May 2008

You know that something odd is happening within the Republican Party when a high-profile Religious Right leader is publicly advising John McCain NOT to seek the endorsement of other high-profile Religious Right leaders.  

And you know that something really odd is happening when that figure is Ralph Reed, whose own political career tanked thanks to McCain’s own investigation into the corrupt world of Jack Abramoff.   Yet here Reed is, nearly two years later, doling out campaign advice to McCain as the candidate struggles to overcome the controversy generated by the endorsements of John Hagee and Rod Parsley:

John McCain should stop seeking endorsements from evangelical pastors and instead appeal directly to their church members, said Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition executive director.

“John McCain doesn't need to be standing at a bank of microphones next to a particular leader,'' Reed said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's “Political Capital With Al Hunt,'' to be broadcast today. “My advice would be stay away from endorsements and stick to the issues.''

…

Reed, 46, said McCain's strategy of wooing evangelicals shouldn't be “top down,'' and his meetings with leaders and activists should be held in private.

“He needs to connect with them'' by touting his opposition to same-sex marriage and his anti-abortion record, said Reed, a regional director of President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.

…

McCain has made “some real progress'' in repairing his relationship with evangelicals, Reed said. He cited a May 6 speech at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in which McCain promised to choose judges in the mold of U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Both were among the five justices who voted in June 2007 to weaken the senator's landmark campaign-finance law.

“It was one of the best speeches on judicial conservative philosophy from a Republican nominee in my career,'' Reed said.

McCain clearly needs some help on figuring out how best to woo the right-wing base he needs in November, but it’s not clear that he should be taking advice from a guy who lost his own Republican primary race because of his history of exploiting that base for professional gain.

It’s been a while since Pat Robertson’s natural disaster obsession has led him to predict the end times. In fact, during “700 Club” coverage of the cyclone that hit Burma and Chinese earthquake, he almost seemed to be restraining himself. But as tornadoes racked the Midwest, Robertson apparently couldn’t help himself, suggesting that these disasters may be “the birth pangs of a new order”:

;

CNS reports that a slew of conservative bigwigs—Limbaugh, Norquist, Bill Donohue, Ralph Reed, Morton Blackwell—really like Bobby Jindal.  Norquist: “Bobby Jindal is a great American.  He is great on guns, great on taxes, a Roman Catholic, a Southerner and an Indian-American.  Bobby Jindal would be great for the GOP and perfect for McCain.” Crist, on the other hand, does not energize conservatives like Connie Mackay: “We have concerns about Governor Crist. While he claims to be pro-life he has not been an advocate…We would not be supportive of his candidacy for Vice-President…I think it would not help him. McCain needs to continue to try and energize the base. I think that would certainly not energize the base and I think I could go one step further and say it would de-energize the base."

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family weighs in on the continuing story of Colorado’s SB 200, the bill which seeks to “normalize all varieties of sexual orientation” with coed restrooms and fundamentally alter Colorado’s culture: “With SB 200, however, we no longer have two 'sexes'; we enter a brave new world with a myriad of 'sexual orientations' that must not be discriminated against, upon pain of the substantial civil and criminal penalties contained in the bill.”

Despite the fact that John McCain was forced to publicly reject the endorsements of both Rod Parsley and John Hagee last week, it doesn’t look like his campaign surrogates are willing to follow suit and repudiate Hagee’s remarks as “deeply offensive and indefensible.” 

In fact, not only are they not repudiating Hagee, they are actually joining him for his 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit in July.  

As Max Blumenthal first reported yesterday, Senator Joseph Lieberman, who has long been one of McCain’s most ardent supporters, is scheduled to headline this year’s Night To Honor Israel Banquet where he is scheduled to share the stage with Hagee

Sen. Joe Lieberman says he'll speak at a July conference hosted by Rev. John Hagee, whose endorsement was recently rejected by Republican John McCain because of Hagee's controversial remarks about religion.

Lieberman, one of presumed GOP presidential nominee McCain's strongest supporters, said Wednesday while Hagee's comments were unacceptable and hurtful, he will judge him on his life work fighting anti-Semitism and building bridges between Christians and Jews.

With Lieberman announcing that he will in fact stick with his scheduled commitment, we've started a petition calling on him to cancel this appearance, which can be found here.  

Also joining Hagee at the event will be Gary Bauer, who has also been a vocal advocate for McCain, having supported his campaign back in 2000 and then endorsing him again this time around.  When not busy earning his paycheck as a right-wing political operative - marshalling support for the GOP by trading on wedge issues, decrying hate crimes legislation, fighting efforts to address climate change, pushing voter ID requirements, and calling for the monitoring of mosques – he’s been hard at work selling McCain to the Religious Right and defending him against the so-called biased liberal media.  

Bauer also happens to be a board member of Hagee’s CUFI and, according to the itinerary, is scheduled to speak at no less than four separate panels:

10:00AM-11:30AM: Supporting The Jewish State - Now Or Never?

Pastor John Hagee, Founder & National Chairman Of Christians United For Israel (Cufi)

Gary Bauer, CUFI Executive Board Member

1:30PM- 3:00PM: Break Out Session One

Israel 101: The Basics Of The Arab Israeli Conflict

Gary Bauer, President of American Values

Charles Jacobs, Founder & President of The David Project Center for Jewish Leadership

Roz Rothstein, International Director of StandWithUs

3:30PM- 5:00PM: Break Out Session Two

Israel 101: The Basics Of The Arab Israeli Conflict

Gary Bauer, President of American Values

Charles Jacobs, Founder & President of The David Project Center for Jewish Leadership

Roz Rothstein, International Director of StandWithUs

1:30PM- 3:30PM: Middle East Briefing

Gary Bauer, President of American Values

Congressman Elliot Engel (D-NY)

William Kristol, Editor of The Weekly Standard

Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN)

When McCain announced Bauer’s endorsement, he stated that Bauer’s “advice and counsel [would] be critical” to his campaign.  Presumably, given Bauer’s close ties to Hagee, his advice and counsel was to encourage McCain to seek Hagee’s support – support that McCain has now embarrassingly had to disavow.  But Bauer is standing by Hagee and obviously thinks that sharing the stage with him is nothing to be embarrassed about, so it raised the question of just how much more of Bauer’s “advice and counsel” the McCain campaign will be seeking in the future.

At the same time that John McCain was rejecting the endorsement of John Hagee and Hagee was un-endorsing McCain, the televangelist's taped show just happened to be addressing the subject of how all those politicians who make friends with him don't really know him.

Get the Flash Player to see this video clip.

I've had lunch alone with President George Bush. I've met his father. I've met the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. I've met the vice president of the United States. I've met and talked with every Israeli prime minister since Menachem Begin. I've met Mikhail Gorbachev, premier of the Soviet Union. I've even met Rush Limbaugh and Larry King, but the point is, I've met them--I don't know them, and they don't know me.

With Senate Bill 200 on its way to the desk of Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, right-wing groups in the state have gone into battle mode to get him to veto the legislation, claiming that it will somehow protect sexual predators by forcing everyone to share the same bathroom.

Equal Rights Colorado explains that SB 200:

[W]ill expand language prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including transgender status, in housing practices, public accommodation, eligibility for jury service, availability of family planning services, as well as many other areas. This is a chance to update the current laws in order to have consistency and predictability in the way Colorado's anti-discrimination laws are applied. It will also add sex, marital status, disability, age, national origin, ancestry and religion as needed."

That sounds like a good thing ... unless, of course, you are Focus on the Family, in which case you choose to interpret the legislation in a far more ludicrous fashion and then run this radio ad in the state:

"Mom..."

If the Colorado legislature has its way...

"A man in a dress came into the girl's restroom at school today."

We could all be dealing with a new type of predator.

"Honey, there was a man in the women's showers at the gym today, and the management said it was, it was Colorado law."

And instead of our kids worrying about class work, they'll be worrying about who might be in the restroom with them.

"No way I'm going in there (school bell), I'd rather wait all day if a guy's in there."

Our children must be protected from predators, but if Governor Ritter won't veto Senate Bill 200, all public restrooms, including those in our public schools, will be open to anyone of any sex.

Colorado's Democrat-controlled legislature has already passed this bill, but Governor Ritter still has time to veto it. Call him now and ask him to protect our kids and veto SB 200. Call 303-866-2471. 303-866-2471.

After a month, “Expelled”—the anti-evolution film starring Ben Stein—is fading from the scene with disappointing sales (although associate producer Mark Mathis says he’s pleased). The movie’s efforts to portray Intelligent Design creationism as a valid scientific field being persecuted by the authorities probably never had a chance with academics familiar with these dubious creationist arguments, but then again, it probably wasn’t the movie’s intention to convince scientists that ID was a legitimate scientific theory. Instead, “Expelled” took its battle against evolution to the political arena.

This was apparent in the film’s marketing strategy of reaching out to right-wing media outlets and activists, who embraced the half-baked Darwin-Hitler connection at the center of “Expelled.”

And—regarding the strange subplot of Yoko Ono suing over the film’s use of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” without getting the rights—a lawyer for the movie recently argued that the film’s message is pegged toward influencing this year’s presidential election, according to the AP:

A lawyer for the movie's distributors has warned that the litigation could wreck the movie's political message by preventing it from impacting viewers in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential campaign.

While it’s too early to say how creationism will figure into the presidential race, the political impact of “Expelled” can be seen more directly in state legislatures, with a rash of new legislation challenging science education in public high schools. “I think Expelled definitely has played a role,” said ID-advocate Casey Luskin of Discovery Institute.

According to the National Center for Science Education, anti-evolution bills were recently introduced in Florida, Missouri, and Alabama, but the legislative sessions in those states ended before the bills could pass. Versions in South Carolina and Michigan also appear to be stalled for now. But a bill in Louisiana to undermine classroom teaching on the topics of “evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” was passed unanimously in the state Senate and has already passed through a committee in the House.

The major claim of “Expelled” is that scientists working to provide some—any—legitimacy to Intelligent Design are facing persecution. The stories told in the movie don’t seem to pan out, but as Stein and company are surely aware, the debate over creationism is not taking place at research universities but at school boards, state legislatures, and public high school science classes. A newly published survey of high school teachers found that 25 percent address creationism or Intelligent Design in the classroom, and 12 percent call creationism a “valid scientific alternative” to evolution. Ben Stein’s rants about Nazis seem unlikely to chance the basic course of scientific inquiry into the natural world, but the legacy of “Expelled” may be bills, like Louisiana’s, to put the supernatural world into the science classroom.

Various right-wing groups held a press conference and protest earlier this week and nobody cared, so now Morality in Media is complaining about bias: "But when prominent pro-decency and pro-family organizations that expected great things from President Bush in the war against obscenity gather together at the National Press Club to protest the failure of the Justice Department to vigorously enforce federal obscenity laws, followed by a demonstration at the Department, the secular media ignore these events. How can this be??"

Last week, there was speculation swirling that John McCain was considering choosing one-time presidential rival Mike Huckabee as his vice-presidential running mate and over the weekend, Huckabee himself made it abundantly clear that he really, really wants this job:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said yesterday he’d like to be John McCain’s running mate.

“There’s no one I would rather be on a ticket with than John McCain,” said Huckabee, who was a stronger than expected challenger against McCain for the Republican presidential nomination.

“All during the campaign when I was his rival, not a running mate, there was no one who was more complimentary of him publicly and privately. . . . I still wanted to win, but if I couldn’t, John McCain was always the guy I would have supported and have now supported.”

The conventional wisdom is that picking Huckabee would go a long way toward helping McCain shore up the right-wing base that has been somewhat reluctant to support him, given that McCain’s own outreach to that community has little to show so far beyond the controversy generated by the endorsements of John Hagee and Rod Parsely.   

Considering that McCain’s own efforts to woo the Right have been such a disaster, it might behoove his campaign to think long and hard about bringing Huckabee on board because if he climbs aboard the Straight Talk Express, he’ll be bringing his own right-wing baggage along for the ride. 

By now, everyone is familiar with Huckabee’s 1992 statement that the government should have been quarantining those infected with HIV or his statement on the campaign trail that the US Constitution should be amended to meet “God's standards,” or his view that the role of government was to promote Jesus Christ,  so McCain ought to expect to be asked whether he agrees with those views.  He can probably also expect to get lots of grief from former supporters of Mitt Romney, who did not particularly appreciate Huckabee’s attempts to use his own Christian faith as a means of highlighting Romney’s Mormonism and thereby undermine his campaign efforts to reach out to right-wing voters.  

While the McCain camp might consider itself prepared to deal with these sorts of issues, it’ll have its work cut out when it tries to explain away the people who endorsed Huckabee … people like Janet Folger, for instance, who think that the marriage ruling in California is a sign of the End Times.   

Folger was an avid Huckabee supporter from the moment he won the Values Voter Debate which she organized and for which she hand-picked the choir that sang “Why Should God Bless America?,” after which she anointed him the "David among Jesse’s sons."  She went on to pen columns claiming that only Huckabee could prevent Hillary Clinton from throwing all Christians into prison and save her fantasy world from “evil queen and her dragon of slaughter.”  

For her efforts, she was tapped by Huckabee to serve as co-chair of his Faith and Values Coalition, so McCain can look forward to answering questions about whether he agree with her efforts to pray for bad weather to keep voter turnout down, her statements that supporting Barack Obama is like supporting Nazis, and the front-group she launched to attack both Mitt Romney and McCain himself.

And McCain can also look forward to answering questions about Rick Scarborough who, like Folger, served on Huckabee’s Faith and Family Values Coalition.  Scarborough, a self-described “Christocrat” heads Vision America and, when he’s not out palling around with Alan Keys, has a penchant for suggesting that evangelical leaders are dying off because the nation has turned its back on God, suggesting that Christians will have "the blood of martyrs on [their] hands"if they don't oppose hate crimes legislation, blaming "the church" for just standing by and allowing the election of "unrighteous leaders" in 2006, saying that opponents of the War in Iraq are committing treason, organizing conferences designed to highlight the “War on Christians and Values Voters,” and penning books entitled “Liberalism Kills Kids” among other things.

In fact, McCain and Huckabee would have a difficult time explaining away pretty much the entirely of Huckabee’s Faith and Family Values Coalition, which included dozens of right-wing activists like of Don Wildmon, Mike Farris, Mat Staver, Kelly Shackelford, and Phil Burress; not to mention Huckabee’s consorting with the likes of Tim and Beverly LaHaye and Steve Hotze, who once signed a manifesto declaring:

    • A wife may work outside the home only with her husband's consent

    • "Biblical spanking" that results in "temporary or superficial bruises or welts" should not be considered a crime

    • No doctor shall provide medical service on the Sabbath

    • All disease and disability is caused by the sin of Adam and Eve

    • Medical problems are frequently caused by personal sin

And let’s not forget Huckabee’s first job working with James Robison:

Considering that the McCain campaign chalks up the Hagee and Parsley controversy to poor vetting, presumably they intend to do a better job in the future; but if they pick Huckabee, it’ll be obvious that they haven’t learned their lesson at all.  While they may think that Huckabee’s primary contribution to the McCain effort will be his ability to bring along a rabid following of extreme right-wing supporters, allowing McCain to focus on courting the general electorate, it is possible that they will instead end up spending a lot of time trying to distance themselves from controversy such blatant pandering will inevitably generate.

Ex-Rep. Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation might have thought he was pretty edgy in resorting to Nazi metaphors to describe the California Supreme Court’s decision in favor of marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But Janet Folger consulted her sources and came up with an even more apocalyptic comparison:

There was only one time in history, according to these writings, where men were given in marriage to men, and women given in marriage to women.

Want to venture a guess as to when? No, it wasn't in Sodom and Gomorrah, although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course, but according to the Talmud, not homosexual "marriage." What about ancient Greece? Rome? No. Babylon? No again. The one time in history when homosexual "marriage" was practiced was … during the days of Noah. And according to Satinover, that's what the "Babylonian Talmud" attributes as the final straw that led to the Flood. …

In fact, [Caucus for America’s Aryeh Spero] said, "the writings indicated that it wasn't even so much the 'straw that broke the camel's back,' but that the sin in and of itself is so contrary to why God created the world, so contrary to the order of God's nature, that God said then and there 'I have to start all over … to annihilate the world and start from the beginning. …'"

Not only did Folger indicate that gay marriage is what caused the deluge, she outlined specifically what that means for the California decision: “the end of the world.”

The one time it happened was: "During the days of Noah." When I first heard this, my mind immediately went to a verse I've heard many times but never with such relevance. The verse is found in Matthew 24:37. It reads:

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. – Mathew 24:37 (NIV)

I used to read this verse and think: It was bad at lots of points in history; it doesn't necessarily mean now, but if these Jewish writings are true, we are uniquely like the "days of Noah" right now – and only right now. …

I'm praying and working to protect marriage in California (and the rest of the country) not only because I care about marriage, but because I care about civilization. And, if we obey God, he just may spare us from the judgment we deserve.

Ever since Bishop Harry Jackson first emerged on the political scene a few years ago, he has used the fact that he is a “registered Democrat” as a means of gaining traction in the media in order to assist the Religious Right in furthering its agenda. 

And push the right-wing agenda he has: fighting against hate crimes legislation; participating in right-wing events like the “Justice Sunday” rallies and Values Voter Summits; hobnobbing with the Religious Right powerbrokers in The Arlington Group;  serving as a loyal foot-soldier fighting the War on Christmas; and writing columns criticizing Barack Obama and others minimizing concerns about the thousands of people being killed in the war in Iraq by contrasting those deaths to the “genocidal murder” of “millions of black babies.

Most recently, Jackson has been paling around the country with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, with whom he wrote a book entitled “Personal Faith Public Policy” and now, joining Perkins for regular video features called “The TRUTH in Black and White” (Jackson is black, Perkins is white, get it? If you don't, Perkins kindly points it.)  

Through out it all, Jackson has steadfastly maintained and exploited his status as a “registered Democrat” in order to give himself the appearance of nonpartisanship and independence instead of admitting that he is just another right-wing operative.  And now this “registered Democrat” is penning columns urging John McCain to take a firm stand against marriage equality in order to win right-wing votes by demonstrating fealty to “our cause”:

Yet, we also need to urge John McCain to raise a clear banner for social responsibility. The only way McCain will be able to beat the Obama Express is to rally social conservatives and give evangelicals a reason to get excited about his candidacy. Although many Christians don’t want to acknowledge that we are in a cultural war, millions will gather to support a leader who champions our cause. Let’s ask McCain if he will rise to the challenge.

Of course, the fact that Jackson is supporting McCain isn’t as much of a surprise as it is a sign of just how bogus his “registered Democrat” shtick truly is ... but he’s sticking with it because, as he explained back in 2006, it is something he maintains solely because it suits his political needs:

I voted for President Bush, but here in Maryland—a primarily Democratic state—in order to vote in the primaries that affect the election, you need to be a Democrat. That's where I started. Over time, however, I've found that I have very little in common with the Democratic Party in terms of national moral values issues. Still, being able to say I'm a registered Democrat disarms many of the people who want to write me off as an "Oreo" or an "Uncle Tom."

The New York Times covers the ninth annual Father-Daughter Purity Ball, where fathers pledge “before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity” and reports that the balls were started by Randy and Lisa Wilson - Randy is "the national field director of church ministries for the Family Research Council."

Ever since Republicans were thumped in the 2006 election, the Right has been telling anyone who will listen that the GOP’s woes can be attributed to the fact that Republicans have been insufficiently faithful to the Religious Right’s agenda.  Since then, the GOP’s fortunes have continued to fade and so desperate are they to stop the bleeding heading into November that they’ve adopted a nearly unprecedented strategy of distancing themselves from their right-wing base: 

Something big is missing from House Republicans’ 2008 campaign agenda for American families, and that is no accident.

There’s not a single mention in the 47-point program of such red-meat GOP issues as banning abortion, outlawing same-sex marriage, allowing prayer in the public schools, banning flag burning and protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. Instead, the plan focuses on Republican-introduced ideas as allowing private sector workers to take compensatory time instead of premium pay for overtime worked (HR 6025) or permitting full tax deductibility for most medical expenses (HR 636).

In an effort to appeal to moderates in their uphill push to retake the House, Republicans have pushed divisive social issues off center stage and replaced them with a host of pocketbook items they hope will appeal to working women, moderates and even some Democrats.

Of course, the GOP wants it known that just because it is too embarrassed to be seen publicly with the Religious Right and fears that its narrow agenda is a drag on Republicans’ own electoral chances, that doesn’t mean they don’t still love them:

Rep. Joe Pitts , R-Pa., head of the House Republicans’ 70-member Values Action Team, said he wasn’t concerned by the omission of social issues from the House GOP platform. “I have no assurance from the leaders about this. But I know the leaders and I know that when we come out with the whole big picture, these are all things we will stand for,’’ Pitts said.

Considering that one of the Right’s standard complaints is that Republicans court them in election years and then more or less ignore their agenda once in office, it’s hard to see how also ignoring them at election time is going to be a winning strategy for the GOP.

Right-wing pastor Ken Hutcherson attacks cowardly white Evangelicals: "'Right now a lot of white Evangelicals are just 'Evan-jellyfish' with no spiritual vertebrae,' he says. Hutcherson is particularly critical of the many liberal and some mainstream leaders who signed on to the recently released document 'An Evangelical Manifesto.' He accuses the signers of 'trying to hijack evangelicalism because of their moral standards and because of their cultural background.'"

It seems as if the Right is finally realizing that they are losing the battle over the issue of the environment and have decided, rather than to change their tune, to instead adopt a posture of appearing to care about global warming and climate issues in order to push their own agendas.

For instance, a few weeks ago we wrote about the American Environmental Coalition, a group founded by right-wing stalwarts like Pat Robertson, Paul Weyrich, and Gary Bauer which was created to “bring balance to the debate” about climate change by essentially denying the existence of global warming and fighting against efforts to address it.

Right off the bat, they found a champion in militant global-warming skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe … but apparently one phony right-wing environmental group just wasn’t getting the job done and now Inhofe is back with another:

Christian leaders have joined with pastors and legislators to put forth a new initiative on caring for the environment. Today marks the launch of www.WeGetIt.org, a website offering visitors the opportunity to sign up and be a part of an historic movement.

The reaction to climate change has reached deep into prevailing culture. Knee-jerk reactions with good intentions can harm more than help. The recent increase in the cost of food is one example of the consequence of diverting crops such as corn to the production of ethanol as a fuel source. The impact that steep corn price increases have had on food distribution to third-world countries has been profoundly negative. Keeping in mind this difficult lesson, the "We Get It" coalition offers recommendations by which we can honor and care for the environment along with the poor.

The "We Get It" campaign coalition includes Senator James Inhofe, Cornwall Alliance, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and Wallbuilders. Janet Parshall, Joel Belz of World Magazine, Acton Institute and Dr. Richard Land have also joined this monumental movement.

That’ll fly, because when one thinks of those protecting the environment and assisting third-world countries, one automatically thinks of the tireless efforts historically put forth by the likes of the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and Wallbuilders.

The effort appears to be designed to try and piggyback off of Al Gore's "We Can Solve It" campaign, with the notable exception that their position is that “our stewardship of creation must be based on Biblical principles” and the demand that any efforts to protect the environment must be guided by “principles of His Word to care for the poor and tend His creation.”   As the video on their website explains, efforts to protect the environment and fight global warming will only end up making food more expensive and less available, which will ultimately hurt the poor in places like Africa and cause children to go hungry.  As they see it, “contrary to popular belief, the science is not settled on whether the Earth’s recent, slightly warming was caused by man or nature.

If you didn’t know better, you might initially mistake this video for a plea for donations to help those suffering around the world, at least until right-wing icon Janet Parshall shows up and explains that “it won’t cost you a dime” because what will really help those in need is “faithful environmental stewardship” and a right-wing pledge to “rally together on behalf of our neighbors in poor and developing countries, to speak up for them and protect them from the effects of well-meaning, but flawed policies."

FRC's Tony Perkins says they are trying to show that you can be "green without being gullible," which is a distinct change from his earlier view that believers should welcome the consequences of climate change as a sign of the End Times.

Richard Viguerie is not happy about the current state of the GOP: "The Republican Party must have new leadership, or conservatives will continue to withhold support, and the Party will crash in flames in November ... Accordingly, Republican Party leaders must resign. Leaders in the White House, the Congress, and the Republican National Committee and its affiliates, along with most Republican leaders at the state level, have failed – or outright betrayed – the conservative voters who put them in their positions. The result is that the Republican Party's brand has become a negative to an extent greater than in the Watergate era, perhaps even worse than in the days of Herbert Hoover."

The Religious Right has always relied on the argument, explicit or implicit, that the only good Christians are those that follow right-wing politics, and that if you have different positions—or even just different priorities—you’re not a real Christian. This election season is no different, as Janet Folger demonstrated in her column today about “priorities”:

And we need to prioritize when it comes to our policies and our politics. Take a bunch of "evangelical Christians" who, according to Sunday's Seattle Times, claim to be pro-life Christians and for Obama. No matter how slick the slogans or how "cool" the candidate, you can't be both.

Look, to be a Christian means you have to follow Christ. What did Christ say? "If you love me, you'll keep my commandments." And what were some of those commandments? God prioritized them for us, and "Thou shalt not kill" made the top 10. It wasn't "change" or "diversity" or "tolerance" or "government programs" that made the list; it was the protection of human life.

Forget thinking about how commandments such as that one might apply to, say, war, and forget working against abortion through means other than the GOP and the Supreme Court—to Folger, the link between moral absolutes and partisan politics is so ironclad that there is only one analogy possible:

I'm not questioning the First Amendment rights of anyone, but I have to wonder if under today's "tolerance is supreme" mindset, we would have also encouraged and welcomed Nazism with open arms into our schools, universities, churches, prisons and neighborhoods. If a presidential candidate who favors killing 50 million citizens can be supported by self-proclaimed "evangelical Christians," I think the answer is yes. Thankfully, we have history to show us the result of such an unmistakable evil philosophy. But if we look a littler harder, we can see the results of Obama's philosophy today: 50 million dead children, millions of wounded mothers, fathers, siblings and friends … and the consequences continue.

Ever since John Hagee endorsed John McCain back in February, the McCain campaign has been struggling to explain just why it thought that having Hagee’s endorsement would be a good thing, suggesting that it was a mistake and that Hagee was poorly vetted while McCain himself has been forced to repeatedly distance himself from Hagee’s statements.  At the same time, McCain has also repeatedly stated that he glad to have Hagee’s endorsement. 

The McCain campaign has seemed particularly concerned about Hagee’s anti-Catholic views and gone out of its way to repudiate them and Hagee himself as been particularly taken aback by the outrage, insisting he has been misquoted and misunderstood.  And so, today Hagee undertook some damage control by issuing a letter of apology to his most insistent critic, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League:

An evangelical pastor backing John McCain tried to put his controversial remarks about the Catholic Church behind him today, issuing an apology to the head of the Catholic League expressing "deep regret for any comments Catholics found hurtful."

In an attempt to solidify his backing among evangelicals, McCain actively sought the support of Pastor John Hagee, who heads the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, when he launched his presidential bid last year. McCain's campaign was caught off guard by the uproar over Hagee's comments after the pastor's February endorsement.

…

In his letter to the Catholic League today, Hagee said he now understands that other terms he used to describe the church - "the great whore" and the "apostate church" - are "rhetorical devices long employed in anti-Catholic literature." He said he had gained a better understanding in recent weeks of the Catholic Church's relationship to the Jewish faith. Hagee wrote of his "profound respect for the Catholic people" in the letter and said he hoped to advance "greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals."

The Catholic League said in a statement that it accepted the apology.

Of course, Donohue has his own issues, as we wrote about just yesterday, so one right-wing extremist apologizing to another right-wing extremist doesn’t do much to quell the controversy for the McCain campaign.  

Plus, Hagee has yet to apologize for all the other controversial things he has said, such as his insistence that New Orleans was targeted for destruction by God with Hurricane Katrina because a “homosexual rally” was being planned for the following Monday, that the United States must launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iran in order to fulfill God's plan, that the US State Department is inviting a “bloodbath” by encouraging Israel to give up land as part of any Middle East peace accord, or that those who take public policy positions he disagrees with on issues from abortion and gay marriage to welfare are “counterfeit Christians.”

If Hagee is hoping to undo the damage he’s done to McCain’s campaign by reaching out to his critics in “a spirit of mutual respect and reconciliation,” he’s got a long way to go and several more letters to write.

On Friday, we discussed Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights President Bill Donohue’s campaign against Barack Obama’s Catholic advisory council—a beef based on the fact that a number of these advisors, like most U.S. Catholics, are politically pro-choice. It might seem odd that a group so sensitive to references to Catholicism that it would boycott a beer company with flimsy links to a gay-themed “Last Supper” would be so easy to mollify when it came to McCain’s alliance with John Hagee, and odder still that Donohue seems to be settling in for the long haul of dogging Obama for links to pro-choice Catholics.

But readers of this blog have probably noticed, that’s just Donohue modus operandi. Whether he’s hyping a mythical “War on Christmas,” mouthing off randomly about gays, or intimidating critics of Bush’s judicial nominees with phony charges of anti-Catholicism, Donohue’s tool belt is limited to hyping his “beef” with popular culture and attacking political opponents as religious “bigots.”

Catholics for Choice (formerly Catholics for a Free Choice) has been Donohue’s top target for years—for example, he would label the group’s past president “the biggest anti-Catholic bigot in the nation.” Now, CFC has released an in-depth report on Donohue and the Catholic League (PDF here) (via RH Reality Check):

According to an annual report put out by the League, the number of examples of anti-Catholicism grew from 140 in 1995 to 320 in 2006, yet the only thing that seems to have actually increased is the League's definition of what constitutes anti-Catholic activity.

Despite (or perhaps because of) Donohue’s predictable partisanship and bullying style, the Catholic League still manages to get a fair number of its shotgun press releases into the media, where Donohue is treated as if he were a representative of all Catholics, if not a spokesman for the church itself. This is a precarious position for a group whose political philosophy is built upon the suggestion that those who are pro-choice—including the majority of U.S. Catholics—are the “anti-Catholic” enemy.

Pope Benedict’s visit to the United States is long over, but the Washington Times continues to doggedly report on one particular angle: the many thousands receiving communion at the pope’s masses included a handful of Democratic politicians, who, like the majority of American Catholics, are pro-choice.

While this seems like the season for picking over politicians’ personal religious lives, the Right has been trumpeting this point of contention for a number of years to use as a wedge between liberal candidates and faith. In particular, John Kerry’s communion became a public issue in 2004.

In 2008, none of the major presidential candidates are Catholic. But that just means the Right has to get more creative.

Last week, Catholic League President Bill Donohue tried to jump on the Rev. Wright bandwagon with his own brand of religious policing, attacking not Barack Obama’s faith, but that of his Catholic advisory council: “If these are the best ‘committed Catholic leaders, scholars and advocates’ Obama can find, then it is evident that he has a ‘Wright’ problem when it comes to picking Catholic advisors.” Donahue’s beef? Many of Obama’s Catholic backers disagree with him on abortion, stem-cell research, and school vouchers.

The advisors complained, bringing up the existence of other moral issues besides the ones that fit the Republican platform: war, poverty, etc. Donohue responded, calling it “shocking” that one could set political priorities on par with abortion.

And then, seeing a chance to attack Obama instead of his advisors, Donohue promptly compared the senator to Hitler (for opposing a graphic bill designed by abortion opponents to establish personhood for the fetus):

“It is so nice to know that Obama thinks abortion ‘presents a profound moral challenge.’ Is infanticide another ‘profound moral challenge’? To wit: When he was in the Illinois state senate he led the fight to deny health care to babies born alive who survived an abortion. That, my friends, is not a moral challenge—it’s a Hitlerian decision.”

Televangelist John Hagee, in a recently aired sermon, outlined what he meant by the term “counterfeit Christians”: those who take public policy positions he disagrees with, on issues from abortion and gay marriage to welfare. Watch:

John McCain, who courted Hagee’s endorsement, now can’t seem to decide what to do with the pastor. Perhaps McCain will continue to denounce him on TV while bragging about their close relations in front of the folks Hagee describes—those who are “truly saved” by the GOP platform.

Last year, Phyllis Schlafly spoke on the campus of Bates College where , among other things, she “belittled the feminist movement as ‘teaching women to be victims,’ decried intellectual men as ‘liberal slobs’ and argued that feminism "is incompatible with marriage and motherhood."  She then went on to top herself by claiming that a married woman cannot be sexually assaulted by her husband, saying:

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape.”

Needless to say, those views caused a bit of controversy … controversy that has now reemerged at Washington University in St. Louis when school officials decided to honor Schlafly with an honorary doctorate:

Washington University's decision to bestow an honorary degree on conservative political activist and author Phyllis Schlafly has stirred outrage among some students and faculty.

Opponents of Schlafly's honorary doctorate formed a group on the social-networking website Facebook and had 1,023 members as of Monday evening.

Apparently the students don’t think that Washington University should be honoring an immigrant-hating, UN-detesting, evolution-fighting, court-stripping, conspiracy-theorist anti-feminist hypocrite who blames the Virginia Tech massacre on the English Department – go figure.

But the university isn’t backing down … and neither is Schlafly, who granted an interview to a Washington University student newspaper where she complained that the protesting students have “too much extra time” on their hands and reiterated her view that wives cannot be raped by their husbands: 

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

From the Alamogordo Daily News: "A presentation by Bob Wright, president of the Patriots Border Alliance, was heard by nearly 60 attendees at the Eagle Forum monthly meeting at Margo's Mexican Food in Alamogordo Tuesday afternoon."

Yesterday—Cinco de Mayo—John McCain announced a new Spanish-language section of his campaign website and plans to speak at the National Council of La Raza convention this summer in an effort to win Hispanic voters. While the Republican Party alienated many Latinos with the rise of the talk-radio-fueled anti-immigrant politics that halted debate over immigration reform, the GOP nominee hopes they will look past that:

McCain stressed his candidacy should be a natural fit for many Hispanics, whom he described as patriotic, loyal, family-oriented and appreciative of the GOP's opposition to abortion rights and support of small businesses.

"Everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message," McCain said.

And indeed, McCain once seemed “tailor-made” to reach out to Hispanics, as he was the standard-bearer for comprehensive immigration reform, but over the course of the Tancredo-inflected primary, McCain took himself in for an alteration, caving to demands from right-wing activists and converting to an “enforcement-first” position. By shifting to the right, he may have saved his campaign for the GOP nomination, but it’s not clear how he can continue to mollify the anti-immigrant crowd while reaching out to Hispanics.

Indeed, within hours of his announcement, WorldNetDaily was linking McCain to conspiracy theories about “reconquista” and “Aztlan,” asserting that the National Council of La Raza is “a radical Hispanic lobby tied to the movement to reconquer the Southwestern U.S. that was part of Mexico before the Mexican-American War that ended in 1848.”

As John McCain prepares to deliver his remarks on the future of the judiciary today in North Carolina, it looks like he will be under some close scrutiny from the Right, who are growing fed up with his seeming reluctance to throw them red meat:

In town-hall meetings, Sen. McCain makes a point to explain his positions on terrorism, taxes, the economy, energy and health care. But in his prepared remarks, he never mentions abortion, same-sex marriage, judges or gun rights. When asked, he often responds quickly and moves on.

"Imagine if you were an economic conservative and someone never talked about tax policy unless they were asked about it," said Charmaine Yoest, a vice president at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group focused on social issues.

Asked whether she thinks Sen. McCain really cares about the abortion issue, she said, "I don't know, and that's his problem."

As such, many of them are launching a campaign to make the issue of judges a centerpiece of the upcoming election:

Conservative leaders also want the party to embrace language that would instruct Senate leaders to make the confirmation of nominees a higher priority. Conservatives say Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) must press Democrats harder to confirm several controversial nominees, such as D.C. Circuit Court nominee Peter Keisler and 4th Circuit Court nominee Robert Conrad Jr.

Manuel Miranda, a former aide to ex-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), circulated a draft Monday of principles for the GOP platform committee to consider. Several conservative leaders quickly endorsed it. 

Paul Weyrich, chairman of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said he supports including the language on judicial nominees in the party platform.

“I think the more we particularize that whole issue, the more people focus on the topic,” Weyrich said. Making detailed guidelines on judicial nominees part of the platform would also help social conservatives hold McCain to account if he is elected president.

“You can compare what the party says with any subsequent action by its nominees,” said Weyrich. 

And while McCain is delivering his remarks, Republican National Committee officials will be courting right-wing leaders on this effort having “invited social conservative leaders based in and around Washington, D.C., to attend a meeting Tuesday morning where former Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) will give them a preview of McCain’s remarks.”   

Already McCain surrogate Sen. Sam Brownback is making the rounds assuring the Right that it’ll like what it hears and, judging by excerpts of McCain's remarks and preliminary press coverage, it certainly looks like that will be the case:  

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Tuesday he would appoint judges in the mold of conservatives John Roberts, Samuel Alito and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist if he were elected in November.

In an excerpt from a speech McCain was to give in Winston-Salem on Tuesday, the Arizona senator said he would "look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint."

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist -- jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference," McCain said.

In fact, so sure is the McCain camp that this speech will win over the Right that it is reaching out to them via GOPUSA seeking donations:   

We have a lot at stake in this presidential election. As a nation, we face many challenges that will require real leadership from our next president. I have said before that this election will be about the big things, not the small things, and I write to you today about one big issue in particular - the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can rest assured that given the opportunity to appoint judges, they will appoint those who make law with disregard for the will of the people.

There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges with a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.

If you want judges who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.

John McCain is planning to be in North Carolina tomorrow where he is scheduled to give a speech on judicial nominations:

John McCain’s campaign said Friday that Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback will join the presumptive GOP nominee in North Carolina next week for a major speech on judicial appointments.

Both Thompson and Brownback have endorsed the Arizona senator, and both Republicans presented themselves throughout the Republican primary battle as “consistent conservatives,” particularly regarding social issues and judicial appointments.

The speech, to be held Tuesday at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, will be just one element of a broader outreach to conservatives next week, according to the campaign.

McCain is expected to discuss the kinds of judges he would appoint up and down the federal bench.

Why he is doing this on the day of the Democratic primary in the state is hard to understand.  Perhaps he is hoping to work his way into the press coverage … or perhaps he is hoping to keep a rather low profile while he delivers remarks designed solely to, once again, assure the GOP’s right-wing base that he’ll appoint justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court without attracting too much attention from the media.  

Either way, he’s probably hoping that the press won’t bother to actually write about his record on judges as exemplified by, say, his 1987 support of Robert Bork [PDF]:

I would like to explain why I am going to vote of favor of confirmation [of Robert Bork], and why I do so without  any hesitation … I believe that what the Senate should appropriately examine in a nominee are: Integrity and character, legal competence, and philosophy and judicial temperament.  I believe Robert Bork is well qualified in all four respects … Judge Bork’s honesty, integrity, and diligence are above reproach … [he] demonstrates that he is not some intellectual “loose cannon on deck,” or a quixotic maverick jurist , but is a thoughtful, reasonable, jurist … [he] is hardly a radical, but is rather a very thoughtful judge in synch with the vast majority of his colleagues on the bench.  

…

First, and most importantly, is the question of Judge Bork’s view of the role of the judiciary.  Judge Bork is clearly a believer in judicial restraint.  He believes that the courts should not create social policy or arbitrate social policy disputes unless the Constitution clearly speaks to the issues.  He believes that in our republican form of government such decisions are properly left to legislatures elected by the people, not Federal judges appointed for life.  I have no problem with that view, because I wholeheartedly agree with it.  

…

I have no problem with my colleagues voting against Bork if they truly believe he is unfit for the Supreme Court – although I personally cannot conceive of how you could reach that conclusion … I believe Robert Bork will be an outstanding Justice and contributor on that Court … Robert Bork deserves our support and will be a great Supreme Court Justice.  

In his endorsement, McCain delivered a lengthy defense of Bork’s controversial views, stating that Roe v. Wade is "the clearest example of judicial 'legislation'" and that the rules it set out are "nonsense."   Nor did McCain appear to be a fan of the right to privacy, stating that it was entirely "created by Justice Douglas in the Griswold case."

Joining McCain will be Fred Thompson, who shares McCain’s affinity for Justices like Roberts and Alito and is already out making the pitch for McCain on the issue of judges, and Sen. Sam Brownback, who endorsed McCain after his own presidential campaign folded in the early-going, in part to help pay off his campaign debt, but also because he was promised that he “would play an advisory role in helping decide who he should nominate for the Supreme Court.”   That undoubtedly appealed to Brownback because, as he repeatedly stated when he was campaigning, he wanted nothing more than “to be the president that appoints the justice that's needed vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade."  While he won’t get that opportunity to do that directly, advising McCain on Supreme Court nominations will still allow him to play an important role in finding a Supreme Court nominee that will finally eliminate the right to choose.

This morning, President Bush celebrated a National Day of Prayer, an annual non-sectarian rite going back decades. A much younger tradition was also observed: a phony “official” Day of Prayer group tried to usurp the national celebration with its own Religious Right-flavored broadcast.

As we explained last year, the National Day of Prayer Task Force—chaired by Shirley Dobson, James Dobson’s wife—is in fact an independent group whose platform runs contrary to the multi-faith spirit of the law. NDPTF specifically excludes participation by “Non-Judeo-Christian” groups, promotes fighting a “cultural war,” and its volunteers must swear their belief in an inerrant Bible.

Despite efforts this year by Jews on First, the Interfaith Alliance, and others to clarify that NDPTF is not a federal agency, confusion remains. The president himself helped to muddy the waters during the official White House ceremony, inviting the Dobsons and others involved with NDPTF and opening his remarks by thanking Shirley Dobson “for being the Chairman of the National Day of Prayer.”

The NDPTF ceremony this afternoon featured segments on the three branches of government, each featuring a prominent Republican speaker. The representative of the judicial branch was Judge Janice Rogers Brown, perhaps the most extreme-right of the controversial appeals-court nominees put forth by Bush. After Brown spoke on the nation’s “spiritual trajectory” (through events such as putting “In God We Trust” on coins), Vonette Bright—widow of Bill Bright and co-founder of Campus Crusade for Christ—led a prayer for more right-wing judges to “uphold God’s plan for marriage” and ban abortion: