Now I have to listen to the show…

I’ll stick with my other points, unconvinced, but I do want to make one point to yours about the labor union and the DNC. This is influence in a political party that you speak of. When a person is elected president they become president of all the people. This president is very far from that. What is particularly upsetting is that this is in the light of the extreme closeness of both elections.

Regarding what kind of America I think Bush wants ( Dobson does not matter ), I believe he does not understand what this country is all about. After 5 years of focussing on him I believe he is a political animal and has little idea ( nor much concern) of the consequences of his choices. In short I do not trust him.

If I give Bush the benefit of the doubt, it’s because I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt in equally charged circumstances; because I give any person under that kind of pressue, Republican or Democrat, the benefit of the doubt under so much stress to hold disparate factions of political party together. Whomever held the phone conference with the Dr. Dobson and others, were consulting with the leaders of a significant portion of the President’s political base at time. Just as Clinton consulted with union leaders over trade and employment policy, should we be concerned that he was turning the country over to organized labor; that we were turning into a socialist country? Of course not. The DNC didn’t adopt a platform until it had been signed off on by the AFL/CIO. Granted, their not the government, but does that mean that the DNC is a puppet of Labor just as you feel Bush is a puppet of the conservative christians? Of course not. I don’t care whom a president consults with or appears to be consulting with. I care about the policy. The rest is all just politics.

My suggestion is the Mr. Lydon knows that he’s in a position to push the spear point of the dialogue and can conceivable say make great politial points by actively doing so. It’s a time honored practice. Rush Limbaugh says the most inflammatory things to keep the right end of the party mobilized so that the rank and file don’t have to. Mr. Lydon is attempting to do the same thing for the left. Only in this case, this is supposed to be “intelligent, thoughtful radio” not a propaganda machine as Mr Limbaugh delivers.

Look, the Christian Right has about spent all of it’s capital by now and there’s serious question as to whether she’ll even get nominated. I’m quite concerned about her lack of bench time and that, yes, she’s seems to be coming in a as a one issue nominee, whatever that issue is. If you really wanted me to, I could rail against her but I doubt there’s any shortage of that around here.

I realize that they may have come off as purely rhetorical, but I was wondering if you could respond to the question, do you really believe that the President really wants to institute a Christian version of those countries that we would consider Mull-acracies? What visoin of America do you think Dr. Dobson actually wants to see?

BTW, as far as listening from a neutral place, I pride myself, as I believe I said, on giving people to explain themselves. I listen to public radio everyday. Sometimes I agree. Sometimes I don’t. Never before have I heard someting like the statement in question that is so over the top as to be jaw dropping. That you cannot see that calling the US an mullacracy, alla Afganistan is maybe an unfair comparison(rember, beating women who do not cover their head vs. consulint with a leader of your political base) is, to say, strange in the context of the public radio listener-ship – thoughtful, considering all points of view, etc.

(Footnote: I do appreciate that, particularly with Potter and Garfunkel that the tone of this conversation “has” remained civil, inciteful and free of noise.)

Leading by (Bad) Example

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (Iraq News Agency) – A delegation of Iraqi judges and journalists abruptly left the U.S. today, cutting short its visit to study the workings of American democracy. A delegation spokesman said the Iraqis were “bewildered” by some of the behavior of the Bush administration and felt it was best to limit their exposure to the U.S. system at this time, when Iraq is taking its first baby steps toward democracy.

The lead Iraqi delegate, Muhammad Mithaqi, a noted secular Sunni judge who had recently survived an assassination attempt by Islamist radicals, said that he was stunned when he heard President Bush telling Republicans that one reason they should support Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court was because of “her religion.” She is described as a devout evangelical Christian.

Mithaqi said that after two years of being lectured to by U.S. diplomats in Baghdad about the need to separate “mosque from state” in the new Iraq, he was also floored to read that the former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, now a law school dean, said on the radio show of the conservative James Dobson that Miers deserved support because she was “a very, very strong Christian [who] should be a source of great comfort and assistance to people in the households of faith around the country.”

“Now let me get this straight,” Judge Mithaqi said. “You are lecturing us about keeping religion out of politics, and then your own president and conservative legal scholars go and tell your public to endorse Miers as a Supreme Court justice because she is an evangelical Christian.

“How would you feel if you picked up your newspapers next week and read that the president of Iraq justified the appointment of an Iraqi Supreme Court justice by telling Iraqis: ‘Don’t pay attention to his lack of legal expertise. Pay attention to the fact that he is a Muslim fundamentalist and prays at a Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosque.’ Is that the Iraq you sent your sons to build and to die for? I don’t think so. We can’t have our people exposed to such talk.”

A fellow delegation member, Abdul Wahab al-Unfi, a Shiite lawyer who walks with a limp today as a result of torture in a Saddam prison, said he did not want to spend another day in Washington after listening to the Bush team defend its right to use torture in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfi said he was heartened by the fact that the Senate voted 90 to 9 to ban U.S. torture of military prisoners. But he said he was depressed by reports that the White House might veto the bill because of that amendment, which would ban “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of P.O.W.’s.

“I survived eight years of torture under Saddam,” Unfi said. “Virtually every extended family in Iraq has someone who was tortured or killed in a Baathist prison. Yet, already, more than 100 prisoners of war have died in U.S. custody. How is that possible from the greatest democracy in the world? There must be no place for torture in the future Iraq. We are going home now because I don’t want our delegation corrupted by all this American right-to-torture talk.”

Finally, the delegation member Sahaf al-Sahafi, editor of one of Iraq’s new newspapers, said he wanted to go home after watching a televised videoconference last Thursday between soldiers in Iraq and President Bush. The soldiers, 10 Americans and an Iraqi, were coached by a Pentagon aide on how to respond to Mr. Bush.

“I had nightmares watching this,” Sahafi said. “It was right from the Saddam playbook. I was particularly upset to hear the Iraqi sergeant major, Akeel Shakir Nasser, tell Mr. Bush: ‘Thank you very much for everything. I like you.’ It was exactly the kind of staged encounter that Saddam used to have with his troops.”

Sahafi said he was also floored to see the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, declare that a Bush administration contract that paid Armstrong Williams, a supposedly independent commentator, to promote Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind policy constituted illegal propaganda – an attempt by the government to buy good press.

“Saddam bought and paid journalists all over the Arab world,” Sahafi said. “It makes me sick to see even a drop of that in America.”

By coincidence, the Iraqi delegates departed Washington just as the Bush aide Karen Hughes returned from the Middle East. Her trip was aimed at improving America’s image among Muslims by giving them a more accurate view of America and President Bush. She said, “The more they know about us, the more they will like us.”

(Yes, all of this is a fake news story. I just wish that it weren’t so true.)

May I respectfully suggest that you listen to the show again from a more neutral place? Try not to bring in the other baggage ( that you deleted). That’s hardly fair to yourself or to the show. I have been listening to this particular host for a number of years now and I can’t think of a single instance of vitriol being displayed ever and certainly not on this particular show which I felt was more instructive ( educational) at a time when we needed it.

No other poster has complained of such vitriol as you describe here either. I just cannot imagine what ticked you off so much aside from the violent sterotype you associate with “mullah” and the misunderstanding about Sistani himself.

I was more upset about the violation of our constitutional principles than any hyperbole, but you are very relaxed about that issue and quick to rationalize and give more Bush benefit of the doubt than he deserves it seems to me. Evangelical Christians, the ones driving Bush, the 15% or so of us, simply want what they want despite what the rest of us want.

A justice is appointed for life and the balance of the court would be changed for many years to come so this is not about Bush’s term of office. Not only will the damage have been done but the precendent will have been set. Who would know the difference if we were not reminded again ( since we seem to have forgotten or choose to be mostly silent) of what once were very strong principles of this nation? Is the use of the word “mullocracy” more aggregious than this issue? if you avoid this forum ( public radio) where will you go?

In the current culture and with the events of recent history, the term Mullah, carries and definate and extremely pejorative connotation that, I believe, was purposely chosen not to hit some theoretical nail on the head but rather to inflame debate and grab attention, something we have graciously granted.

In a broader sense, I know for a fact that Bill Clinton took counsel from Pastor Bill Hybels a number of times in his first administration on speaches and various issues. I know that Presidents, have all through history done the same, perhaps not all for the purpose of assuaging their various political bases but some, yes, have. Again, our Union was never threatened and it’s not now. And do you know why? First, because it’s not the president’s intent, despite what you may have mistakenly concluded.

Unfortunately, it’s appears to be your opinions that all Evangelical Christians are Pro-totalitarian regimist. But seriously, do you really believe that the President really wants to institute a Christian version of those countries that we would consider Mull-acracies? Do you honestly believe it’s the presidents intent to create a Christian Afganistan? “Those” are (or were) mull-acracies.

The other reason is, the American people won’t let it happen. Bush is out of office in three years, his presidency will be at an end in 12-18 months (if it’s not already) and there will be a push back towards the center.

Let me clarify, however, what was the use of metaphor, not hyperbole at the end of my last post. First, what I characterized as a magma flow of vitriol was not specifically a product of NPR but rather the entire tone of the dialogue to which this particurlar show had contributed and it is this kind of rhetoric if left unchecked on all sides could only serve to lead to our mutual downfall.

To continue to clarify, I stopped listening to right wing radio(and ‘political’ radio in general) because, it, not public radio is filled with acrimony combative dialogue and I got tired of all the combative posturing.

{I’ve just deleted two full paragraphs about what frustrates me about public radio.}

My point was that if this was to be the new dialogue of “intelligent” radio, then yes, I was going to have to start avoid public radio as well. I suppose what’s most saddening ( and this is not new in political discourse) is that you can’t even conceive of why some regular Joe would have any kind of problem with this kind of incitement. Not a card carrying Republican, mind you, a registered Libertarian

Also JonGarfunkel is entirely correct about Sistani. He has been a voice of restraint and moderation and against violence. He is not a militant leader. A mullah is a clergyman, simply a religious leader.

And if I may make the point again, the comparison was warranted. The more I think about it the less hyperbole it was. We are talking about a disturbing violation of our founding princples.

I don’t know what poisoned your heart about public radio.When you suggest, astonishingly, that NPR is threatening to set fire to the whole nation and you feel compelled to flee. Now who is using hyperbole?

As for “Mullah-ocracy”… it’s a tough call. I was originally sensitive to your complaints. But when I listened to the whole show intently, what Chris was focussed on was the claim of a religious test for office. That’s un-American, and more fit for a theocracy.

The kind of voilence that is carried out in the name of jihad and leader militant islamic movements is in no way comparable to some christian leaders mobilizing a voting block. Period. They are completely incomparable. And doing so only serves to balkanize the discussion even further.

It was, in the end, inflammatory. If I were hosting a nationally syndicated talk show and likened they actions of, say, John Kerry in ’72 or the movers and shakers of the Politically Correct speach movement to Kruschev or something Owellian in nature it would also be horribly inflammatory and irresponsible. No doubt this has all come from the Right, already.

You know, I long ago (long, long ago) stopped listening to right wing radio save an occasionaly drop in here and there primarily because I wished to escape the bitter language of vitriol that poinsoned my heart and made me angry and while I never had any illusions about the political leanings of public radio, I never thought I’d have to flee from Public Radio to avoid the oncoming magma flow that will inevitably set fire to our whole nation.

Again, I’m not the most keen on overturning roe v. wade. You also needn’t let me know what the right has done to political dialogue. I’m fully aware. I expected more from “thinking man’s radio.” There’s just a reason that I haven’t contributed to Public Radio in six years and there’s a reason why fewer and fewer of us do all the time.