What do you get when you combine an unrelenting erosion of decency, an obstructionist minority and an activist judiciary -- in an election year?... A populist revolt by the "moral majority" that's tantamount to a second reformation.

While no single event set this in motion, everything from suggestive primetime programming and shock-jocks who push the on-air limits, to defiant city mayors and activist judges that impose their will on the majority -- have combined to create a conservative reawakening of sorts.

Like the sleeping giant in Gulliver's Travels, slumbering "values voters" seem to have shaken-off their fog and spoken-up in a united fashion this year on everything from defense of marriage to demand for movie performances like the Passion of Christ. What's especially troubling for the Left, is the bond that's forming between previously factious people of faith.

Sensing a widespread assault on traditional American values -- the values that history attributes to our greatness as a nation, people of faith have combined to achieve "critical mass" as a voting block. As seen in this year's campaigns, the 2004 election really pitted those who put their trust in government against those who've placed their trust in God.

Garnering over 60 million votes, President Bush won more popular support than any other candidate in the history of the republic. And he's also the first re-elected President since 1936, to add to conservative majorities in both the House and Senate. By any measure, this was a significant mandate -- with conservatives making gains across every demographic group except high-school "drop-outs" and post-doctorates.

Liberals are still in disbelief over the election results, mostly because they're convinced they must be in power to give "our" lives meaning. Listen to their post-election post-mortem and it's apparent the intellectual elite still believe people exist to provide them with power. What they fail to grasp is that -- power exists to provide the people with opportunity.

So this month we drill-down on three major topics. First we examine the "values voters" factor, that seems to have made the difference in the 2004 election. Next we attempt to rally the troops to exorcise the Specter of obstruction, analyzing the peril of granting him power over the judiciary committee. Last, we consider the improving prospects for peace in the Middle East, now that former PLO Chairman Arafat's reign of terror has come to an end.

"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven" (Ecc 3:1).

Roy Tanner




'Moral Values' Tops Voters' Concerns
—But What Does It Mean?

Sexual morality probably trumped social justice concerns, say observers.
By Kevin Eckstrom and Michele M. Melendez, Religion News Service

WASHINGTON—Forget Iraq. Forget terrorism. Forget the economy. The biggest factor shaping people's votes Tuesday (Nov. 2) was the mother of all sleeper issues—"moral values."

In nationwide exit polls, one in five voters said moral values were the most important issue in casting their votes, outpacing every other major topic. Those "values" voters overwhelmingly went for President Bush over Sen. John Kerry, 79 percent to 18 percent.

The stronger-than-expected role of moral values signals that the nation's values agenda is likely to be dominated by "social morality" concerns for abortion, gay marriage, and stem-cell research—issues vital to Bush's base. The election also marks a defeat for progressive groups who tried to cast "social justice" concerns of poverty, war, and the environment as moral issues.

Either way, Jim Wallis, a self-described progressive evangelical, said neither blue states nor red states should try to claim a corner on the values market.

"The right wants to say these are the only moral values, the left wants to say only our issues are moral values," said Wallis, convener of the Washington-based Call to Renewal anti-poverty group. "The truth is there are moral values across the spectrum."

Just how did values become so important, especially in a race dominated by terrorist threats at home and abroad? Wallis faulted the Democrats for a self-inflicted wound on abortion. Kerry's party alienated values-driven voters who could have been wooed by his domestic policies but could not stomach his party's ardent support of abortion rights.

In Ohio, for example, where moral values ranked second (behind the economy), Kerry lost among Catholics 55 percent to 44 percent, which may have been enough to swing the crucial state into Bush's column. Wallis said a "more sensible, reasonable and centrist" policy on abortion could have helped Kerry, especially within his own church.

"There are millions of votes at stake in that Democratic mistake," he said.

Conservatives, meanwhile, say the winning formula was a simple one. Bush's embrace of socially conservative values rallied his evangelical base, who turned out in record force for him at the polls.

Part of what got them there, at least in some states, were constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. Voters who did not favor legal recognition for gay couples broke for Bush by a 2-1 ratio.

"I can tell you this," said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, a conservative group. "It was the values voter that ushered the president down the aisle for a second term."

Values voters were not sequestered in Bush's solid red states. Ohio was narrowly propelled into Bush's column by the 85 percent of voters who ranked values as the second-most important issue. In Iowa, a sought-after swing state, 87 percent of values voters went for Bush. And in Wisconsin, where Kerry eeked out a close win, 82 percent of those whose decision was guided by moral values voted for President Bush.

One reason why values may have emerged as so important is because pollsters did not survey the topic four years ago. John Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron, said "moral values" can mean different things to different voters. But typically, "When ordinary people think of morality, they think of traditional sexual morality. … They don't think of social justice."

To be sure, other factors such as record-breaking voter registration and anti-war sentiment drew voters to the polls. But if values-oriented voters dominated the pack, Bush had a clear advantage because many of those values are reinforced when those same voters pack churches on Sunday mornings.

According to the exit polls, Bush won handily among frequent church-goers, and pulled even with Kerry among people who attend once a month or less. Bush drew 60 percent of weekly attenders, compared to Kerry's 39 percent, while Kerry led Bush among non-church-goers, 64 percent to 34 percent.

Bush drew 75 percent of white evangelicals, 58 percent of Protestants and 24 percent of Jews, a slight rise from 2000. Kerry had 41 percent of Protestants and 76 percent of Jews. The exit polls, conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for major media organizations, did not include Muslim voters.

Among the coveted Catholic vote, Bush held a slight edge nationally over Kerry, 51 percent to 48 percent. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said Kerry's arms-length relationship with his church came back to haunt him.

"Kerry said, `I will have a secular government, I will not allow my Catholic values to interfere with my public policy,"' Land said. "The president said, `I'm a man of faith and my faith will impact my public policy' and … the American people took Bush's vision over Kerry's."

While Bush's values agenda seems mostly clear cut, the thornier question is what lies ahead for two groups who struggled to employ religious language to shape the values debate—Democrats and religious progressives.

Green, for one, said the challenge for Kerry's party is to develop a language of faith that appeals to values-minded voters. "One of the lessons to the Democratic Party—they need to explore the social justice issues and their connections to faith," Green said.

Wallis, who pushed Kerry to talk more openly about how his faith affects his policies, said it came as "too little, too late." He also said the Democrats need to confront their own inner demons.

"The secular fundamentalism of the left is as much a problem as the religious fundamentalism of the right," he said.

Adelle M. Banks, Itir Yakar and Wangui Njuguna contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today.




The Specter of Obstruction


In his recent address to the Federalist Societys' 2004 National Convention, Senate Majority Leader Frist shared his deep concerns over the practice of using filibuster. His remarks frame-in an environment that chokes-off progress with a deliberate strategy of obstruction.

Couple this practice with (information below on) the potential nomination of Arlen Specter for Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee...and you'll understand why conservatives are taking a stand against both the method and the man...

According to Frist:

The Senate must be allowed to confirm judges who fairly, justly and independently interpret the law.

The current Minority has filibustered 10 -- and threatened to filibuster another 6 -- nominees to federal appeals courts. This is unprecedented in over 200 years of Senate history. With the filibuster of Miguel Estrada, the subsequent filibuster of 9 other judicial nominees, and the threat of 6 more filibusters, the Minority has abandoned over 200 years of Senate tradition and precedent.

This radical action presents a serious challenge to the Senate as an institution and the principle so essential to our general liberty -- the separation of powers. It would be easy to attribute the Minority’s actions to mere partisanship. But there is much more at work. The Minority seeks nothing less than to realign the relationship between our three branches of government.

This filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority. The President would have to make appointments that not just win a majority vote, but also pass the litmus tests of an obstructionist minority. If this is allowed to stand, the Minority will have effectively seized from the President the power to appoint judges.

Never mind the Constitution. Never mind the separation of powers. Never mind the most recent election – in which the American people agreed that obstruction must end. The Senate cannot allow the filibuster of circuit court nominees to continue. Nor can we allow the filibuster to extend to potential Supreme Court nominees.

One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end. The Senate must do what is good, what is right, what is reasonable, and what is honorable. The Senate must do its duty. And, when we do, we will preserve and vindicate America’s founding principles for our time and for generations to come.


The Committee of Committees
by the FRC

There has been some question as to why the battle over the Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship is so important for social conservatives. It comes down to the simple fact that the chairman of a committee controls the schedule, staff, and philosophy of the committee. The Judiciary Committee is of critical importance because it is there that federal judges, nominees to the Supreme Court, and nominees for the position of attorney general are vetted and given or denied a vote before the full Senate. The chairman, in setting the schedule and agenda for the committee, can also stop legislation from moving to the full Senate.

The prospect of Chairman Specter in the Judiciary Committee is a real and present threat to pro-life judges and to pivotal legislation like the marriage amendment. A constitutional amendment on marriage is best served by going through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a Chairman Specter could wield enough power to obstruct its passage or significantly help its passage. We know Arlen Specter is hostile to pro-life judges, and he has said that he would have voted against the marriage amendment earlier this year if given the opportunity. The committee is simply too important for the issues that won elections last week to put in Specter's control. Let the committee know you want a different chairman.

Take Action Now: Stop Sen. Arlen Specter! The "Value Voters" are letting their voices be heard on Capitol Hill on the prospect of Sen. Arlen Specter becoming the new chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Phone lines to the Senate are overwhelmed. Senators are reporting thousands of calls! They are getting a strong message that the voters who returned the President to office and gave Republicans solid control of the U.S. Senate do not want an obstructionist blocking the President's judicial nominees or imposing a pro-abortion litmus test. Just one day after the great election victory of President Bush, Sen. Specter warned the President against nominating pro-life judges. President Bush may have the chance to fill perhaps three vacancies on the Supreme Court in the next four years, including a replacement for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. We must not allow Sen. Specter to determine the make-up of our courts.

The Judiciary Committee will vote in the next few weeks on who will be its chairman. Please take a minute now to tell at least one member of the Judiciary Committee that you don't want Sen. Specter to become Chairman. FRC has provided a one-click email process below as well as a sample letter that you can copy and paste into your email.

Just click on any or all members below to send your important message.

Click here to email Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K23

Click here to email Senator Saxby Chambliss
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K21

Click here to email Senator John Cornyn
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K22

Click here to email Senator Larry Craig
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K20

Click here to email Senator Mike DeWine
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K17

Click here to email Senator Lindsey Graham
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K19

Click here to email Senator Chuck Grassley
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K15

Click here to email Senator Orrin Hatch
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K14

Click here to email Senator Jon Kyl
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K16

Click here to email Senator Jeff Sessions
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LK04K18


Sample Letter

For the subject line paste: Stop Specter

I am deeply troubled by Sen. Arlen Specter's record on judicial nominees.

He opposed Judge Robert Bork, Jeff Sessions and others because of his pro-abortion litmus test. Should he be allowed to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, he could stop President Bush from appointing judges to the federal courts that fit the President's judicial philosophy.

Senator Specter clearly has not shown proper judgment for the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.


In closing, Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel stated, “Arlen Specter must be removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although Specter tried to back away from his public remarks about not appointing Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, we need an advocate who can weather the battle over the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We certainly don’t want a muted neutral party, and we won’t accept an adversary. Specter needs to learn the lesson which Tom Daschle learned the hard way – ‘Listen to the values espoused by your constituents, or lose your job.’”


PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY, AND ASK THEM TO TAKE ACTION TODAY!




'Help' That Isn't
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
November 15, 2004

With Yasser Arafat now in the other world, pressure is certain to grow on President Bush to become directly involved in a problem that British Premier Tony Blair has described as the most urgent issue of international politics today.

Bush, however, should think twice before he plunges into an adventure that has caused quite a bit of trouble for all presidents since Harry Truman.

There are three important points to understand before making any move on the Palestinian issue.

The first concerns Arafat. While there is no doubt that Arafat's duplicitous character and inherent opportunism were major obstacles to peace, it would be wrong to blame him exclusively for the lack of progress towards peace.

When the crunch came at the end of 2000, Arafat could not accept what the Israelis offered while the Israelis were not prepared to offer what Arafat wanted — a blanket acceptance of the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

Palestinians now living outside the historic Palestine may now number around 6 million. The prospect of their return would, theoretically at least, amount to a recipe for changing Israel's nature as a Jewish state.

Arafat knew that no Israeli government would be able to accept something that amounted to an invitation to political suicide. At the same time, the Israelis knew that Arafat could not go tell 6 million people scattered all over the world to abandon their dream of return — a dream that most know is unrealizable, but cherish nonetheless.

What did all that mean? It meant neither Israel nor the Palestinians were psychologically or politically prepared for peace.

Both sides spoke of a "just peace" or a "peace of the brave." But peace becomes problematic as soon as we attach an adjective to it.

A child of war, no peace can ever be just. Every peace bears the mark of its unjust origin in some way. "Peace of the brave" is also nonsensical. The brave do not make peace; they go on killing one another on their way to Valhalla or wherever it is that fallen heroes assemble.

Peace is either imposed by the victor or negotiated by cowards who seek the possible rather than the ideal. In either case, there is no place for justice.

Despite years of negotiations and the signing of numerous accords, there is no evidence that either the Palestinians or the Israelis are prepared to accept a peace that might appear unjust to both. Arafat's passing is unlikely to change that fact.

There is also no evidence that greater U.S. involvement would change that fact. President Jimmy Carter, for example, devoted nearly half of his term to the issue. Yet his Camp David accords did not produce peace, but only an official recognition of the "no war, no peace" situation that had been in place since 1967.

In fact, the war that Camp David was supposed to terminate continues on different fronts. It is fought in classrooms, newspapers and books, on television, in cyberspace and in mosques, and through attacks on resorts hosting Israeli tourists.

A majority of Egyptians and Jordanians do not feel they are at peace with Israelis — a majority of whom reciprocate the feeling.

For his part, President Clinton spent more time on the Palestinian issue than on any other. As noted above, he failed because neither side was prepared for peace. And until that changes, there is little than any outsider can do.

The solution to the Palestinian problem cannot be imposed from the outside or from above. It must come from the inside and from below.

In fact, one reason why this problem has continued for so long is that it has attracted intervention by outsiders from the start. Arab states adopted the conflict as a "national cause" which, in practice, meant outsiders would decide the fate of the Palestinians.

This meant that successive generations of Arab despots could play hero at the expense of the Palestinians. They would make fiery speeches and get the applause while the Palestinians went on dying. Palestine became a pan-Arab problem, thus achieving greater complexity by absorbing a variety of other considerations that had nothing to do with the issue itself.

Israel, too, was adopted as a cause, first by France and, after 1965, by the United States. That, coupled with the fact that most Arab states, and the Palestinians, sided with the Soviet bloc gave the conflict an additional Cold War dimension that further complicated matters.

Outside intervention is not always beneficial. History is full of examples of conflicts that continued beyond their natural term because of it. Sometimes, the parties to the conflict feel that, with powerful outside backers, they no longer need to swallow the bitter pills necessary for peace. In other cases, they become pawns in a game that they neither control nor understand.

Inflating the importance of a conflict could also make finding a peaceful solution more difficult. If the parties to the conflict are convinced that their little quarrel is the most important issue facing humanity, they are that much less likely to be amenable to painful compromises — without which there can be no peace.

What we need is a measure of deflation for this Palestine-Israel issue. With respect to Blair, this is not the greatest or even the most urgent issue facing humanity. The whole of historic Palestine covers an area that is 1 percent of Saudi Arabia. It has no natural resources of any importance, and does not even register on the radar of international trade.

When it comes to compassion, this conflict is a fairly minor one. Even recently, we've witnessed greater tragedies in the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Sudan, Rwanda, and Algeria. Right now Thailand is building a real wall, much longer and higher than the Israeli fence, as a shield against its Muslim minority.

Bush's intervention would raise the profile of the dispute once again, thus, paradoxically, making a solution that much more difficult. The Israelis and the Palestinians must be pressed to assume their own responsibilities — which means doing their own peacemaking, just as they have been doing their own war-making and suicide-bombings.