February 2009

While every other speaker at CPAC made their entrance from the stage, Newt Gingrich got the presidential treatment.

As if preparing to deliver his own State of the [conservative] Union address, Gingrich entered from the back of the ballroom and spent three minutes making his way through the throng of well-wishers, hand-shakers, and supporters on his way to the stage while "Eye of the Tiger" blasted over the crowd:

So reports the AP:

The Associated Press has learned that James Dobson has resigned as chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family.

Jim Daly, president and chief executive officer of the Colorado Springs, Colo.-based ministry, said Friday that Dobson will continue to host the organization's flagship radio program and speak out on moral issues.

The departure of the 72-year-old Dobson as board chairman is part of a succession plan. He founded the group in 1977.

Dobson began relinquishing control of the group six years ago by stepping down as president and CEO.

Update: Here is a more in-depth description of the move:

Dobson's resignation as board chairman "lessens his administrative burden" and is the latest step in a succession plan, the group said. Dobson began relinquishing control six years ago by stepping down as president and CEO.

"One of the common errors of founder-presidents is to hold to the reins of leadership too long, thereby preventing the next generation from being prepared for executive authority," Dobson said in a statement. "... Though letting go is difficult after three decades of intensive labor, it is the wise thing to do."

...

On political matters, Dobson "will continue to speak out as he always has — a private citizen and not a representative of the organization he founded," said Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman. He said the nonprofit ministry and Focus on the Family Action — an affiliate set up under a different section of the tax code that permits more political activity — will continue to be active on public policy.

Dobson has a devoted following. His radio broadcast reaches an estimated 1.5 million U.S. listeners daily. Yet critics say his influence is waning, pointing to evangelicals pushing to broaden the movement's agenda beyond abortion, gay marriage and other issues Dobson views as most vital.

"In the short term, in the near term, Dr. Dobson will stay committed to the issues close to his heart," Daly said in an interview. "He'll continue to speak out on those topics."

Daly said there is no timetable for Dobson to leave the radio program, and the group will "look for the next voice for the next generation" while Dobson remains on the air.

Sen. Mitch McConnell explains to the attendees at CPAC that there are some 8,500 people registered to attend this year's conference, while last year's progressive Take Back America Conference only drew about a third as many attendees, thus proving that "conservatives are more fun and interesting than liberals." 

After all, he says, who in their right mind would want to hang out with people like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich when they could be kicking it with Rush Limbaugh:

Were it not for the occasional mention of President Obama and current political developments, you'd be forgiven for thinking that this is a twenty-year old clip of Sen. Jim DeMint, rather than a speech he delivered just this morning, in which he explains that government is the cause of all of our problems and the only solution is more freedom:

"Government is out of control and freedom is the only solution. In America, freedom is built on the principles and values that are derived from Judeo-Christian religious convictions. If we allow this government to continue to purge religion and faith and religious values and the principles that are derived from them from our culture, we will lose our freedom."

DeMint also warns that "if we allow Congress and the President to continue to ignore the Constitution and compromise the rule of law, we will lose our freedom" ... but presumably that is meant as a criticism of the month-old Obama Administration rather than as a call to investigate the actions of the Bush Administration:

Tucker Carlson attempts to convince the audience at CPAC that the New York Times actually cares about the accuracy of its news, but the audience isn't buying it and regularly interrupts him with boos and jeers.

He also says that the conservative movement needs its own news gathering organizations who will create news that reflects its values and wishes there were twenty-five outlets like the Fox News Channel:

It’s almost March and you haven’t made your Spring Break travel plans, have you? Well not to worry, the Creation Studies Institute can help:

If you’ve never been on an Ice Age Fossil Adventure, it apparently looks like this (judging from the brochure we received in the mail):

In between wooly mammoth sightings, you’ll stand around in a river and learn “how to collect and interpret Florida fossils using a biblical framework.” Just imagine the shock and wonder on your children’s faces when they learn, according to CSI, that fossils prove the world is only 6,000 years old:

Even though this is an oversimplification and there are anomalies in the fossil record, the lack of intermediates in the fossil record and the abrupt appearance of virtually every major living creature, fully formed in the fossil record confirm the record of the Word of God recorded in the book of Genesis.

While an evolutionist looks at this evidence and sees a slow progression of life morphing itself into other, higher forms of life, the Creationist sees exactly what would be expected as a result of a worldwide cataclysmic flood such as the Flood recorded in the days of Noah.

The Ice Age Fossil Adventure is happening this March and April, and there’s still time to book the family adventure of a lifetime!

But sorry ladies! You'll have to work on your tan somewhere else:

Have fun, and be careful out there:

Speaking on a panel at CPAC entitled "Timeless Principles, New Challenges: The Future of the Conservative Movement," Bay Buchanan blasts the GOP and the conservative movement for giving this nation "the leaders that failed us" and criticizes them all for staying silent and failing to stop them from "taking this nation in a direction it never should have gone."  

She then proceeds to call out the conservative establishment in Washington, saying the future of the conservative movement is not in Washington DC, because the city is filled Republicans and conservatives who have "compromised our values [and] compromised our nation" and always fold when the pressure is on:

Media Matters has more of Buchanan's speech here.

• The response to Gov. Bobby Jindal's address last night was almost universally negative ... with the exception of CBN's David Brody who said "Jindal's star is shining bright."
• Speaking of Jindal, Rush Limbaugh warns any conservative who dares to criticize him that he doesn't ever want to hear from them again.
• The Weekly Standard Gary Andres links to this Gallup poll on presidential approval ratings in a post titled "At One-Month Mark, Obama's Approval Rating Lower than Jimmy Carter's."  Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that Carter had the highest approval rating one-month into his term of any president in the last forty years, so every president has had a lower approval rating than Carter.
• Finally, the Liberty Counsel warns that Democrats are using the economic crisis to "undermine the rights of people of faith":

If America is truly in the worst financial crisis in 70 years, why are President Obama and Congress unleashing new attacks almost daily on our faith and families? ... The so-called "stimulus" bill proved this point. Ultraliberal politicians are using people's fears as a cover for a massive political makeover of our Nation! Their strategy is to profit off the misery of others in order to move forward a very liberal agenda. Such a strategy is just as deplorable for elected officials as the actions of profiteers who gouged people at the gas pumps following the hurricane Katrina disaster!

Since Utah Sen. Chris Buttars made his inflammatory remarks about homosexuals last week, virtually nobody from the Right has rallied to defend him. In fact, so far, the best he’s been able to get are some vague statements from the state’s Eagle Forum affiliate defending his First Amendment right to say what he wishes.

But when nobody else will speak up for a hateful bigot, you can always count on Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber to come through.  And once again he has done so with flying colors, choosing to focus his ire on Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups for having “caved to pressure by an anti-Christian homosexual hate group” in stripping Buttars of his Judiciary Committee chairmanship:

"If you need a prime example of why the Republican Party is presently spiraling into the abyss of political irrelevancy, you need look no further than to Utah," said Barber. "The conservative majority in both Utah and across the country is starved for leaders who will represent the traditional values upon which our great nation was founded, and who will do so boldly and unapologetically. Sen. Buttars has done just that. He was elected in Utah to represent his constituents and the conservative values they hold near and dear. He's been tested and has passed that test. By bucking left-wing extremism and speaking truth in plain and simple terms, Buttars has shown true leadership. Although his comments certainly lacked in political correctness and were quite direct, they were acutely accurate. Wouldn't it be nice if more politicians would speak directly and accurately?    

…

Senator Waddoups has played right into their hands. He's given their radical left-wing agenda an illusory air of legitimacy. He had a golden opportunity to shine here by standing firmly behind Senator Buttars. He could have told these liberal extremists to take their extremism elsewhere. Instead, he threw Senator Buttars under the bus.

"Waddoups' equivocation is a slap in the face to his own constituents. He's indirectly told every American who holds a biblical view of sexual morality and who rightfully believes that radical homosexual activism poses a grave threat to our American culture, that they should be ashamed of these traditional beliefs – that they should keep these beliefs to themselves. 

"Therefore, I'm asking that people contact Sen. Waddoups and respectfully request that he immediately reinstate Sen. Buttars to his post as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and publicly apologize to both Buttars and to the millions of Americans whose traditional values Waddoups has impugned," concluded Barber.

This leads one to wonder if there is anything that anyone could ever say about gay people that Barber wouldn’t immediately defend?  Sadly, the answer to that seems to be “no.”   

The Colorado Independent has posted an audio clip from Colorado state Sen. Scott Renfroe explaining his opposition to Senate Bill 88 (which we mentioned here and which would add domestic partners to the list of dependents eligible for coverage under state employee group benefit plans,) by rattling off a bunch of Bible verses and then comparing homosexuality to murder.

In a rambling and borderline incoherent speech, Renfroe proclaimed his opposition to the measure based on the fact that “homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural, created order and it is an offense to God, the Creator, who created men and women, male and female, for procreation” and then citing various Bible verses to back up his point:

Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a female, it is an abomination.”

and

Leviticus 20:13 says, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act and they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.”

But then Renfroe took it a step further, saying that the government shouldn’t be writing “laws that go against what Biblically we are supposed to stand for” and “taking sins and making them to be legally OK." To illustrate his point he, naturally, compares homosexuality to murder:

I’m not saying (homosexuality) is the only sin that is out there. Obviously we have sin — we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don’t make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal. But what I’m saying that for is that all sin is equal. That sin there is as equal to any other sin that’s in the Bible, to having wandering eyes, to coveting your neighbor’s things. Whatever you do, that sin is equal and it can be forgiven because of that.

Here is the audio – skip ahead to about the 1:30 mark, as that is when Renfroe really gets going:

Given that Renfroe is obviously a learned Bible scholar and committed Christian, it only stands to reason that his position that our laws should reflect what the Bible says will lead him to introduce a variety of other laws based on what the book of Leviticus decrees, such as outlawing the planting of field with two kinds of seed or the wearing of clothing woven from two kinds of material, and instituting the death penalty for anyone who curses their parents, commits adultery, or blasphemes the name of the Lord.

The Washington Times reports that organizers of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference are expecting record turn-out this year as the movement tries to get its act together after seeing its Republican allies tossed out of office during the last several elections:

CPAC is expected to draw nearly 9,000 activists and college students from across the country, up from the record 7,000 who attended last year, when the main attractions were personal appearances by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the four remaining Republican presidential nomination hopefuls - former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene says that CPAC is an opportunity for movement leaders to find ways to overcome its current problems and win back the trust of voters … and he sees hope for them all in the fact that GOP is, at the moment, exhibiting an ability to stay on message:

“In calling President Obama's $787 billion plan a 'spending' rather than a 'stimulus' package, the Republican Party finally is showing signs of doing a better job of formulating its message,” Mr. Keene told reporters at the National Press Club on Tuesday.

If Republicans voting essentially in lock-step in opposition to President Obama’s efforts to ameliorate our current economic crisis because it was a “spending” bill rather than a “stimulus” bill is their best evidence that things are turning around for them, then it look like they are going to be wandering in the political wilderness for several election cycles to come.

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Anyway, CPAC starts tomorrow and the American Family Association will be streaming it live, so you’ll be able to watch it here.

One last thing, I am the only one who finds the AFA's choice of image for its CPAC site a little odd:

Was Mitt Romney's speech dropping out of the presidential race really the highlight of last year's event? How sad is that?

• WorldNetDaily reports that, at least according to one poll, Roy Moore holds a big lead to become the next governor of Alabama. Of course, it is also WND, so you can't really put too much faith in it.
• Concerned Women for America comes out hard against the prospect that Kathleen Sebelius might be named the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.
• Janet Porter warns that passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination act will put an end "to our freedoms and put Christian and pro-family business owners out of business."
• The Family Research Council bad-mouths a new report from the Guttmacher Institute that says that every dollar spent on family planning saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births, while the Pro-Life Action League says the report "smacks of racism."
• Of the places one would least expect to find a Democratic student group popping up, Pat Robertson's Regent University probably tops the list. But no longer.
• David Brody posts a lengthy excerpt from an article Bobby Jindal wrote back in 1994 about participating in an exorcism and Jim Geraghty over at "The National Review" is not pleased that Brody is dredging it up at this time.
• Finally, Gordon Klingenschmitt is angry with the Virginia Senate for killing "a pro-faith bill ... which would have restored the rights of Virginia State Police Chaplains to pray publicly 'in Jesus name.'" We happen to think Michael Shochet had a much more reasonable response:

Michael Shochet, cantor of temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church and a volunteer chaplain coordinator for the Fairfax County Police Department, said he and other chaplains must recognize the difference between ministering to their congregations and being pastoral counselors for people of all faiths.

"When I don my police uniform, I am no longer representing my congregation as a Jewish clergy," he said. "Instead, I am representing the government, and therefore the public is my congregation."

Last week, when we wrote about the fund-raising letter bearing Sen. Sam Brownback's signature which questioned the Catholic faith of several Democratic members of Congress, we noted that Brownback's staff proclaimed that they had nothing to do with it and that they "had never seen, heard of, or approved it."

As it turns out, it looks like that is not completely accurate, as Brownback's Chief of Staff Glen Chambers sent an email to Deal Hudson, founder of the group which issued the letter in question, blaming it all on on an unnamed campaign aide from last year:

Deal -

As I mentioned to you on the phone, I think we've gotten to the bottom of the confusion over the mail piece. Neither the Senator nor I had seen the letter or were aware of it. I figured out that you did get permission to use his name on the piece from a former campaign staffer in February of last year.

However, as I mentioned, we'd like to stop any future mailings you have planned using the Senator's name.

Sorry about the confusion.

Last year around this time, both Brownback and Hudson were on the National Catholics for McCain Committee, so maybe this was initially designed to be fund-raising letter for John McCain that was scuttled, only to re-emerge in this new form. 

But considering that Brownback ended his own presidential campaign in back in October 2007, just what sort of "former campaign staffer" was giving Hudson permission to mail this sort of letter four months later?  It certainly wasn't someone from his Senate campaign, as he was re-elected in 2004, so just why was a "former campaign staffer" signing off on this letter four months after the campaign had ended?  And, more importantly, why did it take an entire year for this letter to get released? 

This explanation from Browback's staff certainly hasn't cleared up any of the "confusion" regarding this letter; if anything, it is only managed to exacerbate it.

Back in 2007, the Right was up in arms when former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt appointed Patricia Breckenridge to the State Supreme Court, saying he was "not a principled conservative" for "caving in" and abiding by the state's process for filling such vacancies.

In Missouri, as in many other states, appointees for such positions are chosen by a nonpartisan commission which reviews all the applicants and then submits the names of three candidates to the governor. The process, commonly known as the "Missouri Plan," began back in 1940 when the voters amended the state constitution to adopt this method and the process has since been adopted by many other states.

When Blunt received the list of candidates chosen by the commission to replace Judge Ronnie White, right-wing activist besieged him with calls to reject the choices as too liberal and demand a new list of candidates, but the Republican governor refused to do so and appointed Breckenridge and Blunt was savaged for having a complete lack of backbone.

Fast forward a few years and it looks like something similar is taking place in Florida, though this time there is a candidate the Right clearly favors among the candidates and so they are swinging into action to pressure Gov. Charlie Crist to appoint him:

In the next week or so, Gov. Charlie Crist faces one of the toughest political decisions of his tenure as governor: A Supreme Court appointment that pits conservatives in his own party against a minority community Crist is courting.

Religious conservatives and the National Rifle Association are backing 5th District Appeals Court Judge C. Alan Lawson, calling him the most qualified of the four candidates presented to Crist.

But some liberal groups and black leaders — including state NAACP President Adora Obi Nweze, whom Crist recently named as his minority affairs adviser — are ardently backing Seminole County Circuit Judge James E.C. Perry.

...

The Florida Family Policy Council, a conservative religious organization, sent members an e-mail headlined, "Gay activists and Planned Parenthood publicly oppose Judge Alan Lawson and support Judge James E. C. Perry."

Meanwhile, the prominent gay rights group Equality Florida sounded its own warning to its members:

"The ultra right-wing American Family Association has begun to rally around Judge Alan Lawson … flooding the Governor's office with calls, faxes, and e-mails. We cannot let the American Family Association decide the make-up of the Florida Supreme Court!"

John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council said the issue isn't race or any stances Perry has taken on issues, but simply qualifications. Lawson, he noted, is the only nominee with appellate court experience.

It looks like Crist has quite a balancing act to try and pull off here ... meanwhile a similar situation is also plaguing Sarah Palin as, like Gov. Blunt before her, she is facing the prospect of having to chose the next state Supreme Court justice from among of list of candidates who do not necessarily reflect her views:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has a month and a half to choose the next member of Alaska's State Supreme Court.

The problem is the two choices she has to pick from are justices who don't align with her conservative views.

Alaska's judges are selected using the Missouri Plan, which combines election and appointment in choosing the judge. The Alaska Judicial Council selects the nominees from which the governor can then make an appointment. As one conservative Web site explained, "she's boxed in tighter than Florida Gov. Charlie Crist."

A total of six judges applied, but only two were elected by the Judicial Council, Eric Smith, considered very liberal, and Morgan Christen, who is viewed as more of a moderate. Christen and Smith were rated with scores of 4.3 and 4.5 out of a 5 point scale used to elect judges by the council.

The four other nominees scored between 3.7 and 2.4 and were not sent to Palin for consideration.

"The… lawyers control the process," the Web site GOP 12 laments.

Dan Fagan of the Alaska Standard wrote that the time has come for Palin to spend the political capital she acquired as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008.

"She must demand more names from the Judicial Council." Fagan wrote. "Now that Palin is clearly trying to endear herself to the conservative base nationally, fighting for the justice she wants seems like a savvy play for her."

This situation isn't generating much coverage at the moment, but it'll be interesting to watch and see how Palin handles it.  Will she demand a new list of candidates or will she go ahead and make the appointment from the candidates already provided by the Judicial Council? More importantly, if she does the latter, will the same groups who piled on Gov. Blunt for his cowardice do the same to Palin?

A few weeks ago, we noted that several right-wing leaders in Texas were targeting Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison as she prepares for her primary challenge against current Republican governor Rick Perry, calling Perry a stalwart champion of the pro-life movement while comparing Hutchison to Barack Obama and blasting her for transferring funds from her Senate campaign to her gubernatorial campaign.

The attacks on Hutchison have been rather low-level to this point, coming mostly from second-stringers like David Barton and Rick Scarborough.  But that will probably change once this starts to get around:

Gov. Rick Perry appears to be wearing out his welcome in Texas, and starts out as the underdog against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), according to a new poll.

The Public Policy Polling poll shows Hutchison leading Perry, 56 to 31 percent, in the Republican primary. Hutchison has sky-high approval ratings, with 76 percent of Texans approving of her, with only 15 percent disapproving.

Perry’s approval ratings are also solid, with 60 percent approving and 27 percent disapproving.

But among voters who approve of both Perry and Hutchison, Hutchison leads by 16 points, 49 to 33 percent.

“Rick Perry is in grave danger of losing in the primary,” said PPP pollster Dean Debnam. “It’s partly because he’s worn out his welcome with a certain segment of the Republican electorate, but the even bigger reason is that Kay Bailey Hutchison is just a lot more popular than him.”

It is probably safe to assume that the Right's "stop Hutchison" effort will start to ramp up now that it looks like she might actually have a chance to knock off one of their leading allies.

The Right has been working overtime to attack President Obama’s nominees to the Department of Justice.  But the grandstanding and name calling that have characterized the Right’s attacks on Elena Kagan, Tom Perrelli, David Ogden, and Eric Holder might only be skirmishes compared to the campaign they’re gearing up to wage against the President’s nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen.

Today the National Review weighs in with its typical sobriety.

In Dawn Johnsen's dizzying jurisprudence, government has no business invading individual privacy and regulating abortion but is obliged to coerce taxpayers into underwriting abortions as a first step in what she unapologetically calls "the progressive agenda" of "universal health care, public funding for childcare, paid family leave, and . . . the full range of economic justice issues, from the minimum wage to taxation policy to financial support for struggling families."

If Johnsen is confirmed, OLC will be transformed from a source of non-ideological legal analysis to a culture-war agitator. And its value to the Department of Justice may be lost.

Most of the article is a tirade against Johnsen’s pro-choice credentials, but be sure not to miss the hilarious interlude describing her “smearing of John Yoo, the Cal-Berkeley law professor who, as a Bush OLC staffer, principally authored DOJ's so-called torture memo.”

In contrast to Johnsen's perversion of anti-slavery law to suit her abortion agenda, Yoo was not twisting the law to advocate torture. He was soberly attempting to construe a legal term, "severe . . . pain or suffering," part of the statutory definition of torture that had not yet been interpreted by the courts. This is what OLC does: It struggles to understand the state of the law, irrespective of staffers' predilections, so that policymakers can act in full awareness of their options.

Who says that conservatives don’t have a sense of humor?

Seriously though, as much as we’d love to smear John Yoo’s reputation, he’s already done more to shame himself than we (or Dawn Johnsen) could ever hope to do.

Today's best reporting on the Right from around the web:

• If you thought Utah Sen. Chris Buttars' statements were outrageous, check out this post from Good as You on the statements made by Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute during a debate on gay rights at the University of Utah.
• Pam's House Blend reports that an anti-gay member of the Allegheny [PA] County Council has been arrested on more than 20 counts of bilking a 90 year old widow whose $14.5 million trust fund he was paid to administer.
• Steve Benen makes several good points regarding The American Issues Project's new ad saying that if you spent $1 million a day since the day Jesus was born, you would still have spent less money than Congress just did with the stimulus bill.
• RH Reality Check explains that the anti-choice factions who are working against Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius's potential nomination to be HHS Secretary are driven, in part, by her recruitment of a Democratic challenger to knock off rabidly anti-choice Attorney General Phill Kline.

You have to hand it to Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice - they have got to be the only political organization in Washington DC that has its very own Senator who is willing to press its agenda in the Capitol every time it so much as issues a press release. 

At least that seems to be the case judging by the fact that, lately, Sen. Jim DeMint's political agenda seems to be determined primarily by the ACLJ's communications office.

Just a few weeks ago, after the ACLJ started bogusly complaining that the stimulus legislation contained a provision that was discriminatory and anti-religious, it took less than a day for Sen. DeMint to make the issue his own and introduce an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, an effort which ultimately failed.

And now, just days after the ACLJ announced that it was "preparing a litigation strategy should the Fairness Doctrine be brought back to muzzle Christian broadcasting" and unveiled a petition signed by more than 200,000 people calling on Congress to pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would prevent the return of the Fairness Doctrine, guess who is now pressing for such a vote?

That's right, Sen. Jim DeMint - and this move comes despite the fact that President Obama just said that he does not support the Fairness Doctrine and that nobody has any plans to re-introduce it.  But apparently DeMint just wants to make extra sure:

Although a spokesman for President Barack Obama said the administration wouldn’t pursue the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, S.C., wants Senate Democrats to go on the record one way or another on the issue.

DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said on Feb. 19 he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill next week. The Broadcaster Freedom Act was introduced by Republican lawmakers last month and prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

“I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it,” DeMint said. “With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?”

It is getting to seem like the easiest way to figure out what is on Sen. DeMint's agenda today is to look at what press release the ACLJ released yesterday.

Last year, Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson wrote a book together called "Personal Faith, Public Policy" and, since then, the two have become close allies and regularly worked together to advance their right-wing agenda. 

But it seems that they don't always see eye to eye and seem to be having a disagreement over Attorney General Eric Holder's recent remarks saying that America is a "a nation of cowards" when it comes to discussions of racial issues.

For his part, Jackson is outraged:

Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., a Maryland pastor and chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, disagrees with Holder and says it was "horrible" for the attorney general to read those comments as a prepared speech.

Jackson also showed up on "The 700 Club" to denounce Holder and his statement, saying:

His goal was simply to set America on notice that there's a new sheriff in town and that he was going to, under the umbrella of the civil rights movement begin to move toward pushing for affirmative action in a greater way, but also the rights of many other groups. I believe he is going to push the homosexual agenda and many other things and he is simply giving us an announcement "watch out, I'm coming your way." ... Men like this make it difficult for people of any race to be at ease because the bitterness of their experience bleeds through in their criticism.

Tony Perkins, on the other hand, says Holder is exactly right ... and that the only way to overcome this is for everyone to come to Jesus:

I think the Attorney General is correct, Americans have cowered to political correctness and as a result we avoid topics like race. The solution to racial reconciliation, however, is not to be found in a more aggressive Department of Justice but in a more aggressive church where we unite around ideals rooted not in skin color but in Jesus Christ.

As Bishop Harry Jackson and I write in Personal Faith, Public Policy, blacks should not work with whites, or visa versa, out of obligation to right past wrongs or to advance personal or political agendas. We should work together because we're brothers and sisters in Christ, and He's called us to be unified around a biblical agenda that advances all of society.

Perhaps Perkins and Jackson can discuss this issue whenever they get around to releasing their next joint "Truth in Black and White" video.

• The Victory Christian Center in Tulsa, OK will host the 2009 Night to Honor Israel from 7-9 p.m. March 2 with the Rev. John Hagee speaking.
• Rick Santorum says the Quran was "written in Islamic,” which is not a language.  It was written in Arabic.
• FRC says it is understandable that so many Republicans are refusing to run for re-election.  After all, "who can blame them for choosing not to sit at the foot of the most pro-abortion, socialist Speaker of the House in history?"
• Bill Donohue gets results. Yesterday the Catholic League voiced its outrage over a poster at the University of Georgia, claiming the "famous Michelangelo painting on the Sistine Chapel ceiling that features the hand of God giving life to Adam has been hijacked to promote condoms." The school's Vice President for Student Affairs immediately apologized.
• On his last day as Johnson County District Attorney, Phill Kline reportedly had copies of abortion records mailed to his office to Lynchburg, Va., where he had taken a job at Liberty University. The Johnson County District Attorney's Office only found out about it because the box was returned because  the address on the label was incorrect.
• Finally, this quote from Richard Land in opposition to DOJ nominee David Ogden seemed to be worth highlighting:

Ogden told the committee during his oral and written testimony that his legal positions on controversial pornography-related cases represented the views of his clients and did not reflect his personal beliefs. But that hasn't been enough to appease opponents, who say that he could have turned down representing those clients if he found their positions so objectionable.

"That's a moral cop-out, and it's one reason why there are so many lawyer jokes," Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Baptist Press regarding Ogden's defense. "… A person's views on pornography are a window to a person's worldview, and this window shows a worldview that is inconsistent with what I want the American Justice Department to be."

For anyone seeking to understand how the Religious Right plans to operate under the relatively young Obama Administration, let us offer a few telling examples.  

For weeks, if not months, they have been hyperventilating over the fact that Democrats in Congress are intent on re-introducing the Fairness Doctrine in order to "silence conservative and Christian broadcasters" and eliminate their ”freedom to share the Gospel.” Of course, as we noted yesterday, there was no desire or effort to actually bring it back and even President Obama has stated that he "does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated."  But will not stop the Right from carping about it?  Not likely:

While this is encouraging, I want you to know that we will remain vigilant and continue to work to oppose the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Here's another example:  for weeks the Right has been breathlessly proclaiming that the stimulus legislation was "anti-religious" and part of an effort to "intimidate the free speech of traditional, freedom-loving Americans." Of course, that wasn't true either but that didn't stop them from repeating it every opportunity they had. 

In case the pattern hasn't become clear yet, we can now add the fear-mongering over FOCA to the growing list:

The U.S. Catholic Church's crusade against the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has all the hallmarks of a well-oiled lobbying campaign. A national postcard campaign is flooding the White House and congressional offices with messages opposing FOCA, and the Catholic bishops have made defeating the abortion rights legislation a top priority. In the most recent effort to stop the bill, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia sent a letter to every member of Congress imploring them to "please oppose FOCA."

There is only one hitch. Congress isn't about to pass the Freedom of Choice Act because no such bill has been introduced.

...

In the midst of all this activity, the fact that there was no Freedom of Choice Act before the 111th Congress went largely unnoticed and unmentioned.

A Freedom of Choice Act was first introduced in the 108th and 110th Congresses (from '03 to '05 and '07 to '09, respectively), by Rep. Jerold Nadler, a New York Democrat. It was developed at a time when the future of Roe was in doubt because it was unclear if George W. Bush would have the opportunity to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court. But FOCA had a hard time gaining traction — even under Democratic control of Congress, the bill was not only never voted on but never made it out of committee. And now abortion rights advocates are breathing easier with Obama in the White House — so much so that when a coalition of 63 organizations sent the Administration its top 15 priorities for reproductive rights and health, FOCA did not even make the list.

Congressional Democrats have also been less than enthusiastic about the proposal. A spokesman for Nadler says that while he expects the legislation will be reintroduced, "it won't be anytime soon." Even if FOCA is reintroduced in the current Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has indicated she has no intention of bringing it up for a vote. And even if she did, there are not enough votes in Congress to pass the bill.

President Obama has only been in office for a few weeks, but that doesn't mean it is too early to predict that the Religious Right's plan of attack during his administration looks like it will rely heavily on stirring up "controversies" by (a) opposing legislation that does not exist and (b) misrepresenting legislation that does.

That, at least, seems to be the message of this new video from the Family Policy Council of West Virginia on the need to pass a marriage amendment in the state, judging by this image:

The AP has more:

A group that wants to amend West Virginia’s constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman is running an online ad that likens same-sex marriage supporters to snipers targeting families.

The group, The Family Policy Council of West Virginia, has yet to register as a charity with state officials, though it’s reported raising enough to trigger that requirement.

The council wants the Legislature to allow a statewide vote on the amendment, similar to those passed in at least 30 states.

Council President Jeremy Dys announced Wednesday that hundreds of churches across West Virginia would take part in “Stand4Marriage Sunday” March 1 as part of its campaign.

The council has posted a five-minute video on one of its Web sites and on YouTube.

“Marriage began in the heart of God,” the narrator says as the ad starts.

About a minute into the video, the crosshairs of a rifle scope appear over the image of a family blowing bubbles. The narrator warns that “same-sex marriage is a closer reality in West Virginia than you may think,” and that activists are “working tirelessly to define marriage away from God’s design.”

We noted that the WVFPC had started demanding such an amendment last year and has been leading the push for it (as well as doing what it can to break up the families of gay couples).  Interestingly, the AP notes that the WVFPC has had a rather convoluted history since it was formed as the West Virginia Values Coalition in 2005, and then changed its name to the Family Policy Council in 2007, pointing out that the secretary of state’s charities division has no registration for the council "though it requires one from groups that solicit at least $25,000 in West Virginia donations in one year. The [WVFPC] raises funds through both its Web sites. Its latest available filing with the IRS, from 2007, lists $170,320 in contributions."

We've written about the anti-choice movement's new focus on "personhood" as it attempts to find new tactics to outlaw reproductive choice a few times in the past, mostly to note that efforts to date have not been particularly impressive considering that it was wiped out at the polls in Colorado last November.

But that doesn't mean they are giving up.  Recently, Personhood USA announced that "seven different states have started efforts for the personhood of pre-born children. In addition, Rep. Duncan Hunter has introduced H.R. 881, the Right to Life Act , on the federal level, propelling the personhood movement forward."

Now, RH Reality Check reports that the North Dakota House just passed such a measure yesterday:

On Tuesday, one body of North Dakota's state legislature voted, 51-41, not only to ban abortion, but to define life as beginning at conception. Such a measure, considered extreme even by pro-life standards, would have far-reaching consequences on women's health.

State Rep. Dan Ruby introduced the legislation, which declares that "for purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens."

"It was at the bottom of the calendar and we didn't expect [the House] to get to it, so it caught us a little bit by surprise," said Tim Stanley, senior director of government and public affairs for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. "This bill dangerous, far reaching, and allows government -- not women and families -- to make critical decisions about health care." Some state legislators have been quoted saying the intent of the measure is not to ban abortion outright. However, many legal experts agree that defining life as beginning at conception would affect access to birth control and emergency contraception as well as affect in vitro fertilization. "I'm not sure if this is naivete or if this is sincere," Stanley said. "The bottom line is that our attorneys have looked at this and are extremely concerned."

OneNewsNow asked one of the activists who is pushing this personhood effort, Cal Zastrow of Michigan Citizens for Life, why they are focusing on this issue considering that it lost so badly in Colorado, and he says it is because they will not quit until abortion is outlawed:

"Because it raises the pro-life tide and it gets the vision to not quit until every baby is protected by law and love," he contends. "And you're right, we didn't win the World Series every time we swung the bat -- but we're going to keep swinging the bat and keep going until we have won the World Series."

Of course, a more accurate explanation is probably the one Katy Walker of the American Life League gave last year when she admitted that "the idea of personhood in this movement is really the only thing, the only option left to us."

Today's best reporting on the Right from around the web:

• Pam reports that MassResistance,'s Brian Camenker has turned his attention to attacking "the threatening Trans Agenda."
• Crooks and Liars catches Bill O'Reilly citing an online poll that came from his own website to explain why he shouldn't have to apologize to reporter Helen Thomas for calling her the "wicked witch."
• Good as You takes issue with ProtectMarriage.com's assertion that the California legislature should stop "disrespecting the will of voters and wasting taxpayer resources on meaningless legislative resolutions" regarding Prop. 8.
• Frederick Clarkson has a good piece on RH Reality Check on where the abortion reduction agenda really came from. Here's a hint: it involves Frank Pavone.
• AU reports that the Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology has informed Louisiana that it will not be hosting its 2011 conference in New Orleans because of the state's policy of attacking evolution in its science curricula.
• Media Matter says other outlets are spreading an inane Washington Times story that "rehashes several false and baseless claims regarding President Obama's presidential campaign and the American flag and uncritically quotes radio host Michael Savage attacking Obama as a 'Neo-Marxist' and 'street agitator' to whom 'our flag is just a rag.'"
• Finally, Box Turtle Bulletin posts a truly absurd ad from American Forever that appeared in the Salt Lake City Tribune and the Deseret News over the weekend opposing the Common Ground Initiative.

What is it about the Fairness Doctrine that is causing the Religious Right to lose their minds?  As Marin Cogan pointed out last year, the more she searched for actual evidence that anyone intended to bring it back, the more she had to conclude that it wasn’t going to happen.

But still the Right is up in arms and vowing to do all it can to prevent its return. Christian broadcasters are warning that their programs will be under attack and the word of God is being “opposed at every quarter.” The Family Research Council declares that it would “silence conservative and Christian broadcasters” while Concerned Women for America claims that it would “jeopardize our freedom to share the Gospel.” Focus on the Family says that liberals are trying “to take a huge bite out of the First Amendment” because they are “highly intolerant." The Traditional Values Coalition released a report [PDF] alleging that liberals “want to kick conservative and Christian talk show hosts off the air altogether in order to suppress what they view as ‘hate speech.’” The Media Research Center formed something called the “Free Speech Alliance” for the sole purpose of fighting the Fairness Doctrine and Republicans in Congress even went so far as to introduce legislation that would prevent its return, for which they were hailed as heroes by the Right. And, just in case that fails, the ACLJ announced that it is “formulating our litigation strategy in the event this discriminatory regulation is put in place.” 

As The Politico explained just last week, every time any Democrat so much as mentions the Fairness Doctrine, the Right completely flips out, despite the fact that even supposed supporters of the doctrine have “no plans to introduce any legislation on the issue, nor is it even on the radar”:

But for even the casual listener of conservative talk radio this past week, it would be assumed that federal agents were already en route, pulling radios out of cars or snapping antennas … The passionate reaction on talk radio on this topic, though, reflects a familiar dance between left-leaning politicians and right-leaning talkers.

Every few months, another Democratic leader praises the Fairness Doctrine or talks off the cuff in the Capitol hallway about the government needing to play a role in what’s heard on the public airwaves. Conservative talk show hosts then respond aggressively, rallying the troops from coast to coast with the idea that their favorite shows are about to be taken away by meddling Democrats in Washington.

The Right’s paranoia is so rampant and pervasive that it has now compelled the White House to declare that, even though there is no effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, President Obama would oppose it:

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

So congratulations to all of you on the Right who have managed to propel this issue all the way up to the highest levels of government and forced the President of the United States to state that he does not support the non-existent efforts to re-institute a doctrine that nobody has any intention of trying to re-introduce.  

I’d like to think that this will finally put an end to this nonsense, but knowing how the Right operates, the only thing that is certain is that they are not about to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their fear-mongering and fund-raising.  

• Ken Starr says that President Obama should be prepared for an "uphill battle over his Supreme Court nominees because as a senator he opposed two of President George W. Bush's Supreme Court picks."
• Some group called Conservatives Students Activists and Policy Makers is having a joint conference during the upcoming CPAC that will reportedly feature Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, Mike Huckabee, and Joe the Plumber. I have never even heard of them.
• Richard Land continues to insist that pursuing stem-cell research makes us modern day cannibals.
• Among the things that will probably not endear John McCain to the Religious Right is the fact that his daughter and former campaign manager are scheduled to speak at the Log Cabin Republican's convention in April.
• The ACLJ claims that more than 200,000 people have signed onto its anti-Fairness Doctrine efforts and that it is preparing a legal strategy to fight it if it makes a comeback.
• The Alliance Defense Fund has sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging it to reject the nominations of David Ogden, Elena Kagan, Dawn Johnsen, and Thomas Perrelli:

"We strongly urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to refrain from appointing David Ogden, Elena Kagan, Dawn Johnsen, and Thomas Perrelli to the Department of Justice, as they have each demonstrated throughout their careers a flawed understanding of the Constitution," said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. "Their legal philosophies depart from mainstream views, their professional careers reflect a far-left ideology, and their involvement in the DOJ could jeopardize the proper enforcement of federal law and the development of constitutional doctrines."

The Christian Post reports that Thomas Road Baptist Church, the church founded by Jerry Falwell and currently run by his son Jonathan, is hosting a three-day "Answers for Darwin" conference being put on by the creationists from Answers in Genesis:

Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis, which hosted the three-day "Answers for Darwin" conference, told the crowd in the opening session that America is becoming less of a Christian nation everyday and that it is due in part to the influence of Darwinism.

He cited statistics by research firm The Barna Group, showing that at least 60 percent of students raised in church-going homes who attend public schools will walk away from church.

Referring to the culture war, Ham said there are increasing pervasive attacks in America, including abortion and the removal of the Bible, prayer and creation from public schools.

"What is wrong?" he asked the audience at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va. "I suggest to you the foundation is being taken out of this nation that was once here and we see the structure collapsing."  

Among the speakers is Liberty University professor Dr. David DeWitt, which makes sense because, as The News and Advance recently explained, the teaching of creationism is a key part of Liberty’s core mission to create “good Christians” who will go out and impact law, politics, society, and the culture:

DeWitt’s personal views are critical of evolution, he said.

“If a frog turns into a prince with a kiss then it’s a fairy tale. If a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, it’s science,” he said, referencing the theory of evolution. “It’s almost ridiculous.”

“I’m a scientist, and I’m not denigrating science. I’m critiquing the idea that millions of years is the magic wand that makes it possible.”

…

[Law School Dean Mathew] Staver said that the theory of evolution “has impacted everything,” including his area of expertise — law.

An evolutionary model for arguing cases, for example, now impacts the creation of law, he said.

Instead of the previously accepted practice of basing arguments on the original source, the U.S. Constitution, Staver said, now lawyers instead use case studies that build upon each other and “evolve” over time.

Law students at Liberty “have to understand both sides” in order to critically analyze cases, he said.

They also must learn the details of evolution versus creation “so they are comfortable and confident in advocating their position,” he said.

“You clearly see it in some of the more social areas such as marriage and abortion. But it really permeates all the areas of law.”

[Campus Pastor Johnnie] Moore said Liberty students, no matter which program they’re in, should understand arguments that support the creationist perspective so they can defend their beliefs.

“What we’re doing is, we’re training Christian young people to go into culture in various occupations; to be good Christians in their area of influence,” Moore said. “We want them to be as prepared to represent Christ and the Bible and Christian values in culture as they are prepared to excel in their careers.

CQ has a good article noting that both the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives, two of the core segments of the Republican Party’s base, are in disarray and see no figure on the horizon at the moment who is capable of unifying either movement, much less bringing them together.  In fact, about the only option they have at the moment is to come together in opposition to President Obama and try to derail his political agenda: 

Other movement leaders, such as former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Texas Republican who now chairs the grass-roots small-government group FreedomWorks, are dismayed over the $700 billion financial industry bailout, pushed last year by President George W. Bush and supported in the end by almost half the Republicans in the House and two out of three from the GOP in the Senate. “It’s a dangerous time for fiscal conservatism,” he said.

Indeed, many conservatives say they have little hope that congressional Republican leaders will carry their standard, said Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail guru who helped stir the Reagan revolution in 1980. “Who in the world is ever going to follow Mitch McConnell? Who is going to follow John Boehner?” Viguerie asked in reference to the party’s Senate and House floor leaders. “They look weak. They talk weak, and they have no plan or vision.”

…

Social conservatives such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, say Bush was hardly better on their issues. Apart from his down-the-line opposition to abortion rights, Perkins says, Bush was “not a consistent conservative.”

Most movement leaders are arguing for a return to what they see as the tried-and-true conservative game plan of limited government and traditional values. Most of all, they want congressional Republicans to stand up to the new president. That’s why Perkins is among the movement leaders taking heart in the House stimulus vote. “It was the first time in the six years I’ve been in Washington that the Republicans have stood with the conservatives,” he said.

CQ also reports that right-wing groups are in even deeper trouble at the moment because, traditionally, advocacy groups see their donations increase whenever a president representing the opposing ideology is elected. But that is not happening this time around, thanks to the current economic crisis, and now groups like the Family Research Council might be forced to actually downsize: 

If moderate voices don’t knock over the hard-liners, financial pressures might. Often a shift in power in Washington benefits interest groups of the opposite ideology, as was the case for conservative advocates after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 and for liberal groups after Bush won in 2000. In each case, fired-up partisans increased their donations to interest groups that pledged to fight the new president. But such donor enthusiasm has yet to materialize for conservatives since Obama’s victory.

For example, two weeks after the November election, Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based conservative group, announced it was cutting a fifth of its workforce, or more than 200 employees. The move followed a staff reduction of nearly 50 in September. Now, Perkins says, the Family Research Council may soon follow suit because its revenues are down 15 percent from the previous year.

The Dallas Voice, by way of Box Turtle Bulletin, brings us this news:

The son of T.D. Jakes — the Dallas megachurch pastor who’s called homosexuality a “brokenness” and declared that he would never hire a sexually active gay person — was arrested in a gay sex sting in Kiest Park in January, according to Dallas police reports. […]

T.D. Jakes is the founder of the Potters House, a 30,000-member church in South Dallas. A vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, he’s been criticized by HIV/AIDS activists for undermining prevention of the disease by stigmatizing homosexuality and drug use. 

Jakes joins a distinguished list of anti-gay public figures with gay sons and daughters, including such luminaries as Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes, Randall Terry, and notorious Oklahoma lawmaker Sally Kern. (One might be tempted to list Dick Cheney, but Mary Cheney seems to have been able to bring him around somewhat on the issue.)

Pat Robertson recently told Dan Gilgoff that, while he doesn’t approve of many of President Obama’s cabinet appointments and his handling of the stimulus legislation, he hopes that Obama succeeds because if “he succeeds, the country succeeds”:   

It's not over, but I still want to give him the benefit of every doubt, and I definitely hope he succeeds. It wouldn't be good for Americans for him not to. We don't want a president who fails at domestic and foreign policy.

So you don't subscribe to Rush Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" school of thought?

That was a terrible thing to say. I mean, he's the president of all the country. If he succeeds, the country succeeds. And if he doesn't, it hurts us all. Anybody who would pull against our president is not exactly thinking rationally.

You know that the Republican Party and its agenda are in disarray when Pat Robertson is the only person within its ranks who is capable of sounding reasonable.

Yesterday was the birthday of Lincoln and Darwin, and Virginia GOP chairman Jeff Frederick couldn't pass up the opportunity to go all Cro-Magnon on the father of modern biology.

Frederick obviously put a lot of thought into his assault on evolution and created a foolproof (or so it seemed) plan -- put Darwin up alongside Lincoln and let the people see Darwin for the monster he was.

First he talked about Lincoln; it went haltingly but we got his point:

"Abraham Lincoln is best know (sic), as you all well know, for freeing the slaves by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation affirming in his Gettyburg (sic) Address in 19, I'm sorry, 1863..."

Then on to that bad, bad man:

"Darwin however is best known for the theory of evolution, arguing that men are not only, quote, are only, not, not created, but they are not equal, as some are more evolved... Darwin's theory was used by atheists to explain away the belief in God."

I can only imagine what this guy has up his sleeve for Galileo's birthday, but it's really a shame that Frederick knows so little, perhaps nothing, about the man he's attacking.

He could have learned a lot from this recent piece marking Darwin's bicentennial:

"While many of his contemporaries approved of slavery, Darwin did not. He came from a family of ardent abolitionists, and he was revolted by what he saw in slave countries[.] 'It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.'"

But anyone who's familiar with Frederick knows that this kind of thing is par for the course -- Karen Tumulty captured him in his element last fall:

He climbed atop a folding chair to give 30 campaign volunteers who were about to go canvassing door to door their talking points — for instance, the connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden: "Both have friends that bombed the Pentagon," he said. "That is scary." [...] "And he won't salute the flag," one woman added, repeating another myth about Obama. She was quickly topped by a man who called out, "We don't even know where Senator Obama was really born."

It's pretty clear in which direction Frederick is taking the Virginia GOP. No wonder the party has continued to lose ground under his tenure.

But maybe I'm being too hard on Frederick. He is after all facing a strong challenge to his chairmanship from this gentleman:

[Note to interested readers: you too can look like the guy above by shopping here]

Gay rights activists are pushing to get prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity added to the Kansas Act Against Discrimination and so you just know that the Religious Right is out in force to oppose it because gays, I don't know, have money or something:

Judy Smith, state director of Concerned Women for America, spoke against the bill, saying that civil rights should be used to protect people with visible and unchangeable characteristics. She said homosexuality is a chosen behavior.

Smith also argued that homosexuals aren’t politically powerless and generally earn more than heterosexuals.

Elsewhere, Smith was quoted as saying the addition was unnecessary because homosexuality is a “changable behavior” ... but she has nothing on state Rep. Dennis Pyle when it comes to making wild claims about what would happen if this bill passed:

Sen. Dennis Pyle, R-Hiawatha, said he was concerned the additional layer of legal language might encourage homosexuals to engage in sex with animals.

“Would that protect bestiality?” he asked.

[Pedro] Irigonegaray [counsel to the Kansas Equality Coalition] said proposed amendments to the discrimination statute wouldn’t promote any type of criminal conduct. He said the suggestion that gays and lesbians were tied to bestiality was “unfounded” and “very hurtful.”

It seems that leaders of the Religious Right are tired of being associated with the Religious Right because nobody likes the Religious Right.  Unfortunately for them, they are the Religious Right and that is what we are going to keep calling them, especially now that they are saying we should stop calling them that:

[S]everal politically conservative evangelicals said in interviews that they do not want to be identified with the "Religious Right," "Christian Right," "Moral Majority," or other phrases still thrown around in journalism and academia.

"There is an ongoing battle for the vocabulary of our debate," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "It amazes me how often in public discourse really pejorative phrases are used, like the 'American Taliban,' 'fundamentalists,' 'Christian fascists,' and 'extreme Religious Right.' "

...

Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family, said that when writers include terms like "Religious Right" and "fundamentalist," they can create negative impressions.

"Terms like 'Religious Right' have been traditionally used in a pejorative way to suggest extremism," Schneeberger said. "The phrase 'socially conservative evangelicals' is not very exciting, but that's certainly the way to do it."

...

[M]any groups would rather distance themselves from the Religious Right, even though they may agree on several political issues. Richard Land said he corrects numerous reporters who call him a leader of the Religious Right, explaining that he represents a group of Southern Baptists who would probably consider themselves conservative evangelicals.

"When the so-called 'Religious Right' agrees with us, we applaud their good taste and good judgment," said Land, who is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention. Some phrases need to be eliminated from journalists' vocabulary entirely, he said. "Until Tony Perkins or Jim Dobson puts a pistol on the table and threatens to kill someone, they shouldn't be called ayatollah of the Right or the Jihadists of the Right."

...

Organizational leaders like Tony Perkins of Family Research Council want a term that includes other religious groups like Catholics, Jews, and Mormons so that they can see themselves as fighting for the same cause.

"It's not accurate to say that the Christian Right or the Religious Right is simply a narrow slice of evangelicals," Perkins said. "Will everyone identify themselves as part of the Religious Right? No, but they do share a portion of values."

If the phrase "Religious Right" has negative connotations, it probably stems primarily from the fact that the people who have traditionally represented the Religious Right have caused it to, you know, have negative connotations.  

When people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson go on television and blame the 9/11 attacks on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, [and] all of them who have tried to secularize America," that is the sort of thing that tends to create negative impressions about the Religious Right. 

And even if they were called "socially conservative evangelicals," this type of rhetoric would still create negative impressions about the term "socially conservative evangelicals" ... and then "socially conservative evangelicals" would be telling everyone to stop calling them "socially conservative evangelicals."

You see, it is not the term that it is problem - it is the Religious Right's agenda and rhetoric.