September 2008

Has Focus on the Family been promoting abortion or the homosexual agenda?  Because, as everyone knows, that is what is responsible for our current economic crisis.  What else could explain the fact that Focus has to lay off nearly fifty employees:

Focus on the Family has announced a restructuring within its distribution arm that will affect 46 employees through layoffs or reassignment.

Over the last several years, Focus has experienced a significant decline in its sales of books, CDs and DVDs because of competition from online retailers and large retailers like Wal-Mart.

The restructuring is tied to Focus' partnership with Christian Book Distributors, which will take over its product distribution, according to a news release from Focus.

"We are accountable to our donors to spend their money in the most cost-effective and productive manner possible," Focus Chief Operating Officer Glenn Williams said in a statement. "It is certainly heartbreaking that in this case fulfilling that duty means having to say goodbye to some members of our Focus family, but industry realities really leave us no alternative."

This comes on top of last year’s round of lay offs, in which Focus was forced to shed thirty employees.  If this isn’t proof that  abortion, weak families, and the homosexual agenda are destroying our economy, I don’t know what is.;

Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America is quite proud of her PhD, proclaiming herself “a recognized authority on sex trafficking, the United Nations, U.S. domestic issues, as well as national and international cultural, children's and women's concerns.”  Of course, it turns out that her PhD is actually in Communication Theory from the State University of New York at Buffalo, so how that makes her an expert on sex trafficking is hard to understand.

But now comes a situation in which her PhD is actually relevant and so she is offering debate advice to Sarah Palin:

Dr. Janice Crouse, political commentator for Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, is an expert on presidential communication.  The former presidential speechwriter (Bush 41) said, “In a move distinctly different from Eisenhower’s abandonment of Richard Nixon when he got in trouble with the press, John McCain (R-Arizona) invited Palin to his ranch in Sedona, Arizona, where she will spend two days preparing for the debate — thus sending a signal of his continued support for his veep pick and providing a haven where she will be able to regroup from the vicious attacks and regain her confidence before she faces the ultimate test of her candidacy.”

How chivalrous of McCain to protect Palin from the mean old press so that she can cram for a few days before her big test.  And what expert advice does Crouse have for her?

(1)   First and foremost, be yourself, and remember — as Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense — we are endowed with the intelligence to equip us for self-governance: the colonists didn’t need a monarch to rule them, Reagan didn’t need State Department geeks to tell him how to win the Cold War, and you don’t need inside-the-beltway pundits to tell you how to be Vice President.  Your life experiences and intuition equip you just fine for the job.

(2)   You don’t have to know everything or be an expert in foreign affairs; you are training for a debate, not a television quiz show like Jeopardy.  If you duck and dodge like the vast majority of Washington pols, you will not retain the public’s admiration (52 percent favorability rating even after all the attacks).

(3)   Counter Sen. Joe Biden’s (D-Delaware) phony talk about his blue-collar background with the facts regarding the elitism of the leftist ticket, focusing on Sen. Obama’s (D-Illinois) extreme voting record, his radical friends and associates, and the extraordinary number of Obama earmarks in his short Senate tenure.

(4)   Push your actual executive decision-making experience in contrast to Obama’s appalling number of “present” votes during his Senate tenure.

(5)   Emphasize the role of Frank Raines (Obama’s financial advisor) and the leftist Congress in the current financial crisis.

(6)   Last, your primary job is to convince the public that you can be trusted, that you are honest, and that you are authentic.  The election, ultimately, will depend on the public’s assessment of the candidates’ trustworthiness — especially in this time of national upheaval over the national financial crisis.

Because nothing will demonstrate Palin’s honesty and authenticity and show that she can be trusted quite like engaging in thoroughly bogus attacks about earmarks and Obama’s advisors.

Last week, we noticed Tony Perkins blaming the current financial crisis on a “breakdown in the family” and the idea that social issues are somehow behind our current economic woes seems to be gaining traction among the Right.

Today, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel blasted Google’s opposition to California’s Proposition 8 by declaring that it will hurt their bottom line and cited WaMu and Wachovia, which both failed recently, as evidence:

"Google should focus on technology instead of warring against marriage and family values held by the majority of people worldwide," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. "Marriage between a man and a woman is the norm throughout the world. Google executives should be searching for ways to make the Internet more usable rather than promoting a radical redefinition of marriage.

"Companies that promoted anti-family policies have learned the hard way that such policies are bankrupt," Staver continued. "K-Mart learned its lesson several years ago. Washington Mutual and Wachovia, both of which actively promoted the homosexual agenda, have come to realize that anti-family policies will bankrupt the bottom line."

Maybe instead of fighting over a bailout of Wall Street, Congress should just outlaw the homosexual agenda, since that is obviously what is causing our current economic panic.  

But OneNewsNow informs us that there is some good news to come out of all the chaos:

A well-known pastor and author says the current economic crisis facing the United States should be a wake-up call for Americans to turn to Christ.

Dr. Charles Stanley is pastor of First Baptist Church of Atlanta, Georgia, and founder of In Touch Ministries. He says there is no question that America needs a spiritual awakening -- and he believes the ongoing economic woes could cause some in the country to turn to the God of the Bible.

"When God gets a hold of Americans' money -- whatever messes with our money gets people's attention, but we need enough heartache that drives us to God," Dr. Stanley contends.

Now if only Congress would start listening to the Religious Right instead of all those egghead economists and just get Americans to turn to Christ, stop having abortions, and defeat the homosexual agenda, all of our economic problems would be solved.

Last week we wrote a few posts about the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative," which took place over the weekend, and Pastor Wiley Drake's planned participation in the effort that so that he could endorse his own campaign. 

The event unfolded as planned and Drake was featured prominently in the press coverage but we've noticed something odd: the ADF has issued a press release trumpeting their efforts and accompanied it with a list of the 31 pastors [PDF] who took part and you'll notice that Drake's name is nowhere to be found.

Was Drake an official participant in the ADF's scheme or was he just using it as an opportunity to get some press coverage for himself? 

It doesn't really matter either way, because he and several of the other pastors who participated got what they wanted, now that Americans United has complaints filed against them.

Just a few hours ago I wrote about the DNC efforts to highlight John McCain's ties to the gambling industry and target that message at Religious Right voters who vehemently oppose gambling and consider it a sin. 

Now, on a related note, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post has a piece up about Freedom's Watch, noting that "in the past 10 days, [it] has dropped more than $1.6 million on ads in six House races and two Senate contests" as part of its effort to help Republican candidates. The man behind the organization is Sheldon Adelson, the third richest man in America who just so happened to make his fortune as a Las Vegas casino mogul and, as Cillizza reports, the Religious Right is not happy about his efforts:

Democrats have sought to make Adelson an issue in their response to Freedom's Watch's activities and, in Alabama's 2nd district, got a boost from the state Christian Coalition today.

"Sheldon Adelson does not share our values as Alabamans, and Freedom's Watch's underhanded attack ads do nothing but cheapen the political discourse in this state," said Dr. Randy Brinson, president of the Alabama Christian Coalition. "Where Adelson has placed his treasure makes it quite clear where his heart is: in gambling and in backing the regime in China that persecutes Christians."

For the record, The Christian Coalition of Alabama broke with the national Christian Coalition last year and now goes by the name Christian Action Alabama. But before the name change, they were the ones who were duped into accepting gambling funds by Ralph Reed as mentioned in the previous post.  

According to the recent New York Times article on McCain's ties to the industry, there were concerns that his gambling forays might create the appearance of impropriety and alienate the base, which McCain dismissed:

For much of his adult life, Mr. McCain has gambled as often as once a month, friends and associates said, traveling to Las Vegas for weekend betting marathons. Former senior campaign officials said they worried about Mr. McCain’s patronage of casinos, given the power he wields over the industry. The officials, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.

“We were always concerned about appearances,” one former official said. “If you go around saying that appearances matter, then they matter.”

The former official said he would tell Mr. McCain: “Do we really have to go to a casino? I don’t think it’s a good idea. The base doesn’t like it. It doesn’t look good. And good things don’t happen in casinos at midnight.”

“You worry too much,” Mr. McCain would respond, the official said.

Considering that the Religious Right is willing to publicly blast Adleson's political efforts because of the source of his wealth, it seems that it might have been prudent of McCain to have paid a little more attention to the concerns of the base on this issue.

The AP has an article on the on-going battle over Prop. 8 in California that relates that the people and organizations behind the "yes" effort are trying to conceal their true identity and find a way to get people to to support their effort to "turn back the clock without appearing mean-spirited or out of touch with a mainstream that has become increasingly tolerant of gay relationships": 

The Yes on 8 strategy for now involves emphasizing the court's role in upsetting the status quo while downplaying what the amendment's passage would mean for gays and lesbians. The campaign's literature and official ballot arguments both state the amendment is needed because "four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people's vote" and that "it's not an attack on the gay lifestyle."

Frank Schubert, a veteran public relations strategist who is co-managing the Yes on 8 campaign, said the understated strategy is designed to counter the principle message of gay rights advocates, who are portraying the upcoming vote as a matter of fairness and equality.

"They want people to feel like you are a bad person if you support what has been the definition of marriage since the dawn of time," Schubert said.

By avoiding anti-gay stereotypes and religious references, gay marriage opponents will more effectively reach potential supporters who might worry that backing the measure would get them labeled as "bigots or homophobes," he said.

It is too bad that the ProtectMarrige supporters just aren't comfortable being honest with themsevles and society about their true feelings.  I mean, just look at this list of those endorsing the effort - it practically screams anti-gay bigotry and homophobia:

Alliance Defense Fund
American Family Association
California Family Alliance
California Family Council
Concerned Women for America
Coral Ridge Ministries
Eagle Forum of California
Eagle Forum of Sacramento
Faith2Action
Family Research Council
Focus on the Family
Liberty Counsel
Pacific Justice Institute
Traditional Values Coalition

You are not fooling anyone, ProtectMarrige, so please just come out of the closet and be honest with yourselves.  We promise that nobody will think any less of you than they already do.  

Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, first made a name for himself last year by openly and unapologetically attacking Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith, blasting Christians who supported his candidacy and declaring “that Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.”

Now, Romney is not even running any more, but Jeffress isn’t done calling him a cult member or criticizing those who supported him:

Evangelicals who believe the country needs a Christian in the White House but promoted Mitt Romney's candidacy during the Republican primaries were hypocrites, according to a Texas pastor.
   
Romney, a Mormon, is not a Christian, the Rev. Robert Jeffress said, but a member of a "cult."

"I believe we should always support a Christian over a non-Christian," Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, told a packed audience of journalists at last weekend's Religion Newswriters Association (RNA) annual meeting. "The value of electing a Christian goes beyond public policies. . . . Christians are uniquely favored by God, [while] Mormons, Hindus and Muslims worship a false god. The eternal consequences outweigh political ones. It is worse to legitimize a faith that would lead people to a separation from God."

Jeffress made his remarks during a luncheon debate with Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on religious-liberty issues. The DeMoss Group, a Christian public-relations firm in Duluth, Ga., sponsored the event.

RNA president Kevin Eckstrom was quick to point out that they did not organize the event and that he thought it was important for people to be aware of Jeffress because of the influence he wields:

"A lot of people were uncomfortable with what Dr. Jeffress said about Mormons, but what we were hoping for was something provocative that would get people talking, and certainly this did it."

Many reporters said they had never heard the word "cult," which Jeffress repeatedly called the LDS Church, used so "freely and recklessly," said Eckstrom, editor of Religion News Service in Washington, D.C. But Jeffress used the same word to describe "Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists and virtually everyone else."

It was useful for reporters to be aware of such strident views, Eckstrom said, because they are "completely mainstream in a lot of evangelical quarters."

First Baptist of Dallas "is not a backwater pulpit somewhere. It is a major church in Texas and in Southern Baptist circles," Eckstrom said. "It's a huge institution and a lot of followers. He's not just spouting these opinions for himself but proud of the fact that he was going back to his congregation and declare every other religion was wrong, and at least 10,000 people hear this position every week."

Earlier this week, we noted that Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals wasn’t making any friends on the Right by blasting John McCain for completely selling out to them.  It looks like Cizik has no fear of rubbing salt in the wound, telling Dan Gilgoff that the Religious Right’s party-line commitment to the GOP is “unbiblical. It says you don't think. If you're simply voting on same sex marriage and abortion, you're not thinking. What I'm saying is that a lot of evangelicals don't think, sad to say.”

But more interesting, especially in light of the fact that Rob Schenck and the Family Research Council are accusing Barack Obama of snubbing evangelicals, is the fact that, according to Cizik, the McCain campaign is completely snubbing the NAE and other leaders:

The McCain campaign has beefed up its religious outreach efforts recently. How is their evangelical outreach going?

We put in a request with the McCain campaign and it was never responded to. Many figures in the Republican Party have reached out to the campaign stating their concern that the candidate has not reached out to evangelical leaders, but it went nowhere. And since we're so deep into the campaign, we can only assume that we're not going to get an answer. We had some people, including a governor and a major party official, who said to the campaign, "I think you should meet with some of these evangelicals." I have subsequently interpreted that they didn't think they needed to because they had an idea of their own and that maybe that was Sarah Palin.

Has the Obama campaign reached out to the National Association of Evangelicals?

We put in a request and an answer came back rather quickly: They wanted us to come to a meeting in Chicago with some 25 other leaders. And I went. One is left to conclude that the McCain people have concluded that they don't need such a meeting.

As we've written about before, the Alliance Defense Fund is organizing a face-off between right-wing churches and the IRS over limits on politicking by churches:

"Christian ministers from California and 21 other states will use their pulpits Sunday to deliver political sermons or endorse presidential candidates – defying a federal ban on campaigning by nonprofit groups."

The ADF and its partners want to turn right-wing churches into one giant GOTV operation for anti-gay, anti-abortion Republicans – all the while remaining 100% tax-exempt. Here's a taste of what a partisan church would be like, courtesy an ADF ally:

"I'm going to talk about the un-biblical stands that Barack Obama takes. Nobody who follows the Bible can vote for him," said the Rev. Wiley S. Drake of First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park. "We may not be politically correct, but we are going to be biblically correct. We are going to vote for those who follow the Bible.”

That’s the sort of ugly partisanship that Congress sought to avoid when in 1954 it restricted all tax-exempt groups from directly supporting or opposing candidates for public office. Tax-exempt status was created to support charitable, religious, and educational undertakings – not partisan warfare.

Churches and their leaders are of course free to address public policy and mobilize around the issues of the day, including directly supporting legislation. The ADF’s claim that churches are being muzzled is patently false.

This weekend’s publicity stunt by the ADF’s partisan pastors may just result in some of the churches losing their tax-exempt status. Perhaps they could save themselves the effort and be honest with the public by simply reincorporating as political action committees.

The Catholic League's Bill Donohue comes to Sarah Palin's defense now that the video of her being blessed by Thomas Muthee has been making its way into the mainstream media, accusing the "chattering class" of ridiculing Palin's faith and demanding that they respect Muthee's apparent belief in witchcraft:

“Witchcraft is a sad reality in many parts of Africa, resulting in scores of deaths in Kenya over the past two decades. Bishop Muthee’s blessing, then, was simply a reflection of his cultural understanding of evil. While others are not obliged to accept his interpretation, all can be expected to respect it. More than that—Muthee should be hailed for asking God to shield Palin from harmful forces, however they may be manifested. And for this he is mocked and Palin ridiculed?

“We know that many cultural elites have a hard time embracing religion, but is it too much to ask that they at least show some manners when discussing subjects which most Americans hold dear?”

What exactly does Donohue mean by saying that "witchcraft is a sad reality in many parts of Africa" and that is has resulted "in scores of deaths in Kenya over the past two decades"?  Is he saying that witches in Africa have actually killed people or is he merely referring to those situations where people kill others suspected of witchcraft? 

Anyway, we look forward to Donohue finally coming out and decrying the incessant attacks the Right has been making on Barack Obama's faith for the last several months.

I saw this article in the Washington Post yesterday about the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed at Guantanamo Bay in which he attempted to find out if the judges were fans of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson because he felt that, if they were, he could not get a fair trial:

Invoking names such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the admitted organizer of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, probed the private opinions of the military judge who is overseeing his case Tuesday in a series of sometimes testy exchanges during a hearing on the judge's impartiality.

Mohammed, wearing a black turban, began by asking Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann about his religious beliefs and whether he had any association with the religious organizations of Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell.

"If you are in one of those denominations, you are not going to be fair," said Mohammed, who switched between Arabic and English when he spoke to the judge. The judge said he had not belonged to any congregation for some time but had attended Lutheran and Episcopal churches.

I didn't write about it because I felt it was crass to try and score political points off the ramblings of a man responsible for thousands of American deaths ... but then again, I don't work for the Family Research Council:

What was most offensive was the subject matter of this interrogation-namely, the judge's personal religious views. "We are well-known as extremists and fanatics, and there are also Christians and Jews that are very extremist," Mohammed said. "If you, for example, were part of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson's groups, then you would not at all be impartial towards us." He also asked if the judge read books by Billy Graham or Pat Buchanan and wanted to know what movies he has watched. Col. Kohlmann rightly declined to answer. But this line of questioning seemed to ring a bell. It is reminiscent of the questioning, now abandoned, of judicial nominees about their religious beliefs by liberal senators during their confirmation hearings. But the Constitution is clear-"no religious test shall ever be required" for public office. The charge that only a radical secularist can be impartial on the bench, or that conservatives and evangelical Christians can never be, must be rejected from any source.

It’s not everyday that you come across an erudite argument such as this one that claims that it is not only wise, but fundamentally necessary to teach creationism in science class:

If science is limited to only natural explanations but some natural phenomena are actually the result of supernatural causes then science would never be able to discover that truth — not a very good position for science. Defining science to allow for this possibility is just common sense.

Science must limit itself to testable explanations not natural explanations. Then the supernaturalist will be just as free as the naturalist to make testable explanations of natural phenomena. The view with the best explanation of the empirical evidence should prevail.

In essence, the argument is that some things might have supernatural causes and if we don’t look to the supernatural to explain and understand them, then that is just bad science.  

If this sort of nonsense were written by some right-wing blogger, it could be mocked and dismissed as the ramblings of an ill-informed creationism advocate.  Unfortunately, as the Texas Freedom Network reports, it was actually written by Don McLeroy  who, last year, was named Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education by Gov. Rick Perry and whose credentials regarding evolutionary biology are limited to whatever he happed to pick up while attending dental school.

Because it seems like a week can’t go by without some right-wing figure who once said they could never support John McCain suddenly deciding that they will support him after all, we bring you this:

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum told a radio show in January that a Sen. John McCain presidency would be "very, very dangerous for Republicans" because McCain often sided with Democrats on domestic issues.

Santorum's perspective, however, has changed.

During an interview Tuesday Santorum pointed to two examples as turning points: the religion forum at Saddleback and the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate.

"Knowing McCain, he's choosing someone in whom he sees a lot of himself," Santorum said during a telephone interview with the Intelligencer Journal about his Senate colleague of 12 years. "He tries to find people who have a similar head as he does, and if he sees him in her … that gives me a better feel for him and a little more confidence in him."

Of course, that is pretty much to opposite of what he was saying last year:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum has drawn at least one conclusion about the Republican presidential primary field: Anybody but John McCain.

…

“The only one I wouldn’t support is McCain,” Santorum said during an interview in his office at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, where he is a senior fellow.

“I don’t agree with him on hardly any issues,’’ Santorum said. “I don’t think he has the temperament and leadership ability to move the country in the right direction.”

Just the other day we were wondering why Barack Obama’s campaign was legitimizing right-wing leader Rob Schenck of Faith and Action by attending the forum he was moderating, especially considering his attacks on Obama’s Christian faith and his long history of militant anti-abortion activism, fines, and arrests.

Now, it looks like the campaign figured out whom it was dealing with and decided to pull out of the event and Schenck is none-too-pleased:

A top-level advisor and ten-member delegation for Sen. Barack Obama were no-shows at yesterday's Reese RoundTable on Capitol Hill, a forum for the campaigns to present their respective candidates' worldviews and how that informs their ideas about government.

The Obama representative, the Reverend Evna Terri La Velle, Senior Advisor Religious Affairs for Obama for America, inexplicably cancelled only hours before the event. When event organizers appealed to Democratic Party Officials, they were told someone would "look into it," but that these decisions are made in Chicago, meaning Obama campaign headquarters.

Event host, Rev. Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), who moderated the discussion, said he was profoundly disappointed. He released this statement:

"Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean assured me last year in a private meeting in his office that his party would do everything possible to constructively engage Evangelicals, traditional Catholics and other moral conservatives. He even pledged to participate in events like this. Barack Obama has made similar promises. They did a couple of high-profile media events, but it appears they were not serious at a grass-roots level. Yesterday's last-minute unexplained cancellation was nothing short of a snub. Our capacity crowd was insulted by their absence."

The campaign’s cancellation was anything but inexplicable – most politicians don’t want to be associated with the type of people who do things like this (except John McCain of course):

3 Charged in Scheme to Thrust Fetus at Clinton
14 July 1992
The Associated Press

Three anti-abortion supporters were arrested Tuesday after thrusting a container with a 19-week-old fetus at presidential candidate Bill Clinton.

"By the grace of God, Bill Clinton has been brought face to face with a victim of choice," Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry said outside Clinton's headquarters at the Hotel Inter-Continental.

Clinton appeared unfazed by the incident.

"They tried to hand it to me but I wouldn't take it," he said. "It was no big deal."

The incident occurred as Clinton left the hotel around 8:30 a.m. for his morning jog.

Harley David Belew, 37, of Binghamton; the Rev. Robert Schenck, 34, of Tonawanda; and the Rev. Joseph Forman, 30, of Marietta, Ga., were charged with three health code violations: transporting a fetus into New York, removal of human remains from the place of death and improper disposal of a fetus.

Minister's advice to Clinton draws Secret Service scrutiny Pro-lifer cited God's judgment
26 December 1996
The Washington Times

The Rev. Robert Schenck, a pro-life activist, gave President Clinton some Christmas Eve advice as their paths crossed at the Washington Cathedral.

"God will hold you to account, Mr. President," Mr. Schenck said he told Mr. Clinton as he walked by to receive Communion.

…

Mr. Schenck, general secretary of the theologically conservative National Clergy Council, said he was inspired to remind the president of God's judgment on his pro-choice policies when he realized he would walk past him in a Communion line.

"At that moment I said, `Here we are,' " Mr. Schenck said in a telephone interview yesterday. "It was a rare moment when you are this close to the president. As I got closer to him I thought, No. 1, it had to be brief."

Mr. Schenck said his comment drew on a verse in Hebrews 14. "I said it respectfully, in what I would call my pastoral voice."

Mr. Schenck is no stranger to the limelight - nor to President Clinton. In 1992, he led Operation Rescue's protest of Buffalo abortion clinics and participated in handing Mr. Clinton a dead fetus.

We have written several times already about the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission and their incessant attacks on Barack Obama's Christian faith, so this new 7-part series entitled "Why Obama Is Not A Christian"doesn't come as much of a surprise. 

In the first entry, the Rev. Donald Hamer explains why Obama is "not a Christian by any Biblical or historic measure" and declares that his statements of faith are stunning examples of "subtle, diabolical deceit" before concluding with a simple question: "Who are you going to believe? Jesus Christ or Barack Obama?"

We look forward to the Religious Right decrying this attack on Obama's "deeply held beliefs."

For some reason during this election cycle, we seem to be seeing at lot of Religious Right leaders taking clear stances in favor of Republican candiates yet insisting that they are not "endorsing" anyone. 

It started back during the primary, when Richard Land could barely contain his excitement over Fred Thompson's campaign and was among his most vocal supporters but whenever the issue came up, Land insisted that he didn't endrose candidates. 

James Dobson did the same thing when he announced that, with John McCain's decision to name Sarah Palin as his running mate, he would now "pull the lever for John McCain." Yet, simultaneously, Dobson was also insisting that he was "not endorsing John McCain ... I just don’t endorse presidential candidates and I don’t see myself doing that this time." Apparently announcing on a national radio program heard by millions of people that he will vote for McCain is somehow different than "endorsing" him.  

And now we have Jerry Falwell Jr. pulling the same rhetorical trick.  After refusing to allow those attending a Barack Obama rally in Lynchburg to use a parking lot owned by Liberty University citing tax restrictions, Falwell turned around a few weeks later and hosted an McCain campaing event on campus. On top of that, he recently unveiled a massive voter registration drive in an effort to help deliver the state of Virginia for McCain in November with hopes that Liberty will "go down in history as the college that elected a president."

And yet here he is pretending that he is not actively backing McCain:

The Rev. Jonathan Falwell said he will concentrate on preaching the Gospel at Thomas Road Baptist Church, where his father once left no doubt about his support for Republican candidates. Jerry Falwell gained national attention for backing politicians, starting with Ronald Reagan.

“I don’t intend to endorse anyone,” Jonathan Falwell said. “I don’t think it’s my role to be telling anyone who to vote for.”

It is even more unbelievable considering that, in the same article, The News & Advance reports this:

In a video posted in early August by France 24, an international news and current affairs television channel, Falwell indicated a preference for John McCain a month before the Republican National Convention.

“He is a person I can get behind and support and look at and see where he can really do some good things for our country,” Falwell said of McCain, “and so while he may not be the 100 percent perfect person, you know, none of us are and we just have to work with what God gave us,” Falwell said.

If there is a logical difference between right-wing leaders publicly declaring their support of McCain and "endorsing" them, we'd love to hear it.

Concerned Women for America recently released its "Election Sunday Package," a webpage full of audio and video resources to help mobilize right-wing voters for November.  Among those resources is this video called "Operation: Rally The Church" in which CWA President Wendy Wright explains that if Christians don't vote, "liberals who mock Christians, support abortion on demand and same-sex marriage, and would prefer that America be weak in the world community" will ruin this country.  She warns that if "citizens ... who love God don't vote, then the people who will be ruling over us in government will continue the slaughter of unborn babies, weaken marriage, and silence those who love God" and thus it is imperative that Christians do vote because all those who have died defending this country are putting "their hope in you ... to keep this a country worth living and dying for":

We’ve written about Rob Scheck a few times lately, mostly wondering why he was saying that NPR had tapped him to provide commentary on the Republican and Democratic conventions and noting his excitement that he had received a VIP invitation to John McCain’s announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate.  

Schenck is probably best known for his reportedly successful efforts to sneak into the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room and anoint the chairs with oil before Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings. But, as we’ve noted before, he got his start as a militant anti-abortion activist, often targeting Dr. Barnett Slepian who was eventually assassinated by an anti-abortion activist in 1998. 

More recently, he’s been leading a one-man crusade against Barack Obama’s Christian faith, suggesting that Obama might be, in fact, a Muslim infidel … and declaring that even if he’s not, his Christian faith is “woefully deficient” and even going so far as to question Obama’s claim that he “[prays] to Jesus every night, wondering why he would “pray to Jesus” rather than “pray to God in Jesus’ name.” 

Which makes this all the more confusing:

The Reese RoundTable on Capitol Hill will host senior campaign McCain advisor Robert Heckman and senior Obama advisor Evna La Valle for a lunch forum on Tuesday, September 23, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Capitol Hill Club, 300 1st  St., SE, Washington, DC.

The forum, entitled "How Does the Declaration of Independence Guide Your View of Government?" will focus on the inalienable rights enshrined the Declaration including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Topics will also include moral and religious issues. The program will be moderated by the Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), president of the National Clergy Council and chair of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance.

We understand that the Obama campaign is dedicated to reaching out to evangelicals during this election cycle, but maybe they should start trying to be a little more selective about just who those evangelicals are.

Back in July, it was announced that the European Court of Human Rights was going to be taking up the issue relating to Ireland and the right to choose:

The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) has today (28/07/08) confirmed that a case to challenge the current status quo on abortion – which it is supporting – has been accepted for consideration by the European Court of Human Rights.

The case, involving three women living in Ireland who travelled abroad for abortion services, was lodged in August 2005 with the Court.

The case centres around four Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. These include Article 8 with regard to the right of privacy in all family, home and personal interests, and entitlement to no public interference from any public authority in exercising this right; Article 3, which protects individuals from ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’; Article 2, which affords protection of the law to safeguard the life of an individual, and Article 14 which affords rights and freedoms without discrimination on any grounds.

According to an article that ran around that same time: “The three women, who said their rights were denied by being forced to seek terminations outside the State, are taking the case in Strasbourg … the three females involved include a woman who ran the risk of a pregnancy developing outside the womb, a woman who had chemotherapy for cancer and a woman who had her children placed in care.”

Though the case seems to have garnered little attention here in the United States, anti-abortion activists have been paying close attention to it and now it looks like two big-name Religious Right groups will be heading across the pond in order to defend Ireland’s restrictive laws in a case they are billing as “the Roe v. Wade of Europe”:

The Family Research Council announced today that that the European Court of Human Rights has granted permission for the organization to defend Ireland's ban on the practice of abortion. FRC will be represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and organizations.

"Family Research Council is proud to be working with the Alliance Defense Fund in this important battle," said Bill Saunders, FRC's Human Rights Counsel and Senior Fellow of the Center for Human Life and Bioethics, "Ireland has wisely chosen to protect its most vulnerable citizens and we will work tirelessly to ensure that unborn children remain protected in Ireland."

"No one should be allowed to decide that an innocent life is worthless.  ADF and FRC are looking forward to defending Ireland's abortion ban so that scores of pre-born children are guaranteed the protection the Irish people gave them," said ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull.  "This case is not only pivotal to Europe; it's pivotal to America.  With greater frequency, the U.S. Supreme Court looks across the ocean to see what other countries are doing when considering its own cases.  This case could be the Roe v. Wade of Europe."

Just yesterday we were noting the strange disconnect among the Religious Right between the idea that it is perfectly okay for Sarah Palin to be Vice President when she could not, in many religious denominations, serve in the capacity of a priest or pastor.  

As we noted then, this was especially obvious when it came to Southern Baptist leaders who are well-known for their belief that women must submit to their husbands and notoriously opposed to female pastors  … but even we are amazed at how deeply this opposition apparently runs:

Smiling women on the cover of a slick magazine. Sold from under the counter. Must request it from store clerk.

That’s not something a buyer would typically find in a Christian bookstore. Not unless it’s one of the more than 100 Lifeway Christian Bookstores across the United States, including about six in metro Atlanta.

Gospel Today, the Fayetteville-published magazine, was pulled off the racks by the bookstores’ owner, the Southern Baptist Convention. The problem? The five smiling women on the cover are women of the cloth — church pastors.

Southern Baptist polity says that’s a role reserved for men.

Teresa Hairston, owner of Gospel Today, whose glossy pages feature upbeat articles about health, living, music and ministry, said she discovered by e-mail that the September/October issue of the magazine had been demoted to the realm of the risque.

“It’s really kind of sad when you have people like [Gov.] Sarah Palin and [Sen.] Hillary Clinton providing encouragement and being role models for women around the world that we have such a divergent opinion about women who are able to be leaders in the church,” Hairston said. “I was pretty shocked.”

Chris Turner, a spokesman for Lifeway Resources, which runs the stores for the Southern Baptist Convention, said, “It is contrary to what we believe.”

Adelle M. Banks of the Religion News Service had an interesting article the other day looking at the issue of why Religious Right leaders who tend to think that wives should submit to their husbands and that women can't be church leaders are nonetheless gung-ho about Sarah Palin's VP candidacy: 

There may never be a female pastor leading Tony Perkins' Southern Baptist congregation in Louisiana, but there could be a woman taking over the vice president's mansion in Washington.

And as Perkins sees it, there's no contradiction there whatsoever.

"It's not a spiritual role," said Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and a church elder, who calls Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a "brilliant pick" for the Republican ticket.

"An elected official is not a spiritual leader -- and that's what the Scripture speaks to."

As Richard Land explains, "where the New Testament is silent, we're silent. Where the New Testament speaks, we're under its authority." And, as such, Palin is allowed to serve as Vice President because the Bible doesn't say she can't.  But if her husband decides he doesn't want her to be VP, then she can't: 

Land's wife works as a psychotherapist, but he said he couldn't see himself as "first dude" (a term used by Palin's husband). Still, he thinks decisions about roles are up to each husband and wife -- including Sarah and Todd Palin.

"The only thing that would disqualify Gov. Palin from being governor or vice president, in my opinion, would be if her husband didn't want her to do it," he said.

This issues seems to be especially difficult for Southern Baptist leaders like Land who, after all, are the primary proponents of the idea that wives must submit to their husbands, which is why we end up getting confusing pieces like this from Al Mohler:

When Gov. Palin was announced as Sen. John McCain's choice as running mate I was elated about her pro-life commitments and political philosophy, and I remain so. I also told The Wall Street Journal that, if I were her pastor, I would be concerned about how she could balance these responsibilities and what this would mean for her family and her roles as wife and mother. The news that broke over the weekend would make me only more concerned. But my concern would be for her and for her family -- not for the nation.

I am doing my best to be honest -- and not hypocritical -- about how I see this new situation. I could not imagine this in my own family, nor, I am confident, could the vast majority of those conservative Christians who are celebrating the nomination of Gov. Palin as Vice President. I have full confidence that my wife Mary can lead and run anything, from General Motors to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Nevertheless, I also know that I, along with our children, would find our worlds turned upside down. Beyond this, I believe that she would be less happy, less fulfilled, and less strategically deployed. She runs a program that influences the lives of hundreds of women and serves on the board of directors of our local crisis pregnancy center, but her most significant impact will be on the lives of two children who cannot imagine life without her -- and without her active engagement and motherly love.

We just wrote about this yesterday, but it looks like Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University voter drive is off to a fast start: 

In its first few days of encouraging students to register to vote locally, Liberty University has collected more than 2,500 voter registration forms.

“It’s going better than expected, and we’re going to continue to push it hard,” Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. said Wednesday.

...

“I just told them how important it was to register here,” Falwell said Wednesday. “I heard on the radio yesterday that … Virginia is still right on the fence and could go either way. They could go down in history as the college that elected a president.”

Liberty University sure does have some lofty goal, doesn't it?  Just last year, not long before he passed away, Jerry Falwell was musing that his ultimate goal was to one day have a Liberty grad sitting on the Supreme Court.

Earlier this week, The God-O-Meter noted that the Obama campaign was unveiling a new line of faith merchandise:

And so, of course, the Religious Right felt compelled to weigh in and dismiss the entire idea that people who don’t subscribe to their right-wing views can have any sort of faith at all:

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Focus on the Family board, called the move "symbolism and style over substance."

"This generic reach-out to people of 'faith' is going to be pretty quickly seen for what it is: more advertising than substance," he told CitizenLink. "This became abundantly clear in the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, when Barack Obama, having declared that he and his campaign were going to be reaching out to evangelicals, seemed to be completely out of touch with what evangelicals were concerned about, especially on issues of human life and marriage."

Mohler said he doesn't expect most Americans to fall for the "clever packaging."

"To put out a button that says 'Pro-Family, Pro-Obama' says basically nothing, other than a very clear attempt to use the language," he said. “‘Believers for Barack' is very interesting, but believers in what? Believers in whom?"

First of all, the term “believer” is not synonymous with “evangelical” and, try as they might, the Right does not own the terms “family” and "believer," and it does not get to decide who can and cannot use them.

Not long ago an obscure but well-heeled group called the American Society for Tradition, Family and Property started showing up on the right-wing scene, becoming very active in the fight against marriage euqality.  It is currently engaged in "a 30-day tour of cities and colleges across California to educate the public on the importance of preserving traditional marriage" and it is not off to a particularly good start, at least according to their latest press release:

Volunteers with the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) were assaulted on September 5th while distributing literature in support of traditional marriage at Santa Rosa Junior College.

...

TFP, a Catholic organization, was distributing flyers titled "Ten Reasons Why Homosexual 'Marriage' Is Harmful and Must Be Opposed." It calls on Californians to firmly and peacefully resist the advance of the so-called gay-rights movement.

TFP claims that its volunteers have been shouted at, swatted at, and had coffee thrown on them which, if true, we obviously don't condone.  Just to be safe, maybe they should start sending out their regiment of regalia clad activists from now on to help keep everyone in line:

After all, what good does it do to have a pseudo-military force like this if you don't use it?

Last week, we were noting with amazement how Sarah Palin went from complete unknown to de facto leader of the right-wing movement in a matter of weeks:

Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly, conservative cause prompter Richard Viguerie and Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich - all considered movement founders - each gave The Times the same two-word answer to the question about the emerging leader of the right: "Sarah Palin."

"None of the above names - Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee, DeLay - will be the conservative movement's leader in the coming years," Mr. Viguerie said. "Governor Palin's VP nomination is huge. It changes conservative, Republican and American politics for the next 20 years."

Of course, this raises an interesting prospect for what happens to Mike Huckabee in 2012 if John McCain loses this year:  

The former Arkansas governor emerged as one of Palin’s most vocal defenders when he spoke shortly before she took the stage at the Republican National Convention earlier this month.

But depending on how this election shapes up, they could end up political rivals for a future presidential bid with narratives that overlap and appeal to the same constituency.

“I think in a lot of ways, they’re pretty similar figures,” said Jay Barth, a political scientist at Hendrix College in Conway. “Their kind of personal style has some similarities to it. I think she really does cut into his turf significantly.”

Palin’s pick as John McCain’s running mate energized evangelicals, especially those who had been worried that he would choose a running mate who would support abortion rights. She’s also sided with the majority evangelical view in opposing gay marriage and expressing a desire to see creationism discussed alongside evolution in schools.

Those positions cut into Huckabee’s base of support among evangelicals, who were attracted to the Southern Baptist minister for his conservative stance on social issues. And, with a quick wit, Huckabee was able to make up for the lack of name recognition with an ability to grab the limelight.

But Palin—who’s selling herself as a “hockey mom” who hunts moose—is now dominating that limelight. If McCain loses in November, she could become the next in line for the GOP.

Back when he was running for the nomination, Huckabee saw Mitt Romney as the biggest threat to his efforts to secure his position as the Right’s favorite candidate and was absolutely merciless in attacking him, and while he might be willing to take a back seat to Palin at the moment in order to help John McCain’s campaign, he probably won’t be so deferential down the line if he finds himself in a face-to-face showdown with Palin for the Right’s support.

Just last week we were dismissively commenting on the supposed emergence of a new electoral demographic – the “faith moms” – noting that they seemed to be little more than the creation of Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition who coined the term based on observations about his own family.  

But what do you know?  CBN’s David Brody is reporting that there just might be something to this after all:  

The Brody File has been told that there are plans underway to organize a “Faith Moms” rally for Sarah Palin when she takes on Senator Biden at the October 2nd debate in St. Louis. The McCain camp is not behind it. It’s being organized by a couple of unnamed (for now) Evangelical groups.

We’ve heard a lot of talk about “hockey moms” ever since Sarah Palin entered the race. And yes, Palin is attracting these strong, Independent fierce, “pit bulls with lipstick” for sure. But the enthusiasm and the “get out of your seats and do something” spirit looks to be coming from what we may want to call “Bible Study Moms”.

And who does Brody quote to fill us in on this emerging new group – you guessed it:

Evangelical leader, Reverend Patrick Mahoney, tells me the following:

“It's fascinating what is going between Palin and these "Faith Moms."  It is not something that is being hyped by the media or being manufactured by the campaigns.  There is a true, honest, sincere bonding that is going on that is quite extraordinary.  Politics these days is so orchestrated it comes as a breath of fresh air when something completely unexpected breaks on the scene.  They sense that she is one of them and for the first time understands their struggles and hopes.”

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is a “Bible study mom”?  

These moms are the millions across this country who are ecstatic that McCain picked a strong Christian woman as his running mate. These are the moms who go to their Bible studies in the middle of the week and send in checks to places like Concerned Women for America and other Christian organizations.

Interesting. Just last week women fitting this description were better known as “right wing activists,” but apparently they are now part of an exciting and important new electoral subset. Who knew?

Earlier this year, right-wing luminary Paul Weyrich announced that, if John McCain secured the Republican presidential nomination, he’d be voting for a third party candidate:

Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Sixty Votes Coalition PAC, says if the November choice is between Hillary Clinton and McCain, he would then look for a third party candidate whom he could back. This is no small matter. Weyrich has only one vote like the rest of us, but many conservatives would at least take his views into consideration when making up their own minds before casting their ballots.

 "I will not vote for him [McCain]," Weyrich told this column in an interview. "I can't" ... Weyrich could live with other prospective GOP nominees — in a couple of cases, hopefully gaining some concessions to the conservative position. But McCain — never.

It was no surprise that Weyrich refused to support McCain, considering that the two have a long history of mutual animosity:

Weyrich told National Journal earlier this year that he questioned whether McCain had the temperament to be commander in chief because he was too hot-headed.

McCain has been equally scathing. "Weyrich possesses the attributes of a Dickensian villain," he wrote in his 2002 book, Worth the Fighting For. "Corpulent and dyspeptic, his mouth set in a perpetual sneer as if life in general were an unpleasant experience, he is the embodiment of the caricature often used to unfairly malign all religious conservatives." McCain added: "I like to think I know a pompous, self-serving son of a bitch when I see one."

But, of course, like just about every other right-wing leader who once declared McCain utterly unacceptable, Weyrich has changed his tune:

They only started speaking again after nineteen years.  Both have been quite open in saying why they held one another in “minimum high regard.” Their animosity toward each other is well known in national political circles.

But Paul Weyrich, one of the godfathers of the modern conservative movement, put all of that aside last week when he strongly endorsed John McCain for President.

And how did this come about? Because McCain once again realized it suited his political interest to grovel:

After he nailed down the Republican nomination, Weyrich [said], the Arizonan “came to my office to see me.  We talked things over and he asked for my support.”

Apparently McCain decided that what his campaign desperately needed was the support of at least one more “corpulent and dyspeptic … pompous, self-serving son of a bitch.”

Boxes of Obama Waffles were available for sale at $10 each at the Values Voter Summit until Saturday afternoon when conference organizers shut down the booth.

Advertising at the Obama Waffles booth

Another advertising panel at the Obama Waffles booth

 The Obama Waffles booth around noon on Saturday

photo: cberlet/publiceye.org

Sean Hannity entertains the audience at the Values Voter Summit with an extended bit about the relationship between James Carville and Mary Matlin which comes to a screeching halt when he adds Bill Clinton to the mix, forcing him to recognize that his attempt at humor works best when his audience has been drinking:

While the rest of you were enjoying a lovely Friday evening with friends and loved-ones, I was stuck watching the final hours of the Values Voter Summit featuring Mitt Romney, who was as thrilling and entertaining as ever, especially considering the truly awful "Court Jester Award Ceremony" that followed. 

In an attempt to bring a little levity to what was an otherwise soul-crushingly dull event, the Family Research Council decided to have its own awards ceremony where they highlighted courts, court rulings, and individual judges they dislike.  But since, obviously, the members of the Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals weren't going to attend to pick up their "awards," FRC decided to have right-wing figures accept them on their behalf ... and attempt to be funny doing it. 

So how did that work out?  Not well. 

Here's Manuel Miranda accepting an award on behalf of the US Supreme Court and giving us his "humorous" rendition of what goes on during SCOTUS conferences:

Who says conservatives aren't funny?  I do!

Finally, after hours of unrelenting boredom, middling hectoring, and partisan complaining, Star Parker finally took the stage and delivered some of the right-wing frothing we've come to expect from these sorts of events. 

Here, Parker schools us on "social justice" and what it does not mean: it does not mean redistribution of wealth, which is a violation of scripture; it doesn't mean doctors should be required to inseminate lesbian women; it does not mean that parents are required to send their kids "to these cesspools we call schools so that they can be indoctrinated by anti-Christian worldviews;" and it most certainly does not mean that "clergy of Biblical conviction can be slandered by a salacious media that will swim in the sewer to destroy our cause":

Phyllis Schlafly outlined the Republican Platform to the thousands of attendees, who applauded her claim that this was the most conservative pro-life and platform ever.

As Chip noted earlier, there is nothing like opening the Values Voter Summit with Lou Dobbs blasting the "liberal bias of the national media" for supposedly savaging Sarah Palin, then mocking celebrities like Matt Damon, before confessing that he's a "petty and venal person" and saying that Keith Olbermann is "hanging by a highly medicated string" ... before threatening him:

Good as You has more.

Bishop Harry Jackson, the Religious Right’s most visible African American spokesman, who has recently been shilling for an Astroturf campaign accusing environmentalists of waging a “war against the poor” got back basics when he kicked off this year’s Values Voter summit with a breakfast touting his High Impact Leadership Coalition, pushing his books, and asking for financial support for his anti-gay road tour in Florida to push a constitutional ban on same-sex couples getting married.

But Jackson also had his eye on a bigger prize – “We’re in a time of crisis when the Christians have to determine the course of the nation.” This isn’t a new theme for Jackson. At previous events he has called for activists to bring about “the rule and reign of the Cross” to America. Jackson was introduced by one of his associate pastors, who had sounded the same theme, saying, “now is the moment in history when Black and White churches in America must come together to direct the affairs of our nation.” It’s clear that electing the McCain-Palin ticket is an important step – the warm-up speaker was the chair of African Americans for McCain in Illinois who was promoting a new magazine for Black conservatives that pitches a David Barton-esque view of the Republican Party as the champion of Black America.

Jackson has adopted McCain’s audacious claim to be an outsider seeking change even thought Republicans have controlled the White House for the past eight years. Jackson was so eager to distance himself from the people he helped put into power that he engaged in some overt Bush-bashing, chastising the president and Karl Rove for selling out Christians by not forcing passage of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment.

Jackson claimed that the series of hurricanes and tropical storms, the bad economy, and the war in Iraq are all part of God’s plan to create such hard times in America that people will turn to the church. “God is setting the state for our voice to be heard once again,” he said. “If they’re not going to listen to us in good times, it may take bad times to set that platform.” While joking that he didn’t want to sound like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he said Wright raised an interesting question – is America, or should America, be under God’s judgment? Jackson said that if Christians, who he said have been playing defense for too long, would go on the offense and count on God’s help to overcome the nation’s sins, there’s still time to avoid that wrath. (Unless, I guess, you’re in the path of one of those stage-setting hurricanes.)

Jackson also told of being confronted in a Boston Market by a gay activist who confronted him about his role on an anti-gay conference call in California, which People For the American Way Foundation documented. “We have spies that are working against us; even in this meeting there may be some spies.” Jackson urged attendees to join in the 40 days of prayer and fasting that evangelical Christians in California have planned seeking God’s help in passing Proposition 8, and suggested it could also balance the fasting and prayers that Muslims all over the world are doing during Ramadan – “there is spiritual warfare going on.”

As we noted last week, both John McCain and Sarah Palin seemed to be intentionally avoiding being seen in public with the Relgious Right.  And that indeed seems to be the case:

At this year’s conference, Romney will be a headliner tomorrow night, Huckabee appears by video Saturday, and McCain… won’t be there at all. Despite being in Washington D.C. for the day on Saturday with no public appearances, the Arizona senator isn't expected to take up the offer to speak at the summit, organized by the Family Research Council’s legislative arm and co-sponsored by the likes of Focus on the Family and Gary Bauer’s “American Values” group.

According to The Brody File, Palin was actually scheduled to appear but then pulled out at the last minute, just as she did with Phyllis Schlafly's reception at the Republican convention, but offered to send a video message, which organizer's of the Values Voter Summit dismissed as "not enough." 

But just because Palin and McCain don't want to be seen with the Right doesn't mean that the Right is holding it against them.  In fact, the Right seems to fully understand that McCain has already caved to them and thus they are perfectly happy with his efforts to distance himself from them in order to get back to pretending to be a maverick: 

John McCain won't attend a gathering of religious conservatives this weekend -- and the Republican presidential nominee won't have to ask forgiveness.

The Arizona senator's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate has appeased the evangelical and social conservatives who form his party's core voters. Now, they are letting him know that he doesn't need to further demonstrate his fealty.

Last year, McCain felt compelled to appear at the Values Voter Summit in Washington to woo the religious conservatives who have long mistrusted him. That's not necessary this time: members of the movement now ``know exactly what's going on,'' said Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values in Ohio and a summit attendee.

``I understand if he thinks he's got us,'' said Burress, who led Ohio's 2004 effort to ban gay marriage. ``The Palin appointment guaranteed his base.''

...

``If he can spend his time somewhere else gathering votes, then that's where he should be,'' Burress said. ``The important thing is winning,'' he said, reflecting a new pragmatism from evangelicals who have been slow to embrace McCain.

...

Richard Land, a leader of the 18 million-member Southern Baptist convention, said conservatives appreciate McCain's efforts and don't expect him to make their agenda a cornerstone of his campaign in the closing two months of the election, at least publicly.

``Actions speak louder than words and Sarah Palin speaks not just volumes, but a whole library,'' Land said.

Via the God-O-Meter, we learn that Rick Warren and Sarah Palin have been playing phone tag:  

Pastor Rick Warren got a call from Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) this week seeking help in dealing with the "unfair, unjust attacks" the GOP vice presidential candidate believes she has come under.

On a Los Angeles radio show, co-host Kathryn Milofsky asked Warren what one question he would direct at Palin if he was able to have her sit down for a forum like the one he hosted last month with John McCain and Barack Obama at his Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.

"Well actually she called me yesterday," Warren said. "The question I asked her was 'how can I pray for you?'"

Warren said that Palin then "asked me to send her some bible verses on how do you deal with the unfair, unjust attacks and the mean-spirited criticism that comes in."

…

UPDATE: Palin's camp calls to say that the Alaska Gov. was returning Warren's call. According a Palin spokeswoman, Warren called her on Saturday September 6 and she returned his call on Monday September 8. The Monday phone call is when the above conversation described by Warren took place.

That would be the same Rick Warren who once contemplated becoming the next Jerry Falwell but then decided he’d have more success pretending to be a moderate with no political agenda; one who just happens to believe that all presidential candidates must believe in God and says that main difference between himself and James Dobson is “a matter of tone.“

So it’s no wonder he’d jump at the chance to reach out to Palin.

A few weeks ago, Barack Obama held a rally in Lynchburg, VA not far from Liberty University.  Just down the road from the rally site was a shopping plaza where those attending the rally were expecting to park – unfortunately for them, the lot was owned by Liberty University and they refused to let rally attendees use it, citing IRS regulations. 

Which makes this article all the more interesting:

John McCain’s brother Joe McCain will lead a public rally at Liberty University on Friday, Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. announced to students during the school’s convocation Wednesday.

Falwell also announced an unprecedented push at the school to distribute thousands of voter registration forms to students, both in the dorms and in the classrooms.

He said students have the potential to influence a tight presidential race in which Virginia is considered a key state.

“We only encourage you to educate yourself on the issues, and vote your conscience,” Falwell told students.

Joe McCain is scheduled to speak briefly at Friday’s convocation service at 10 a.m. at the Vines Center, said Liberty spokesman Johnnie Moore.

McCain then will head to Roanoke for a campaign stop, and return to Lynchburg for a 2 p.m. rally from the campaign’s “Victory Bus” in front of the Vines Center.

Of course, Falwell insists that this is totally different: 

Parking isn’t the same kind of issue with Friday’s campaign event, Falwell said, because the school has met IRS regulations by extending an offer to the Obama campaign to come to LU. 

So Liberty couldn’t let people attending an Obama rally use its lot because of tax concerns, but can let the McCain campaign hold a rally right on campus?  Falwell admitted back during the Obama flap that, had it been McCain seeking to use its parking lot,   “It's true we'd be a little more tempted to help.”   No kidding. 

(Via AU’s Wall of Separation)

The Christian Coalition has had its share of problems in recent years. Ever since Ralph Reed left, the Coalition has been in a freefall, watching as state chapters sever their ties with the national organization and then start suing each other and then trying to hire a new president to turn everythying around, only to have him resign before ever taking office because they are unwilling to consider broadening their agenda.

It was into this chaos that Dennis Baxley stepped when he took over the Christian Coalition of Florida earlier this year, seemingly fully aware of the organization’s increasing irrelevance:

Until the Christian Coalition shows again that its endorsed candidates can win major offices, Baxley said, its influence will be negligible.

"Is anyone going to care what grade they get from the Christian Coalition?" Baxley asked. 

But Baxley has been working hard to turn that around and got off to a good start by getting Mike Huckabee to headline their God and Country Gala back in July.  And now it looks like Baxley is doing his part to recapture some of the Coalition’s former glory by experimenting with the Right’s standard means of generating coverage for itself: saying stupid things in the press

Here's what Dennis Baxley, a former state legislator from Ocala and the executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, one of the most prominent groups on the religious right, said during an interview with the Miami Herald about Obama's outreach to the Christian community:

"He's pretty scary to us,'' he said. "I think his Muslim roots and training -- while they try to minimize it -- it's there."

Asked what he meant, Baxley pointed to Obama's childhood stint in Indonesia and his Muslim relatives.

"That concerns me particularly in the period of history we are living in, when there's an active movement by radical Muslims to occupy us,'' Baxley said of Obama's background. "That whole way of life is all about submission. It concerns me that someone rooted in those beginnings, how it might have affected their outlook. That's what scary for me."

Baxley on Obama's trip to Europe: "I think you can tell from his appeal and how a lot of the media emphasized how loved he is in other places. I'm very concerned that our own American values rooted in Christian principles be protected. It's fine with me if he wants to run for chancellor of Germany or chief of the European union, but not for president of the United States. I'm concerned about someone who has those global priorities. I just want someone who will take those responsibilities of preserving American values and American culture and not try to make us citizens of the world."

On Obama's description of himself as a devout Christian: "I don't want to pass judgment. I take him at face value. I do look at his story and where he's been, and the influence of the Rev. Wright-type of Christianity, and I'm not sure that's what I relate to...He wants to tax the rich more and redistribute wealth to other people -- where I come from that's socialism. Karl Marx was not a Christian."

Asked if he speaks in public about Obama's "Muslim roots'': "I really don't talk about candidates. I talk about issues. My greatest challenge is not Obama, it's apathy. I'm trying to get values voters to rise out of their apathy and participate...I can't speak for anyone else but I'm probably typical of all of the people who are suspect of those Muslim roots. We all know what early intervention with children is all about, and I am really wondering what the influence was on him from his father's background and being in a Muslim country. I'm not cooking up some plot about Muslims trying to inject a leader into our country but I am wondering how it influences his thinking."

The Religious Right has spent the last several months savaging Barack Obama and his Christian faith, calling it everything from “deceitful,” to “woefully deficient,” to outright "phony." They have gone over the tenets of his faith with a fine-toothed comb and demanded that he sit down with them and explain, in depth, his Christian beliefs and how they influence his political positions. 

But now that Sarah Palin has emerged on the scene, they have suddenly dusted off their age-old complaint that questions about a candidate's faith and "deeply held beliefs" are off-limits and that any such inquiry is a sign of anti-Christian bigotry: 

Governor Sarah Palin is undergoing increasing scrutiny by those aiming to use her church and religious beliefs as a weapon against her. Over the weekend, a biased Associated Press article attacked her church for promoting Focus on the Family's "Love Won Out" conference which will be held this Saturday in Anchorage. The conference will teach a biblical message on sexuality and assist those seeking to overcome same-sex attractions. We can probably expect more attacks of this nature. How the McCain campaign responds is critical in maintaining the intensity and enthusiasm that swept through social conservatives after Gov. Palin's selection as the VP nominee. In the past, there has been an overwhelming public backlash against those seeking to impose a religious litmus test on candidates and judicial nominees. Several years ago, Senator Schumer (D-NY) experienced this backlash when he attacked judicial nominees for holding "deeply held personal beliefs." The McCain campaign must stand firmly against efforts to make Gov. Palin's faith a disqualifier. There should be no reluctance in any party to be identified as someone who holds "deeply held personal beliefs."

If FRC really is so upset about people trying to use a candidate's "church and religious beliefs as a weapon" against them, maybe they should take it up with James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

As we've been saying from the moment John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate, the decision was made for purely political reasons as part of an effort to appease the Religious Right.  In fact, it is a point that is so glaringly obvious that even Tony Perkins admits it:

Tony Perkins, an influential conservative leader, said Wednesday that he viewed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's (R) selection as a "political" pick designed to win over the conservative base and appease social conservatives who had concerns about John McCain.

Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said that most conservatives he knew expressed "relief" that Republican presidential candidate McCain did not pick an abortion-rights supporter like Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) or former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge as his running mate.

Palin, on the other hand, was a "brilliant pick from a political standpoint" that helped McCain win over social conservatives.

Perkins, speaking to reporters at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor, said the McCain he knows was more likely to pick someone he has known for a while and trusts, like Lieberman or Ridge.

When asked directly then if Perkins viewed Palin as a purely political pick, the religious right leader said, "Yeah, I think so.

"I think it was a very strategic and, in the end, political pick," Perkins said.

The Swamp has more on the breakfast, including Perkins' assessment that while it was the Right's pressure on McCain that caused him to cave, they are not completely satisfied and are warning him that he had better not try to distance himself or his campaign from Palin's right-wing views:

"He has presented Sarah,'' Perkins said this morning, at a breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "I think he has shown through this process that he is listening. Maybe he is not looking, but he is listening, and I think that selection is a reflection of that.

"This process of politics is not a clean-cut process,'' Perkins suggests. "It is a pushing and shove. There is the external pressure that is applied... In the end, you see if you make advancement. I think in this case, the (McCain) campaign has clearly responded to what so many have been saying... He has been silent on the issues (most important to social conservatives)... He clearly has selected a running mate who is comfortable with those issues...

"That's not to say that the election is over,'' says Perkins, maintaining that conservatives will be looking closely at Palin's record and how it influences McCain's agenda as well as what the candidates say to these voters. "We've got 60 days... It's not just the talk, it has to be followed up by action.''

Perkins says he joined those who told the McCain campaign that it should steer clear of picking a running such as Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman who supports abortion-rights.

"We were very active in communicating that message both privately and publicly,'' Perkins said. "and to be very honest, very pleased with the decision the campaign made in the end.

...

And, as people examine Palin's record and discover any fundamentalist positions that may prove distasteful to a broader voting public, Perkins suggests, the McCain campaign will have to be careful to support its running mate. McCain already has distanced himself from people such as the Rev. John Hagee, a conservative preacher whose views trouble many moderates.

As people are examining Palin's record, Perkins maintains, and if she encounters "attacks on her religion that, because she is Pentecostal she is somehow different, if the campaign tries to run from that or is in retreat, - because they have a history of that -- they threw two pastors off the bus earlier this year - if they do that, that would be a fatal error.''

It is no secret that Barack Obama's campaign has made a concerted effort to reach out to evangelical voters in this election, especailly younger evangelicals.  Among those it has courted is Cameron Strang and his father, Charisma Magazine founder Stephen Strang - who is more of an old-guard evangelical who was an early supporter of Mike Huckabee and, just last week, endorsed John McCain.  

Cameron Strang had even been tapped to deliver the benediction at the Democratic convention, but pulled out at the last minute over concerns that his presence could be seen as an endorsement.  But that doesn't mean that he doesn't have advice for the Obama campaign on how to deal with Sarah Palin and her extreme views on abortion:

Strang, who participated in a faith caucus at the convention but decided that speaking on national television would be too political, said Obama has a chance to peel away evangelicals, particularly the younger voters who read his magazine. Obama has effectively emphasized areas of common ground, like social justice and the environment, Strang said. But he warned of a backlash if Democrats hammer Palin's hard-line stance on abortion.

''If they use it as wedge issue, it will push away Christian voters and they will undo everything positive they've accomplished in terms of faith outreach,'' said Strang, who recently changed his voter registration from Republican to independent. ``I think a lot of moderate Christians are still up for grabs.''

As we have noted repeatedly in the past, the idea that there is a "new evangelical" movement afoot that can be wooed away from the Religious Right and the Republican Party hinges on the belief that many of the movement’s leaders and followers are more moderate on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality, or at least will not make those issues the sole basis of their voting decisions.

The fact that Strang is advising the Obama campaign not to expose Palin's ulta-right-wing views on abortion less he risk alienating "moderate Christians" just highlights the danger of making those assumptions.

We noted yesterday that the Alliance Defense Fund is moving ahead with its “Pulpit Initiative” effort whereby dozens of pastors and churches will risk their tax-exempt status by openly defying IRS rules against explicitly endorsing candidates from the pulpit – but it looks like at least one high-profile pastor won’t be joining them:

The Rev. Rod Parsley's 12,000-member World Harvest Church in Columbus won't be participating, said Debbie Stacy, director of Parsley's Center for Moral Clarity.

Considering that the church has already had its own run-ins with the IRS and Parsley has already been humiliated on the national stage, it’s not very surprising that he decided to sit this one out.

The Hill reports that even though John McCain has repeatedly and explicitly promised to nominate judges like John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the Right is still a little unsure that they can trust him and so they decided to work explicit language into the GOP platform in order to send him a clear message:

Republican conservatives have given John McCain a warning on what kind of justices he may appoint to the Supreme Court as president.

Their message: no surprises.

Authors of the 2008 GOP platform have included specific language urging Sen. McCain (Ariz.), the party’s nominee, not to appoint “stealth nominees” to the court. That language was the result of lobbing by the conservative activists.

…

The platform makes clear that McCain should appoint jurists who have clearly defined views of constitutional interpretation.

It states: “We oppose stealth nominations to the federal bench, and especially the Supreme Court, whose lack of a clear and distinguished record leaves doubt about their respect for the Constitution.”

Conservative activists led by Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of conservative leaders active on judicial matters, began pushing for the platform changes in May. It began a minuet between the McCain campaign and its conservative skeptics that eventually shaped the presidential platform.

The last time the Right was sending McCain explicit messages about what it expected from him, they were telling him that his choices of running mate were patently unacceptable, to which he responded by utterly capitulating and giving them everything they wanted in Sarah Palin.  In fact, it seems as if his caving to their demands on Palin has actually helped assuage their concerns about his willingness to do their bidding:

Conservative leaders who worked on the platform said the strength of the document and McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate eased concerns that lingered right up until the convention.

“The two combined changed everything,” said [David] Keene [of the American Conservative Union.]

Kevin Burke, co-founder of something called Rachel’s Vineyard - a “post-abortion healing ministry” run by the right-wing group Priests for Life - offers his explanation of why people might not like Sarah Palin.  It turns out that they are all traumatized by the “collective grief, pain and guilt” they feel over their pro-choice views:

The very personal and often uncharitable criticism of Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her family evident in recent media coverage, and the lack of support from many feminist and child advocacy groups, may have a relationship to the collective grief, pain and guilt from personal involvement in the abortion of an unborn child.

When an issue strikes at a deeply repressed sensitive wound in a person, often the initial reaction is anger.

…

Seeing the Palin family, in a very visible public forum, with an uncompromising and public pro life philosophy arouses deeply repressed feelings in post abortive parents, as well as media members, counselors, health care professionals, politicians and others who promote abortion rights, especially the abortion of children with challenges such as Down syndrome.

These powerful repressed feelings of grief, guilt and shame can be deflected from the source of the wound (i.e., abortion) and projected onto an often uncharitable focus upon the trigger of these painful emotions…the Palin family.

And all this time I thought it was because she was a one-term unknown whose sole qualification for John McCain’s ticket was her appeal to the GOP’s right-wing base.

Barack Obama was on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday and, during the course of the interview, the issue came up regarding the incessant rumors that Obama is really some sort of secret Muslim.  The issue at hand was whether or not the McCain campaign had ever directly suggested that Obama was a Muslim or questioned his Christian faith, to which Obama replied that they had not, but that there clearly was a concerted effort on the part of conservative commentators and activists to confuse the American public about the issue.  During the course of the discussion, Obama made this point: 

OBAMA: Let's not play games. What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come–

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: -- my Christian faith. Well, what I'm saying is that he hasn't suggested–

STEPHANOPOULOS: Has connections, right.

OBAMA: -- that I'm a Muslim. And I think that his campaign's upper echelons have not, either. What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith -- something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time.

Obviously, the point Obama was making was that McCain has not personally spread the smear about “my Muslim faith.”  Seems pretty straight forward, right?

Wrong:

Sen. Barack Obama's foes seized Sunday upon a brief slip of the tongue, when the Democratic presidential nominee was outlining his Christianity but accidentally said, "my Muslim faith."

The three words -- immediately corrected -- were during an exchange with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week," when he was trying to criticize the quiet smear campaign suggesting he is a Muslim.

But illustrating the difficulty of preventing false rumors about his faith from spreading, anti-Obama groups within one hour of the interview had sliced it out of context and were sending it around via email. They also were blogging about it.

It was not a “slip of the tongue,” it was a straight-forward and self-explanatory statement that the Right Wing is taking entirely out of context and that right-wing media outlets like the Washington Times are reporting as genuine news.

Buried in the Alaska Right to Life’s January 2008 newsletter - after the endorsement of Mike Huckabee and before the sign-up sheet for protesting clinics and driving the “Truth Truck” – is an article entitled “For Pro-Lifers Only” in which former Alaska Right to Life president and current Alaskan Independence Party candidate Bob Bird railed against the idea that presidents and legislators where in any way obligated to obey Supreme Court rulings:

Pro-lifers, start making some REAL political headway. Ask your pro-life governor to encourage the state to protect unborn human life, and DARE the federal courts to strike it down … And don’t you ever, EVER permit any pro-life presidential candidate to repeat Ronald Reagan’s famous statement, made in inexcusable ignorance: “Well, my oath of office requires me to enforce all Supreme Court decisions, even those I don’t agree with.” Rubbish.

Bird even blasts those, such as Gov. Sarah Palin, who believe that the best way to overturn Roe vs. Wade and restrict abortion is by reshaping the judiciary – something she apparently asked members of Alaska Right to Life to help her do when she addressed the organization’s “Proudly Pro-Life Banquet” in 2007:

Governor Sarah Palin, a pro-life stalwart every year since she entered the political scene, gave an encouraging speech for the pro-lifers in attendance at the Hotel Captain Cook for the 2008 “Proudly Pro-Life Banquet”. She asked for public support in her efforts to reshape the judiciary, an extremely complex and convoluted process that involves a screening board . . . a screening board that once thought Alaska Right to Life founder Wayne Anthony Ross to be too extreme!

The proceeds from the dinner, where Palin apparently shared the stage with Alveda King, were to be applied toward “the educational endeavors of Alaska Right to Life, including: the pro-life television ads, the G.A.P (Genocide Awareness Project) and the truth truck.”

John McCain had never, until recently, been the darling of the Religious Right.  Even while crafting a political record that furthered much of their agenda, McCain had never been particularly fond of the Right, a view that was on full display back in 2000 when he lashed out against the movement’s leaders as “corrupting influences on religion and politics” and “agents of intolerance.”

Because of this long-standing mutual animosity, McCain had never been invited to most of the annual right-wing gathering and presumably wouldn’t have attended if he had.  But that changed last year when he suddenly realized that he desperately needed their support if he was to win the Republican nomination, at which point he started showing up at their confabs, showing up at CPAC, addressing the secretive Council for National Policy and joining all the other GOP hopefuls at the FRC’s Values Voter Summit.  

At the time of the FRC summit, McCain’s campaign was thought to be dead in the water and the battle for right-wing hearts and minds was being waged between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.  But since then, McCain has managed to secure the nomination and, though his relationship with the Right remained strained, he began working hard to win the over; an effort that finally succeeded with his decision to name Sarah Palin as his running mate.    

But now the time is approaching for this year’s Values Voter Summit – The Battle for America’s Future:

And while the organizers are racking up big name speakers like Sean Hannity, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney, two names are conspicuously absent from their list of confirmed speakers:  John McCain and Sarah Palin. According to the Summit website, both have been invited - yet with only a few days before its begins, neither has agreed to attend.

There appears to be a pattern developing here.  Just last week, Palin had been scheduled to address Phyllis Schlafly’s reception at the Republican Convention only to cancel at the last minute.  And now, with the biggest right-wing political conference of the year about to get underway - an event which McCain addressed just last year – both he and his running mate are nowhere to be seen.  

It seems as if the McCain campaign it trying to have it both ways; picking Palin specifically to appease the Right yet trying to avoid actually being seen in public with them out of fear of undermining the “maverick” image they are desperately trying to craft.

On Tuesday, Focus on the Family released audio of a special James Dobson radio program, recorded last Friday after John McCain's announcement that Sarah Palin would be his running mate.  Containing analysis of the decision from Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Tom Minnery, and Kelly Shackelford, the group of right-wing heavyweights discussed everything from the elation at the announcement felt among those gathered for the Council for National Policy meeting to Gary Bauer’s role as the McCain campaign’s surrogate to the Republican Platform Committee in crafting the “the strongest pro-life platform in the history of the Republican Party.”

Among the most striking information was Gary Bauer’s revelation that, contrary to the McCain’s campaign’s claims that it was taking a hands-off approach to the platform, they were actively involved and supportive of the Right Wing’s efforts to craft the hardline document that emerged.   In fact, Bauer reports that he was tapped by the McCain campaign to be their surrogate and that the campaign was "very open to the kind of changes" the Religious Right was pushing.

Among the other interesting facts contained in the program was Shackelford’s declaration that CNP members felt that God was answering their prayers with Palin and Tony Perkins' assessment that McCain has shifted dramatically in their direction from a year ago and that his decision to name Palin as his running mate shows that “he can listen.” But perhaps the most entertaining thing about the program was the shame in Dobson’s voice as he explained how he has gone from a vocal critic of McCain to someone who, “if I went into the polling booth today, I would pull the lever for John McCain.”

Listen with player below or to the mp3 here

Dobson: Have you ever, in your life, seen as large a crowd of people give a standing ovation to [the Palin announcement on] CNN? Have you ever seen that happen?

Kelly Shackelford: I don’t think so and the other thing is, a number of people literally had tears in their eyes. I think that there was such pent-up worry, prayer that had been going on for so long and they really felt like the Lord was answering those prayers with somebody who is pro-life, somebody who is committed to the definition of marriage and the issues that we believe in so strongly.

Tony Perkins: This was a tremendous strategic decision by the McCain campaign.  They have seen social conservatives drifting away from them over the last year and, in part in the last year there’s been some pushing and shoving going on as the social conservatives have not signed on to the McCain campaign.  But he has shown …

Dobson: Tell me about it. I’ve been pretty explicit about it.

Perkins: And there’s a reason for that because he’s not where he is today a year ago.  But he has shown that he listens and I though two weeks ago at the Saddleback Forum he did a tremendous job at being straight-forward and he got the attention of social conservatives that he can listen, he can respond.  And then today, with this selection, I think the strongest among the names that have been out there, he has shown that he cares about these issues and has solidified a strong conservative, pro-life, pro-family ticket for the Republican Party.

Dobson: Gary, you have been advising the McCain campaign for some time and so you really signed on with him before any of the rest of us made up our minds …

Gary Bauer: I’ve been watching not only today, I’ve been watching the last couple of weeks and giving my advice to everybody I could within the McCain campaign.  I would disagree with my good friend Tony, I think this is where John McCain’s been for a long time.  He really does have a twenty-five year pro-life voting record, except for a couple of notable exceptions, but I thought this choice was just outstanding. I actually think over the last couple of weeks, from Saddleback where he was very clear on these issues to what he’s been emphasizing in his speeches and town meetings, the platform which was adopted this week – just an outstanding pro-life platform – and now this vice presidential selection, there’s just a real commitment that he’s showing here.

…

Dobson: I’ve been pretty vocal in my opposition to John McCain. I haven’t done it on Focus on the Family, but I’ve done it in the media and for some good reasons.  I could right now tick off fifteen or twenty things that have concerned me.  And, having made that statement, the assumption is that I must stay with it even if the circumstances change. And they have changed.  Saddleback changed me.  What I heard John McCain say at Saddleback didn’t eliminate all of the concerns but it did draw me in his direction.  And then, of course, this selection and other things.  Tony, you said McCain seems to be changing - Gary, you disagreed with that - but it sure looks that way to me.  And so, I am not endorsing John McCain.  I have only endorsed a presidential candidate once in my life and that was George Bush in the second term after I’d watched him for four years.  I just don’t endorse presidential candidates and I don’t see myself doing that this time. But I am moving closer and closer to being able to say … well, I’ll say it now, if I went into the polling booth today, I would pull the lever for John McCain.

…

Bauer: I got appointed by the McCain campaign to be their advisor on the platform.  It was an interesting assignment.  I arrived there, usually I’m on the outside beating on whoever the nominee is to do better, but when I got there and met with the McCain staff people I was immediately amazed, surprised and happy to hear them say “look, we think it’s a great platform already, it’s pro-life but we know people might want to strengthen it and we’re open to that.  We want to work with people, we don’t want to alienate anybody and we’d like you to go back and forth between the delegates and us and see if we can work these things out.”  I think that Kelly will affirm that, other than a few places, there really weren’t many brutal fights. Most of it was done in a very collegial way with the McCain people being very open to the kind of changes that made the platform draft even better than it was when it started.

Dobson: Would you agree that this is the strongest pro-life platform in the history of the Republican Party?

Shackelford:  There’s no doubt.  I was on that sub-committee and every pro-life leader who was there watching from Phyllis Schlafly to you name the pro-life group, they were all watching and they all said this is the strongest pro-life platform ever in the history of the party.   We not only kept the famous plank that was put in during the time of Ronald Reagan, but we added additional strong language that made it even stronger.  It was really incredible to be a part of this and I will affirm what Gary said; this is my third platform committee in a row and it was different than the last ones.  The McCain campaign not only did not fight us as severely as the last campaigns did but they actually were in favor of the platform becoming more conservative because they knew that’s where the people were.

Back in June, when the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission issued a demand that John McCain pick a "True Christian" to serve as his running mate, they had two simple criteria for determining just what consistuted a "true Christian"- they had to be anti-gay and anti-choice:

Quite simply, the candidate will demonstrate actions and hold the beliefs personified by all of us who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ as Savior: the need to be re-born in Christ and the affirmation of historic Christianity, having a demonstrable and proven record of support for traditional Christian morality.

A life of dedicated Christian service to the public is demonstrated by the following:

Support for traditional marriage.

As a Christian, the candidate for Vice President must affirm that marriage is an institution created by God and defined as a union between one man and one woman. Americans have ALWAYS demonstrated a compelling interest to ensure children are afforded the best possible environment in which to grow and thrive. Any candidate must do no less and must be opposed to any policies or legislation that seeks to confuse or dilute the traditional institution of marriage.

Support for the Right to Life, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, without exception.

As a Christian, the candidate for Vice President must echo the founding fathers' proclamation of the "inalienable right to.life." Any acceptable candidate will have a history of promoting policies acknowledging that God provides "all" people are created in the image of God and therefore possess inherent dignity and worth. This individual must be opposed to the killing of all innocent persons at every stage of life, especially the most vulnerable; unborn children, the sick, the disabled and the elderly.

And so it comes as no suprise that the CADC is now hailing John McCain for meeting their conditions with his decision to name Sarah Palin as his running mate:

Today John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential running mate. Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, is a Christian and is well known for her pro-life stand and her fiscal conservatism.

"John McCain is to be commended on his choice of Sarah Palin, a true Christian for Vice President," said Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "Palin, an evangelical who is pro-life and pro-marriage, meets all the criterion that CADC set forth for a VP pick.

Now that they are through targeting Mitt Romney, it looks as if the folks behind American Right to Life Action have turned their attention to James Dobson, accusing him of "breaking his pledge before God":

On April 28, 1990 at the Washington D.C. Rally for Life Dr. Dobson stated, "I want to give a pledge to you on a political level... I have determined that for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby." James Dobson is violating this pledge by voting for John McCain for president, a Republican who has recently voted to authorize funding to kill some children by surgical abortion.

...

"Dr. Dobson is openly violating the pledge he took before God," said Birkey, "by voting for John McCain. Both the Sarah Palin distraction, and the candidate's rhetoric to Rick Warren claiming he believes that human rights begin at conception, are belied by McCain's long tolerance of chemical abortifacients and funding the dissection of the tiniest embryonic boys and girls."

"In violating his pledge before God, Dr. Dobson has lost the moral authority to speak for Christians," said Curtis. "He can speak for Republicans who do not fear God, but he cannot speak for the Body of Christ."

How serious are they?  Serious enough to protest Focus on the Family headquaters:

Police are on the scene at Focus on the Family after reports that protesters from an anti-abortion group are refusing to leave.

"Apparently they weren't causing a disruption or anything. They were just saying they weren't going to leave," said Colorado Springs police spokesman Lt. David Whitlock. Early reports said the protesters were in the lobby, he said.

In our quest to chronicle the increasingly over-the-top response that Sarah Palin is generating in the Religious Right, we'd be remiss if we didn't highlight this quote from notorious right-wing curmudgeon Lou Sheldon:

While Palin's pick is designed in part to woo disaffected Clinton voters, Palin overnight has become the darling of conservatives. Before her speech, "I thought I died and went to heaven,'' said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the California-based Traditional Values Coalition. The coalition is planning a nationwide get-out-the-vote effort.

Sheldon is the right-wing version of "Mikey" from the old Life Cereal commercials, in that he hates everything ... but he loves Sarah Palin.  That ought to tell you something.

Don Swarthout, founder of Christians Reviving America's ValuEs [C.R.A.V.E.]-  a low-level right-wing group that occasionally pops up on the radar by announcing things like its bold plans to launch a brigade of “Patriotic Pastors to come together and fight today's cultural wars in America” – is announcing the formation of a new PAC which he claims will expose Barack Obama and his ties to “Black Liberation Theology”:

Swarthout said that Honor America PAC is currently purchasing radio ads in Colorado and Pennsylvania to encourage voters to learn more about Obama's ties to Black Liberation Theology by going to www.ObamaReligion.net.

Swarthout said, "We are in the process of raising funds to put more radio ads on the air in key swing states.  If you want to help, please go to the web site and contribute to Honor America PAC so we can continue to inform the American public about "Barack Obama and Black Liberation Theology."

"This 'theology' alone is reason enough for people NOT to vote for Barack Obama," Swarthout concluded.

And once this effort fails to make any impact whatsoever, Swarthout will presumably go back to his day job begging for invitations to speak at your church:

I have grown in my ministry to the point where I believe that religion is the only true answer we have with which to answer the problems America is facing today.

During the past few years I have come to the conclusion that the answer for all of our national problems lies in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That awakening has led to a tremendous growth in my life. I would love to share what I have learned with your Congregation.

One of the secrets is that as Christians we have a right to expect a government based upon the principles of Christianity instead of a government based upon the lies of the devil.

Yet another secret is the principles of good government are exactly the same principles as the principles of Christianity.

If you would like to invite me to speak to your Church Congregation or to your organization you may contact me at 859/219-1222 to verify a potential date to have me speak in your facility.

GOD CALLED ME TO BE A WATCHMAN, AN EVANGELIST AND AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA AND FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD.

Remember back when the Religious Right went absolutely nuts because Barack Obama said he didn’t want to see his daughters “punished with a baby” before they were ready?

The Christian Defense Coalition responded incredulously, calling his remarks a “not only a slap in the face to every child born to a young mother, but it diminishes the great joy that children bring to their families regardless of the circumstances in which they were born.”

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America likewise blasted Obama for his use of the word “punish,” saying that babies born to teenagers “should not be treated as if they are a curse or a punishment.”

One wonders what they’ll have to say about this press release from Vision America on the news that Sarah Palin’s teenage year old daughter is pregnant – it reads more like a letter of condolence than a statement of support:

Dr. Rick Scarborough and the entire staff of Vision America, on behalf of thousands of Patriot Partners nationwide, express their sympathies to the family of Governor Palin and especially their daughter. We are thankful for their godly response to this tragic circumstance.

Dr. Scarborough issued the following statement: The Palin family's misfortune in no way diminishes the profound respect that I hold for their strong and intact commitment to life and traditional family values. The reason we know that this young lady is pregnant, is because they did not opt for the easy remedy...killing the unborn child. Like her mother before her, Bristol has chosen life for her child. It was not the traditional values and pro-family views which Sarah Palin holds and espouses which created the culture of sex we now find ourselves immersed in but it will be her championing of traditional values and biblical solutions that will give us the best chance to see our nation return to moral civility.

The Rocky Mountain News reports that John McCain and Sarah Palin are heading to Colorado Springs, home of James Dobson and Focus on the Family, for a rally on Saturday and that a long-sought-after meeting between the two just might be a possibility now that McCain has sublimated himself to the Right’s demands:

[Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Focus Action] said Dobson's evolution from being anti-McCain to adamantly supportive of the Republican ticket can be attributed to three things — McCain's "strong responses" at Pastor Rick Warren's summit in Orange County, "the pro-life, pro-family platform adopted by the party," and the selection of Palin.

But despite the change of heart, Minnery said Dobson has not had a meeting with McCain since he became a presidential candidate last year and that he hasn't met personally with Palin .

That could change Saturday when McCain and Palin arrive in Colorado Springs for a rally.

While the McCain campaign and Minnery said no meeting is scheduled, neither left the option off the table.

"Who knows what may happen?" Minnery said. "So far nothing has been planned. But we're happy to see political leaders of any and all stripes."

[UPDATE: Dan Gilgoff reports that there's no meeting planned and Dobson will be out of town.]

The article also relates a rather odd anecdote from Alliance Defense Fund attorney Kevin Clarkson explaining how he got a call from Focus on the Family back in 2006 about concerns that Palin may not have been anti-gay enough and how he assured that that indeed she was:

It was when [Palin] beat Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski in the 2006 primary that Clarkson got a call from Focus on the Family asking him questions about the strength of her social conservative credentials.

"There had been some entries made under her name in Wikipedia that were of concern to them (Focus on the Family)," Clarkson said. "The main one cited in Wikipedia was her veto of a bill that would've limited marriage benefits to married couples."

Clarkson explained that it was a convoluted process that led to the veto. Acting as legal counsel, Clarkson advised Palin to veto the bill that he said, because of confusing legislative machinations and existing court challenges, would've had the opposite effect and locked in benefits for all couples.

Clarkson said he had to explain the whole decision to Focus on the Family to put minds at ease.

Presumably, the veto in question was of HB4001, a bill designed to block a state Supreme Court ruling “giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples.”  In her veto statement, Palin said that the bill was “unconstitutional given the recent Court order … mandating same-sex benefits” and that “signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office.”

How exactly would a bill “prohibiting the commissioner of administration from adopting, allowing to become law, or implementing regulations that grant or extend employment-related benefits to same-sex partners of state employees” really end up locking in “benefits for all couples”?

The only thing “convoluted” about this is Clarkson’s explanation.

One of the most remarkable things about John McCain’s decision to name Sarah Palin as his running mate, besides the blatantly cynical nature of it, is the idea that somehow it solidifies his reputation as a “maverick.”

Even more remarkable is the idea that McCain’s blatant pandering to the Right by choosing Palin in the first place will allow him the “flexibility” to re-claim his “maverick” image:

Given the intensity of Palin support among conservatives, McCain may very well end up with greater flexibility than ever to make his own direct appeal to independent voters. Palin can keep social activists at ease — and excited — while McCain seeks to reclaim his maverick image with a more direct appeal to those Hillary Clinton supporters and undecided swing voters.

McCain wanted to pick Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge but was told by the Right in no uncertain terms that doing so would destroy any support they might give him, and so he capitulated and named Palin, for which the Right is infinitely grateful.

Considering that McCain made his reputation as a “maverick” by attacking Religious Right leaders as “corrupting influences on religion and politics” back in 2000, how in the world does pathetically bowing to their demands eight years later end up bolstering his image as a “maverick”?

If you want to understand McCain’s complete and utter capitulation and the Right’s unbridled elation about it, just try to wrap your head around this quote:

“I am now more confident about a John McCain presidency than I am about a George Bush presidency,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The campaign has courted conservatives aggressively, and it has turned around remarkably in just the last few weeks.”

Just last month, Perkins was warning McCain that if he picked someone they didn't like ""the strength of turnout on Election Day is not going to be there for him" and now he is saying that he's never been more confident about McCain.  It boggles the mind.

Ever since John McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate, the central question has been “Who is Sarah Palin?”  The fact of that matter is that nobody really seems to know, especially Palin herself.

When the announcement came down, politicos of every stripe began scrambling to examine her thin record in an attempt to figure out just what McCain thought that she could bring to the ticket beyond crass electoral benefits.    Everyone, that is, except the Religious Right, which hailed the decision with a staggeringly over-the-top fervor considering that McCain had just named a one-term, relative unknown to fill out his ticket.

But as more becomes known about Palin, it is becoming increasingly clear just why the Right was so overjoyed.

Her militant opposition to abortion, going so far as to even refuse to support her own mother-in-law’s candidacy for Mayor because she was pro-choice; her efforts to oppose equality for gays and lesbians; her apparent affiliation with the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party; her support for teaching Intelligent Design; her reported efforts to censor library books and fire the town librarian – on and on it goes, with new details seemingly emerging by the hour, all suggesting that Palin is indeed the dream candidate the Right has been praying for.

Lost in all of this is Palin’s apparent willingness to utilize right-wing wedge issues when they suit her political needs and then downplay them when they don’t.

As John Stein, whom Palin defeated to become mayor of Wasilla, Alaska in 1996, recently told KCAW, Palin worked to inject the issue of abortion into the traditionally non-partisan mayor’s race and helped her pave the way for her own political aspirations: “The fundamental Christian values were very much a part of her background and the election, interestingly enough, tended to turn around the abortion issue.  John Stein: pro-choice.  Sarah Palin: anti-abortion.  That was heavily promoted by local, state, and I think even national anti-choice groups.”

When she ran for Governor in 2006, Palin was only one of two candidate to respond to the Eagle Forum of Alaska’s Questionnaire – a questionnaire that the organization is now trying to hide by taking it off of their website – in which she explained her opposition to abortion, providing benefits to same-sex couples, to sex-ed and contraception distribution in schools, to hate crimes legislation, and declaring that “Preserving the definition of ‘marriage’ as defined in our constitution” would be among her top priorities if elected.

So while Palin is clearly willing to exploit wedge issues when they serve her needs, she seems to prefer to do so on the down-low and somewhat away from the public eye.  When her opponent for Governor in 2006 tried to make an issue of her staunch anti-abortion views, Palin dismissed the issue, saying “I think it's a shame ... that anyone would try to make this issue a headline, banner issue in the campaign when it's not” and saying that she wouldn’t push for state constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion because “there is no law that I could sign in office that could ever supersede the Supreme Court's ruling.”  While standing by her militant views, she insisted that "I am not one to be out there preaching and forcing my views on anyone else."

When she was criticized for her views that creationism should be taught in science class, she backed off, saying that she wouldn’t "have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism" for members of the state school board.

In fact, it seems that when ever anyone tried to actually pin Palin down on her right-wing positions, her response was to dismiss the efforts as divisive and hypothetical:

A significant part of Palin’s base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them).

Palin and her staff complained that efforts to raise these issues in public were divisive and hypothetical. The normally unflappable candidate seemed put-upon when she faced a string of such questions in the last debate, on public television and radio Thursday night.

“It’s interesting that so many questions do resolve around that centeredness that I have,” she said with a half-smile.

…

Palin said her reading of the Bible would not “bleed over into policy.”

In fact, Time Magazine suggests that central operating principle of Palin’s political career is the willingness to adopt a “new political identity” that suits her needs at any given moment:

By the time Sarah Palin was entering state politics, the hottest issue in Alaska wasn't gay marriage or even abortion. It was corruption and cronyism. … She needed a new political identity to make it to the next level, so ethics reform became her calling card. "She's a very savvy politician," says Halcro. "So wedge issues were not part of the portfolio."

"If anything," he says, "she got tired of answering questions about them." Halcro recalls one debate in October 2006 in which, after repeated questions about her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest, she looked at the moderator with exasperation and asked if they were going to talk about anything besides abortion. It was detracting from her new message: cleaning up the capitol.

…

In the end, her political journey from banner-waving GOP social conservative to maverick reformer may simply be about good timing. It's what former journalist Bill McAllister, who now works for Palin's press staff, used to call "Sarah-dipity" — that uncanny gift of knowing exactly what voters are looking for at a particular moment. And, of course, the political will to give them what they want.

This ploy might have worked on the state-level, but Palin is now in the national spotlight and her “I’m-a-right-winger/I’m-a-moderate-independent-maverick” shtick is no longer going to fly.

While the McCain campaign is obviously pushing the narrative that Palin is a “co-maverick”, the GOP’s right-wing base is screaming that she is their dream come true and, it goes without saying, that both of those things cannot be true.  And considering that Palin had been scheduled to be honored by Phyllis Schlafly and Republican National Coalition for Life today at the convention but cancelled at the last minute, it looks like the McCain campaign hasn’t quite been able to figure out which way it wants to go.

A few weeks ago, we were wondering why Rob Schenck was announcing that he was going to be providing commentary for NPR on the Democratic and Republican conventions.  As far as we’ve been able to tell, he didn’t actually end up doing so, which is good.  But now we have another question:  Why is Schenck getting VIP tickets to John McCain’s announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate and schmoozing with both McCain and Palin?

In addition to posting a video about his invitation, he also wrote about it on his blog:

So, when I was offered a VIP seat at the big coming out event, I jumped on it. I wanted to personally engage whomever McCain selected … While I was en route to the event I got a call relaying a message to me from a well-known Washington, DC, columnist who said he had evidence it would be Governor Palin. She was definitely not on my short list of desirable prospects, but only because I knew so little about her. That would soon change. I called everyone I knew that might know something about her and my staff began our own in-depth research. A few things that came immediately to light were that she is completely and convincingly pro-life, she is pro-traditional marriage and she is an Evangelical Christian. And on each of these points she has long walked her talk. Still, there are some things you can only tell by shaking someone’s hand and looking them in the eyes. I did both today with Governor Palin and her sponsor, Senator McCain. If you’ll permit me a sidebar, I’ve got to say, Man! What a bold move. There are many voters who really wanted to make history in this election. Now they can do so with either ticket. Bravo! But back to Sarah Palin and her spirituality. After our exchange of normal niceties, the first thing I asked the Palins was about their church. My office was doing research on this while I was at the McCain event and sending it to me on my Blackberry, but they got one thing wrong when they first reported she was Catholic. Someone called to correct our early news release and said the Palins were Baptist, so I wanted to clear it up by simply asking. Gov. Palin herself. She told me they have long attended Wasilla Bible Church in their home town of Wasilla, Alaska, near Anchorage. I'll write more on this church, but take a quick look at their website and you'll see the sort of Christian community she keeps company with. I told Sen. McCain yesterday that he had just built the bridge he needed to our Evangelical world. He seemed relieved! Traditional Catholics will like Governor Palin, too. It was a stroke of genius.

Schenck has been one of the leading attack dogs against Barack Obama’s faith, suggesting that Obama might be, in fact, a Muslim infidel … and even if he’s not, his Christian faith is “woefully deficient.”  He’s probably best known for his reportedly successful efforts to sneak into the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room and anoint the chairs with oil before Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings.

As we noted last time, Schenck, along with his twin brother Paul, have a long history of militant anti-abortion activism and repeated arrests, primarily for their campaign against Dr. Barnett Slepian who was assassinated by an anti-abortion activist in 1998:

During the early 1990s … [Schenck] was arrested a dozen times during protests outside women's health clinics and abortion doctors' homes, and is renowned for outrageous publicity stunts, including dangling an aborted fetus in Bill Clinton's face outside the 1992 Democratic National Convention. With former Elim classmate Randall Terry, Schenck helped start Operation Rescue, a hardline anti-abortion group that embraced "direct action" in an effort to shut down reproductive health clinics and prevent doctors from practicing abortion.

…

But just as Schenck's star was rising in Washington, some Operation Rescue members decided to take their direct action to the next level. In 1998, while cooking dinner for his wife and four children, Barnett Slepian--an abortion doctor whose home had been the site of protests by Schenck and his followers years before--was shot to death through his kitchen window by James Kopp, a former student of Schaeffer's and a volunteer at Operation Rescue's Binghamton, N.Y., office. Slepian's assassination became a public relations disaster for the organizations, and even though Schenck denounced the killing, the organization's more extremist members insisted that it was justified. When Schenck placed flowers at the doorstep of Slepian's office, they were returned abruptly by his infuriated wife along with a letter--later made public--that read, "It's your 'passive' following that incited the violence that killed Bart [Barnett Slepian] and took away both my and my children's future."