Michael Medved

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Maggie Gallagher explains how to explain your disapproval of marriage equality over Thanksgiving dinner.

Conservative radio host calls it: God to vote Republican!

Right-wing radio host Michael Medved in his new Townhall column has discovered how God would vote in the upcoming election, and the answer isn’t surprising. According to Medved, “it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that the Almighty would cast his all-important ballot for Republicans.”

But how can he be so sure of how God would vote in November? Well, Medved argues that progressives’ commitment to social justice cannot have religious sanction because he says that progressivism, unlike conservatism, is inherently discriminatory. “Biblical view” (read: Medved’s personal reading of the Bible) “directly contradicts the leftist inclination” of “unequal, potentially unfair treatment by government.” To prop up his point, Medved argues that spiritual and religious progressives are simply not as knowledgeable as the clergymen “who focus on Scripture as written” and accordingly “lean overwhelmingly to the right.”

Medved’s declaration that God would vote Republican and that conservatives have the best understanding of scripture echoes the views of other figures on the Right such as Glenn Beck, who called on parishioners to run away from and report churches who believe in social and economic justice. Beck said that social and economic justice are merely “code words” for Nazism and Communism, and also asserted that “progressivism is the cancer in America.” He has also claimed that progressives don’t have God on their side but are “enemies of God,” but you can “stand with God” if you follow Beck!

As right-wing commentators attempt to claim God as a GOP booster, Pastor Michael Hidalgo of the Denver Community Church reminds us that “God is not a Nazi or a Communist. Nor is God Democrat or Republican. In fact, God has no political affiliation.”

Richard Land To Deliver Healthcare Petitions

Richard Land is wading into the healthcare reform debate, announcing that he'll and several right-wing radio hosts be delivering more than a million petitions to Congress on behalf of the National Center for Policy Analysis and the Salem Radio Network:

Richard Land, host of Richard Land Live! and president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, will meet with other Salem Radio Network hosts in Washington, DC, tomorrow to deliver SRN’s “Free Our Health Care Now” petition, opposing the health care reform legislation now before Congress. He will be joined by prominent radio hosts Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Janet Parshall, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt.

The petition, sponsored by the National Center for Policy Analysis and SRN, has gained over 1.2 million signatures since its launch May 25. Printed copies of the petition will be transported to the U.S. Capitol in an ambulance and delivered to congressional lawmakers on gurneys.

“This petition is indicative of a spontaneous grass roots eruption of protest against a government takeover of the American health care system,” said Land. “Anyone who doubts the strength and vitality of this movement needs only have attended one of the thousands of town hall meetings to know that this is real.”

Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) have agreed to accept the boxes of petitions at a news conference set for 2 p.m. and will take the boxes to the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid following the conference. The conference will take place at the Upper Senate Park, adjacent to the Russell Senate Office Building. NCPA Chairman and former Delaware Governor Pete DuPont will lead the news conference, which will take place just hours before President Obama’s health care address to a joint session of Congress.

In addition, House GOP leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) will deliver copies of the signatures to the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Other lawmakers to appear at the conference will be announced later.

For the record, the "National Center for Policy Analysis [is] a research group in Dallas that is partially financed by the insurance industry."

The petition can be found here.

What Makes a Maverick?

I know I have written about this before and that there are bigger issues facing this nation at the moment, but it is driving me nuts, so I am writing about it again.

As I marveled at last time, the conventional media wisdom that John McCain's decision to tap Sarah Palin as his running mate was a sign that he was reclaiming his reputation as a "maverick" despite the fact that the choice was a complete and utter capitulation to the Religious Right.

I'm fully aware that trotting out definitions of words is a hackneyed device, but in this case, it seems kind of relevant - Maverick: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party.

Back in 2000, McCain established his reputation as a "maverick" by bucking his "party" and especially the "group" of Religious Right activists who constitute that party's base with his infamous declaration that they were "agents of intolerance" and a "corrupting influences on religion and politics." So at least in that context, his reputation as a maverick was not completely underserved. 

But since then, he has completely caved to the realities of Republican politics, fallen back in line, and cravenly sublimated himself to the Right's demands.  Yet, for some reason, the media fails to recognize this glaringly obvious fact. 

But even more amazing is the fact that, ever since he named Palin to his ticket, the Religious Right has begun praising McCain's "maverickness."

Shortly after McCain made the announcement, the Family Research Council hailed Palin as "McCain's Co-Maverick." Earlier this month Gary Bauer declared that his "maverick reputation" would "appeal to swing voters." And now, buried in this long US News article, we get Michael Medved saying "Both Palin and McCain are mavericks, authentic, and original."

What group or party does the Right think McCain thwarted in picking Palin, other than his own VP short list of Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge?  The media and the pundits?  Whoever it was, it certainly wasn't the GOP or the Religious Right.  

For the media, McCain initially established his "maverick" reputation by exhibiting independence from the Republican Party and the Religious Right.  He has since negated that persona in a multitude of ways, much to the delight of the Republican Party and the Religious Right, who are now inexplicably crowing that McCain's "maverick" reputation will be advantageous in November.    

It seems that the media considering McCain a "maverick" because he once parted ways with the Republican Party and its right-wing base, and the Republican Party and its right-wing base thinks he's a "maverick" because he picked a running mate that confounded the media.

Needless to say, both cannot be true.  And, in fact, neither is.

Frankly, the fact that the Religious Right is now hailing McCain for his "maverick" reputation shows just how undeserved that reputation really is.  

More on the Right's 'Double Standard' for Religion in Politics

Radio talker Michael Medved complains about some imaginary “double standards” he saw following remarks by Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at a Compassion Summit earlier this month:

From most commentators, Hillary received high marks for her thoughtful, surprisingly intimate answers to such questions. … Nevertheless, the generally positive reaction to her comments raises obvious questions about faith, Democrats and double standards.

Imagine that George W. Bush told a public forum that he had “felt the enveloping support and love of God” since childhood, and that on “many, many occasions” he “felt like the Holy Spirit was there with me.”

It’s not hard to imagine the derisive tabloid headlines: “Bush: God Is With Me” or “Prez Sees Spirits” or “W. Talks About His Imaginary Friend.” Howard Dean might comment: “It sounds like Bush is once again saying that he talks to God, so we better watch out. The last time that happened, he took us to a war based on false intelligence.” …

Why is it less controversial when liberals talk about their religious outlook than it is for conservatives to speak about our faith?

Controversial? In fact, it’s difficult to name any recent candidate for any major office who didn’t talk about his or her faith. And now that he mentions it, we might point out that it’s been the liberal candidates (along with poor Mitt Romney) who have had their faith questioned by the Right. When the right-wing media hasn’t been whispering that Obama is a secret Muslim, they’ve been speculating about the particulars of his pastor’s theology. One activist conducted his own investigation and declared Obama’s Christianity “woefully deficient.”

Likewise, Clinton’s faith is considered fair game for attacks from the Right. For evidence, look no further than four paragraphs later in the very same article by Michael Medved, when he cavalierly asserts that “no one objects to Hillary’s God-talk because, in essence, nobody fully believes it. Her frequent encounters with the Holy Spirit sound no more formidable than Dennis Kucinich’s sighting of a UFO (in the company of Shirley McLaine – now that’s a problem).”

As for Hillary, she can’t point to a single issue in which her supposedly “deep commitment to my Methodist faith” actually shaped her thinking, beyond a very bland and generalized concern for the poor as “the least among us.” She doesn’t scare non-believers because all the religious overtones in her speeches and interviews can’t erase the overwhelming impression they receive that “she’s one of us” – and her positions on abortion, homosexuality, stem cells, and most church-state issues further reassure them that she’s still on their side on the culture war.

According to Medved, “no one in the country” takes Clinton’s “well-advertised interaction with the Holy Spirit” as genuine.

While Clinton’s membership in a Capitol Hill prayer group is common knowledge, her fellow members in the group—such as Rick Santorum and Jim Inhofe—are taken at face value when they talk about how their faith influences their politics. Clinton, as Medved demonstrates, is not—apparently because the Right doesn’t like her political positions. What’s the term for that? Oh yeah—“double standard.”

Michael Medved Is Making Sense

Medved asks a good question about Alan Keyes' third vanity run for President in light of his statement that he'd consider Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback as possible vice-presidential candidates: "How can Dr. Keyes on the one hand praise his two rivals for their moral clarity and decency then on the other hand condemn the entire Republican field as so lacking in morality and decency that he needed to join the fray yet again? "
Syndicate content

Michael Medved Posts Archive

Josh Glasstetter, Wednesday 11/23/2011, 6:40pm
Brent Bozell says the protesters at UC Davis “wanted desperately to be pepper-sprayed.” Michael Medved crosses conservative activists by pushing for Mitt Romney. Even during the economic downturn many Religious Right groups increased their spending. Maggie Gallagher explains how to explain your disapproval of marriage equality over Thanksgiving dinner. Which of course distracts from the real reason of Thanksgiving…to celebrate capitalism. MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 09/01/2010, 12:33pm
Right-wing radio host Michael Medved in his new Townhall column has discovered how God would vote in the upcoming election, and the answer isn’t surprising. According to Medved, “it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that the Almighty would cast his all-important ballot for Republicans.” But how can he be so sure of how God would vote in November? Well, Medved argues that progressives’ commitment to social justice cannot have religious sanction because he says that progressivism, unlike conservatism, is inherently discriminatory. “Biblical view” (... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 09/08/2009, 1:47pm
Richard Land is wading into the healthcare reform debate, announcing that he'll and several right-wing radio hosts be delivering more than a million petitions to Congress on behalf of the National Center for Policy Analysis and the Salem Radio Network: Richard Land, host of Richard Land Live! and president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, will meet with other Salem Radio Network hosts in Washington, DC, tomorrow to deliver SRN’s “Free Our Health Care Now” petition, opposing the health care reform legislation now before Congress. He will be joined by... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 09/23/2008, 3:56pm
I know I have written about this before and that there are bigger issues facing this nation at the moment, but it is driving me nuts, so I am writing about it again.As I marveled at last time, the conventional media wisdom that John McCain's decision to tap Sarah Palin as his running mate was a sign that he was reclaiming his reputation as a "maverick" despite the fact that the choice was a complete and utter capitulation to the Religious Right.I'm fully aware that trotting out definitions of words is a hackneyed device, but in this case, it seems kind of relevant - Maverick:... MORE >
, Wednesday 04/23/2008, 5:19pm
Radio talker Michael Medved complains about some imaginary “double standards” he saw following remarks by Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at a Compassion Summit earlier this month: From most commentators, Hillary received high marks for her thoughtful, surprisingly intimate answers to such questions. … Nevertheless, the generally positive reaction to her comments raises obvious questions about faith, Democrats and double standards. Imagine that George W. Bush told a public forum that he had “felt the... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 09/21/2007, 1:08pm
Medved asks a good question about Alan Keyes' third vanity run for President in light of his statement that he'd consider Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback as possible vice-presidential candidates: "How can Dr. Keyes on the one hand praise his two rivals for their moral clarity and decency then on the other hand condemn the entire Republican field as so lacking in morality and decency that he needed to join the fray yet again? " MORE >