All the bias that fits

Before I comment on the article I am posting, I want to wish Bill Clinton a speedy recovery from his pending open heart surgery. I had open heart surgery in 1999 for a different ailment and while I rarely agreed with Bill, I can certainly empathize. Good luck, Bill.

Now to the article. It has long annoyed me that churches supporting liberl causes and candidates get a free ride on the seperation of church and state issue the liberal media rags on about. Of course, seperation of church and state only matters to them when it is the Religious Right. Michelle Malkin takes apart the New York Times on this. - Sailor




All the bias that fits


By Michelle Malkin
Washington Times

Over the past two months, the New York Times has hammered Republicans for including conservative Christians in the American electoral process:

On June 18, David D. Kilpatrick's Page One story was headlined "Bush allies till fertile soil, among Baptists, for votes."

Page One on July 2 featured Mr. Kilpatrick's story headlined "Bush appeal to churches seeking help raises doubts."

On July 16, a Kilpatrick story headlined "Citing Falwell's endorsement of Bush, group challenges his tax-exempt status" appeared on Page A16.


On Aug. 9, Mr. Kilpatrick ran a story headlined "Churches see an election role and spread the word on Bush" on Page One.

The separation-of-church-and-state watchdogs have been barking rabidly at any sign of politicking or voter registration efforts by Republicans within shouting distance of a house of worship. On July 14, the Times published an editorial headlined "Onward GOP soldiers" on Page A22. The apoplectic editorial writers inveighed against the Bush-Cheney campaign for "buttonholing Christian churches nationwide to serve as virtual party precincts in the Republican drive to turn out voters in November." The editorial board complained further:
"Ministers are being pressed to create registration drives and speak out about 'all Christians needing to vote.' The Bush team's strategy disrespects religion as much as it does democratic ideals. Churchgoers are entitled to a little sanctuary from politicians."

None of this alleged concern about the supposedly undemocratic mixture of religion and politics was evident, however, in the Times' coverage of former President Bill Clinton's pulpit demagoguery at the far-left Riverside Church in New York City this past Sunday on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Here's the lead for the front-page article in the Times' politics section on Monday:

"Former President Bill Clinton offered a hard-hitting attack against the Republican Party yesterday, telling worshippers gathered at Riverside Church that President Bush and the Republicans are distorting John Kerry's war record in Vietnam. 'Sometimes I think our friends on the other side have become the people of the Nine Commandments,' Mr. Clinton said. 'It is wrong to bear false witness.' "
Yup. Before a crowd of 1,500 worshippers in Upper Manhattan, Mr. Clinton slammed religious conservatives for their stance against same-sex "marriage" and abortion; attacked President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Teddy Kennedy); derided the Bush tax cuts; questioned the Republicans' "healthy forest" initiative; and ridiculed the expansive Medicare prescription drug benefit program passed with support of both parties.

Would a Times reporter have approvingly described a sermon by a conservative preacher taking the opposite stance on the pulpit as "hard-hitting"? Why didn't the reporter include the standard alarmist quote from secularist Barry Lynn questioning the tax-exempt status of the Riverside Church?

And, putting aside the unholy specter of an impeached president shamelessly invoking the Bible to condemn others for lying, where are all the Times' editorial writers — previously so concerned about protecting the church sanctuary from disrespectful partisan politics — now?

Mr. Clinton's strident Sunday morning visit to the Riverside Church wasn't just one spontaneous event, but part of a coordinated nationwide campaign called "Mobilization 2004." The church's pastor, Rev. James Forbes, has aligned with crockumentary filmmaker Michael Moore, socialist antiwar agitators Code Pink, and liberal Protestant churches bent on booting President Bush out of office. Mr. Forbes, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, has his hands in protest events all week during the Republican National Convention, pushing everything from increased federal spending on hunger and homelessness to single-payer health insurance.

Nevertheless, there have been no in-depth, Page One stories on how Kerry allies are "tilling fertile soil" among left-wing Protestants for votes. No editorials snidely titled "Onward Democrat soldiers." And no conspiratorial flow charts suggesting coordination between Mr. Forbes, the Clintons (Hillary attended the service after attacking Mr. Bush on the Sunday morning talk show circuit) and the Kerry campaign.

The New York Times' sanctimonious reporters and editorialists loudly declaim the mixture of religion and politics whenever conservative Christians are involved. But when the religious left brings Democratic partisans to preach to the choir, the church/state separatists in the media are quieter than country church mice. The double standard echoes like a steel trap snapping in an empty cathedral.

Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist.