanings to the left and the right on certain issues. I'm just weary of being labeled as part of the religious right.
Thanks Cathy for sharing the post with your readers.
Posted by: Ed C | May 17, 2006 11:39:35 AM
"I guess I'm not cynical enough yet to dismiss his call to bridge the ideological divide in this country"
Let's see. McCain is:
anti-choice
anti-gay marriage
Pro Iraq War
Fine with prayer and the 10 Commandments in school (and this link is from his "moderate, maverick" days even)
Okay, so he doesn't like torture. Solid moderate position there. But the fact is, if the difference between him and Falwell defines the "ideological divide in this country" we're all in a lot of trouble. That's like build a bridge across a "chasm" the size of pothole.
Holding on to those rose-colored specs because he opposed the Constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage? Not any more..
McCain is a politician. And a right-winger to the core. He was playing to the GOP moderate wing during the 2000 election when he made the "agent of intolerance" comment. Now that that wing has been shown to be impotent, if not virtually non-existent, he's sucking up to the other side. No more, no less.
That's not cynicism talking. I don't see how one could look at the totality of his record and rhetoric over the years and conclude otherwise.
Posted by: odum | May 17, 2006 12:41:30 PM
Yes, McCain is a politician. Yes, I disagree with some of his positions.
But here's what I like about his speech:
We have our disagreements, we Americans. We contend regularly and enthusiastically over many questions: over the size and purposes of our government; over the social responsibilities we accept in accord with the dictates of our conscience and our faithfulness to the God we pray to; over our role in the world and how to defend our security interests and values in places where they are threatened. These are important questions; worth arguing about. We should contend over them with one another. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis, especially in times of crisis, we fight among ourselves for the things we believe in. It is not just our right, but our civic and moral obligation.
...
Americans should argue about this war. It has cost the lives of nearly 2500 of the best of us. It has taken innocent life. It has imposed an enormous financial burden on our economy. At a minimum, it has complicated our ability to respond to other looming threats. Should we lose this war, our defeat will further destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, strengthen the threat of terrorism, and unleash furies that will assail us for a very long time. I believe the benefits of success will justify the costs and risks we have incurred. But if an American feels the decision was unwise, then they should state their opposition, and argue for another course. It is your right and your obligation. I respect you for it. I would not respect you if you chose to ignore such an important responsibility. But I ask that you consider the possibility that I, too, am trying to meet my responsibilities, to follow my conscience, to do my duty as best as I can, as God has given me light to see that duty.
Americans deserve more than tolerance from one another, we deserve each other’s respect, whether we think each other right or wrong in our views, as long as our character and our sincerity merit respect, and as long as we share, for all our differences, for all the noisy debates that enliven our politics, a mutual devotion to the sublime idea that this nation was conceived in – that freedom is the inalienable right of mankind, and in accord with the laws of nature and nature’s Creator.
We have so much more that unites us than divides us. We need only to look to the enemy who now confronts us, and the benighted ideals to which Islamic extremists pledge allegiance -- their disdain for the rights of Man, their contempt for innocent human life -- to appreciate how much unites us.
I'm not arguing for or against him as a candidate. I'm agreeing with his call for mutual respect.
Posted by: cresmer | May 17, 2006 1:19:50 PM
Fair enough.
It's hard to know how and when to measure a persons speech distinct from the context of the person delivering it. The same words coming out of two different mouths could be vision or hypocrisy.
Equally hard is how to characterize a distinction of style vs. substance. I would say McCain and Falwell are very close on substance, and their distinction is largely of style. Usually when one makes that distiction, it's to tag the difference as fluffy or meaningless -- and yet, isn't the very notion of tolerance (at least in a day to day respectful countenance we should expect from each other) simply a matter of style? And tolerance is hardly fluff.
Sorry...waxing philosophical.
Posted by: odum | May 17, 2006 1:48:31 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
