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: