CLINTON'S ALLIES ATTACK `RELIGIOUS RIGHT'

When told the astonishing news that a Jew had become Lord Mayor of Dublin, Yogi Berra knowingly shook his head and responded, "Only in America." I was reminded of the priceless remark of that famous philosopher when learning of the following news item.

A Washington Post survey this week revealed an interesting datum concerning the upcoming mayoral race in our nation's capital. By a margin of 3-2, former D.C. mayor and ex-con Marion Barry, recently elected to the city council, is favored by the estimable voters of that jurisdiction for re-election to his old post. As Billy Crystal would say, "Isn't that mahh-velous!"

Quick, now: Everyone who wants D.C. to be made the 51st state, on your feet.

* * * * *

An interesting, though high-risk strategy national Democratic leaders are rolling out for this year's elections is becoming increasingly clear. That is their shrill attempt to demonize and denounce the Christian right, to effectively read such Americans out of the mainstream as unfit and unqualified -- by virtue of their faith -- to engage in politics, whether as candidates, paid staffers or volunteers.

Thus we have Op Ed pieces sprouting in USA Today and elsewhere from such as USC law professor Susan Estrich, whose moment on the national stage was managing the 1988 Dukakis campaign (from August's gaping lead of 17 points, to November's loss of 40 states). And we have Rep. Vic Fazio of California, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, lashing out at conservative Christians. Rep. Fazio held a news conference this week to say that right-wing evangelical groups such as the Christian Coalition were using "subterranean tactics" in a "stealth takeover of power" to "subvert the Republican Party."

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas circulated a letter to President Clinton that has been signed by all 44 Republican U.S. senators, from liberal Jim Jeffords (Vt.) to conservative Jesse Helms (N.C.). The letter reads:

"As the November elections draw closer, Americans will be looking to Republican and Democrat candidates to discuss their positions on the challenges facing our country. And we believe that a frank debate of our differences on issues like health care, taxes, crime and foreign policy ... will be good for America.

"What is not good for America, however, is questioning a candidate's fitness for office because of his or her religious beliefs. And that is precisely what several prominent members of your party have done in recent days, making comments that bring to mind the type of attacks faced by [Catholic Democrats] Al Smith in 1928 and John Kennedy in 1960.

"Mr. President, you have spoken eloquently in the past about the need for tolerance in our lives, and about the importance of religion in the lives of Americans. We write to ask that you now join us in repudiating the remarks of those who use terms like 'fire-breathing Christian radical right', and who cheapen our democracy through religious bigotry."

It will be interesting to see the President's reply. One wonders whether that reply will satisfy his correspondents any more than the reply received from President Clinton by James Cardinal Hickey, archbishop of Washington, D.C. Cardinal Hickey wrote the President in March to protest the outrageous and viciously anti-Catholic, pro-homosexual rantings of Clinton administration Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders.

Effectively urging a redefinition of the family, Elders had endorsed homosexual adoptions and called homosexual sex "normal and healthy." Taking "strong exception" with Elders' views of how religious leaders view human sexuality, Hickey wrote the President, urging him to publicly disavow Elders' statements. Hickey also accused Elders of encouraging "a lifestyle that puts so-called homosexual unions on a par with marriage and family and condones homosexual behavior among young people."

How would the first Democratic President in 12 years balance gays (who gave his '92 campaign more than $3 million) and Catholic voters, many of whom became 1980s era Reagan Democrats only to be wooed back in the face of George Bush's fecklessness by a centrist-sounding candidate Clinton? Clinton sided with his Surgeon General. Space does not permit the full exchange to be reprinted here, but columnist Robert Novak supplies a summary. "President Clinton has rejected requests from the Catholic archbishop of Washington to disavow Dr. Elders' comments about sexuality, signaling that she must be treated with kid gloves no matter how embarrassing her statements."

Cardinal Hickey's spokesman said, "One can only conclude from both letters that Dr. Elders is speaking for the administration."

One wonders: What conclusions are drawn by dictators and thugs worldwide -- Saddam Hussein and Kim Il Sung come to mind -- as they take the measure of a President so eager to be liked, so unwilling to offend anyone?

Novak concludes, devastatingly: "The reality that she (Elders) is out of control and nothing will be done about it tells much about this presidency."