Posts on Richard Land

There's has been a lot of in-fighting and finger-pointing in Republican circles since the election as they try to figure out what went wrong and who is to blame.  While some have been blaming the Religious Right and suggesting that the GOP needs to dump them, others have been saying that is recipe for disaster.

Now comes Richard Land to the rescue, saying that the party has to stick with its anti-gay, anti-abortion agenda ... but should kick out the "nativists" if it wants to win future elections:

"If the party's going to eject anyone, it should be nativists" who urge draconian measures against immigrants, Land said. Social conservatives should be seen as the base.

...

Young and old, "evangelicals and Mormons voted their values," Land said.

Land said abortion must remain at the core of the future GOP.

"They can't win with just pro-life votes. But without them they are doomed to electoral oblivion for a generation.

"Evangelicals made up 38 percent of (John) McCain's raw vote. Try replacing those votes with centrist policies," he said.

I suspect that rather than solving the GOP's problems, this is just going to add yet another round of finger-pointing, blame-shifting, and acrimony to the mix.

When she first burst onto the Republican scene, we wrote a few posts about the Religious Right’s newfound love of the idea of Sarah Palin as Vice President even though they would have opposed the idea of allowing her to be a leader in their churches.    

For those right-wing leaders who didn’t outright oppose the idea that Palin might have an “unbiblical” career outside of the home, their explanation was that so long as her husband Todd approved of her candidacy it was okay.

So I wonder what these Religious Right leaders think now that they are finding out that Palin wasn’t even planning on asking Todd if it was okay until John McCain suggested that she should at least run it by him:

PALIN: Just looking right in my eyes and saying, Are you ready for this? Would you like to do this? And I said, I would be honored to run with you. Absolutely. […]

VAN SUSTEREN: Todd wasn’t with you. Did you call Todd then?

PALIN: Well, before I said yes. That was Senator McCain’s recommendation. He says, Why don’t you call your husband and find out, you know, if he’s good with this also. I called Todd, and Todd, too, was no hesitation. He was like, Absolutely. This will be good. Yes, do this. And just good confirmation that, of course, we were to say yes.

It must come as something of a shock for Richard Land, who was advocating for Palin months before McCain chose her, to find out that Palin had to be reminded to talk to her husband about it - especially since Land believes that her husband’s approval was a fundamental requirement, saying the “only thing that would disqualify Gov. Palin from being governor or vice president … would be if her husband didn't want her to do it.”

I had been working on this post throughout the day, but before I actually got around to writing it I found that David Waters of the Post's "On Faith" blog had already pretty much written it, so I figure I'll just link to that and highlight this bit:

Officials at James Dobson's Focus on the Family seem to agree. They chose to focus on the success of Tuesday's anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives in Arizona, California and Florida. "A tremendous night for the cause of righteousness," senior vice president Tom Minnery said on Focus's CitizenLink webcast.

Southern Baptist leader Richard Land told Christianity Today that "Evangelicals did their part. The exit polling is showing that there's no drop-off among evangelicals. The 2006 elections showed us that evangelicals can't win elections by themselves. If indeed the three marriage initiatives win, it will show that the values voters were not the ones who lost this election. If evangelicals are sad about the election, I'm going to say, 'Do you have faith in God? Is your faith in God or in government?'"

I've been having a bit of difficulty putting together a post regarding what the Right has to say about their anti-gay amendment wins in Florida, California, and Arizona not because I don't know what to say about it, but because they don't seem to know what to say about it. 

As of this writing, aside from ProtectMarriage.com thanking supporters and voters and insisting that their victory in California "doesn’t discriminate or take rights away from anyone," no major Religious Right groups have had much to say about any of this.  Powerhouse groups like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, and the ACLJ have all been oddly silent. 

In fact, the only things I've really been able to find have been Richard Land crowing that "if traditional marriage can win in California, it can win in any of the 50 states when it's put to a vote of the people" and Ken Blackwell saying if Prop 8 "hadn't passed, we would have seen a floodgate opened in terms of same-sex marriage. Now, we've closed that gate." 

Of course, you can always count on Matt Barber to having something to say about it and he does not disappoint by providing his unique spin which suggests that Barack Obama's historic victory last night means he is now obligated to embrace the Right's anti-gay agenda:  

The passage of these three state constitutional amendments is an indicator that Obama, who has pledged full support for every single demand of extremist homosexual pressure groups, must recalibrate his far-left positions on these and other social issues if he wishes to be an effective leader ... The institution of legitimate marriage is a cornerstone of any healthy society. If you introduce counterfeit money into society, it devalues the dollar. By the same token, if you introduce counterfeit "gay marriage" into society, it devalues the institution of natural marriage. President-elect Obama owes his African-American supporters and the rest of America assurances that he will work to protect the cornerstone institution of legitimate marriage and reject the free-speech killing, religious liberties chilling agenda of the radical homosexual lobby."

For those hoping that a victory by Barack Obama might somehow restrain or moderate the Religious Right … well, you are going to be disappointed since the Right is already looking ahead and planning on reconstituting itself by rallying around Sarah Palin and launching an all-out culture war: 

"An Obama victory will galvanize social conservatives for 2010 and 2012 and they will look for a standard bearer they can rally around," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy arm of America's largest evangelical group.

Land told Reuters the candidate most likely to "rally the troops" under an Obama administration looked to be McCain's running mate Sarah Palin.

The Alaska governor has excited the evangelical base but her strident opposition to abortion rights and other hard-core conservative positions have alienated more moderate voters.

William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League which opposes abortion rights, said religious conservatives were bracing for a new phase in the "culture wars."

"I've been on the phone the last couple of days with some of my friends ... and we're getting ready for the biggest culture war battles ever," Donohue said.

"There is nobody in the history of the United States who has run for president who is a more enthusiastic supporter of abortion rights than Obama," he said.

That is the title of this good piece by NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagerty on how John McCain managed to go from reviled enemy of the Religious Right to panderer extraordinaire in just eight years.

Hagerty recounts who McCain openly attacked the Right with his "agents of intolerance" remark back in 2000 and how despite Gary Bauer's efforts to help him adjust the tone and direction of the attack, there was no confusion on the part of Religious Right leaders regarding what he meant: 

"It was very hurtful," recalls Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. "When you attack two of their leaders — and those two people were much more important leaders in 2000 than they are today – well, it damaged McCain with a lot of the grassroots."

And then McCain only compounded the problem this year when he sought the support of John Hagee and Rod Parsley only to reject them when he was forced to answer for their views, something that Richard Land points out only went to show how clueless McCain is about the GOP's right-wing base:

Land says the controversy showed how little McCain knew the constituency he was trying to woo. "Both of these guys hold positions which anyone who knows evangelical life well would know would be problematic for someone running for national office," Land says. "I think McCain and his advisers just didn't know the lay of the land."

The interesting thing about this, which Land doesn't mention, is the fact the Right was not mad at McCain for seeking the support of Hagee and Parsley because they held crazy views unrepresentative of the movement, but because he refused to defend them and their views when they came under attack and ultimately dropped them alltogether. 

But then McCain finally got his act together, started courting them, saying the things they wanted to hear, and finally gave them the VP nominee they had been dreaming of:

In May, McCain began to court the evangelical leaders he had once disdained, with the help of Bauer, his friend and religious insider. All summer, McCain met privately with leaders and stressed his credentials that he is strongly pro-life, anti-same-sex marriage, a religious conservative by record if not by countenance.

Then he threw the first of two punches.

On Aug. 16, McCain and his Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama agreed to be questioned, separately, by Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Southern California. During the televised forum, McCain served up short, definitive answers, just as this evangelical audience wanted it.

...

Bauer was sitting in the front row.

"Even before the event was over during little breaks for TV," he recalls, "people were patting me on the shoulder, saying, 'Oh my gosh, Gary, he's so much better than I thought he would be. This is wonderful!'"

Two weeks later, McCain delivered his knock-out punch to Obama's hopes for winning traditional evangelicals when he announced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

At that moment, some 250 evangelical leaders were meeting in Minneapolis. Land, who was there, says they jumped to their feet and cheered.

"The first appointment in a supposed McCain admin is who he picked for vice president," Land says. "And he picked someone who is a rock star among pro-lifers, Catholic and Protestant. There's not a pro-life activist in the country who didn't know exactly who Sarah Palin was before John McCain ever picked her as his vice president."

And that is how John McCain shed his pariah status among Evangelicals - by completely caving to their demands. 

It seems as if the Southern Baptist Convention is having a bit of an internal disagreement about whether or not the use of birth control is acceptable.  Dr. Thomas White of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary says its not and that those who use it are selfish and committing murder: 

The Southern Baptist Convention is reacting after News 8 showed a message from a Southern Baptist preacher teaching Fort Worth seminary students that the birth control pill equals murder.

In a controversial sermon to students at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Thomas White, acting as the student services vice president this month, preached that birth control is murder and called attempts at family planning selfish.

"Some of you are involved in that exact same sin," he said.

But Richard Land disagrees, kind of:

"I don't believe prudent planning is rebellion against God's will as long as couples accept God may cause them to have unplanned pregnancies anyway," said Richard Land.

But, Land said he ultimately agrees with Dr. White on the subject of the birth control pill.

...

"The Southern Baptist Convention is not opposed to the use of birth control within marriage as long as the methods used do not cause the fertilized egg to abort and as long as the methods used do not bar having children altogether unless there's a medical reason the couple should not have children," he said.

The most interesting angle of this kerfuffle is found in a video report from WFAA in Dallas regarding the issue in which Dwight McKissick of Cornerstone Baptist Church decries White's views as "fundamentalist run amok" and declares that the seminary is "degenerating into a Baptist fundamentalist indoctrination camp." 

That would be the same Dwight McKissick who recently appeared in this anti-gay Family Research Council video in which he proclaimed that efforts to liken gay rights to the civil rights struggle are "insulting, demeaning, and offensive" and called it racist to "compare my skin with their sin." He's also the one who, at the FRC Values Voter Summit back in 2006, declared that the gay rights movement had come "from the pit of hell itself" and suggested that the Anti-Christ was gay.

When you are being pejoratively decried as a radical fundamentalist by ... well, another radical fundamentalist, maybe you've gone too far.  

Today, the LA Times takes a look at the issue, which we’ve mentioned here a few times, of the seeming conflict between the belief among some conservative evangelicals that women cannot be leaders of the church and that their proper role is to be submissive to their husbands all while enthusiastically supporting Sarah Palin’s candidacy for vice president.  

The consensus seems to be that biblical restrictions on women's roles only apply at church and at home, not out in the secular world and, provided that Palin's husband approves, she is free to have a career.  

But inevitably, there are those for whom even this seemingly restrictive view is too liberal: 

"The Palin selection is the single most dangerous event in the conscience of the Christian community in the last 10 years at least," said Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum, a Texas-based ministry. "The unabashed, unquestioning support of Sarah Palin and all she represents marks a fundamental departure from our historic position of family priorities -- of moms being at home with young children, of moms being helpers to their husbands, the priority of being keepers of the home."

Voddie Baucham, a Texas pastor who has criticized the Palin selection as anti-family in a series of blogs, said that the overwhelming evangelical support demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice biblical principles for politics. "Evangelicalism has lost its biblical perspective and its prophetic voice," Baucham wrote. "Men who should be standing guard as the conscience of the country are instead falling in line with the feminist agenda and calling a family tragedy . . . a shining example of family values."

In an interview, Baucham said the hundreds of responses he's received are running 20 to 1 in his favor. But he said he has also been castigated for "breaking ranks" by some, who argue the election is too important to raise divisive issues.

He and other like-minded pastors disagree. "It's more important for us to truthfully represent the priorities of Scripture than it is for us to win an election," Phillips said.

That view is obviously held by a very small minority of evangelicals, but overall this issue is leading to rather odd statements from Religious Right leaders as they try to reconcile this apparent contradiction:  

Although many conservative Christians agree that women should place homemaking over working outside, many are hesitant to apply those views to Palin. Christian author Martha Peace, whose book "The Excellent Wife" tells women to submit to husbands and be good homemakers, said she would not make the same choice as Palin.

Ditto for Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and recommended Palin to the McCain campaign. He also would not do as the Palins have done. "I'm not hard-wired to be the 'First Dude,' " he said.

But Peace and Land are two of many who say the public should stay out of what is a matter between the Palins and their pastor. "I wouldn't presume to make that judgment for another family," Land said.

That’s rich coming from Land, whose entire career has been based on passing judgment on others.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

...

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

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

Back in 2000, John McCain solidified his "maverick" reputation by lambasting the Religious Right, labeling Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" and decrying the Right's role within the Republican Party:

They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Since then, McCain has been working hard to get back in their good graces, though the Right has been openly skeptical and their support for him has been lukewarm at best.  But all of that changed with his decision to name relative-unknown Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I can say without exaggeration that, in all my years of watching the Right, I have never seen them as excited about anything as they are about the Palin nomination.  Nor, for that matter, have I ever seen a prominent politician more blatantly capitulate to their demands:

James Dobson, Focus on the Family:  "A lot of people were praying, and I believe Sarah Palin is God's answer.”

James Dobson: “[A]n outstanding choice that should be extremely reassuring to the conservative base of his party.”

James Dobson:  I have only endorsed one presidential candidate in my life and that was George Bush in the second term after I had watched him for four years … So I’m very reluctant to do that … But I can tell you that if I had to go into the [voting booth today], I would pull that lever.

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council: “Senator McCain made an outstanding pick.”

Connie Mackey, FRCAction:  “I am elated with Senator McCain's choice.”

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel: "Absolutely brilliant choice.”

Richard Land: “Governor Palin will delight the Republican base.”

Rick Scarborough, Vision America, “I’m elated. I think it’s a superb choice."

Ralph Reed: “They’re beyond ecstatic. This is a home run.”

Gary Bauer, American Values: "[A] grand slam home run."

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: “She is the best possible choice.”

Janet Folger, Faith2Action: “[T]he selection of Sarah Palin is more than ‘Brilliant!’ ‘Electrifying!’ and ‘Energizing!’ The selection of Sarah Palin will lead to words like: ‘Rejuvenating!’ ‘Victory!’ and ‘Landslide!’"

Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America: “Governor Palin will change the dynamics of the entire presidential race.”

Janice Shaw Crouse, CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute: “She is an outstanding woman who will be an excellent role model for the nation's young people.”

David Barton, Wallbuilders: "The talk won't be about, 'look at Sarah Palin' as much as 'look at what McCain's choice of Palin says about McCain's core beliefs.”

Jonathan Falwell: “John McCain made it very clear that his administration was going to be a pro-life administration, and he proved that’s his belief and his passion today with the choice of Sarah Palin.”

Jerry Falwell, Jr.: “I think it’s a brilliant choice.”

Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life: “And then when [Palin] was announced — it was like you couldn’t breathe. [We] were grabbing each other and jumping up and down.”

Gary Marx, Judicial Confirmation Network: "I can tell you that this pick tells millions in the base of the party that they can trust McCain. More specifically that they can trust him with Supreme Court picks and other key appointments’"

David Keene, American Conservative Union: “The selection of Governor Palin is great news for conservatives, for the party and for the country. I predict any conservatives who have been lukewarm thus far in their support of the McCain candidacy will work their hearts out between now and November for the McCain-Palin ticket."

In eight years, John McCain has gone from attacking the Right's "corrupting influences on religion and politics" to answering James Dobson's prayers. Absolutely remarkable.

The Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board and Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission have announced a 40 Day Prayer Vigil for Spiritual Revival and National Renewal. Set to begin in late September, it is timed to conclude - wouldn't you know it - right on Election Day:

The 40/40 Prayer Vigil is set to begin Wednesday, Sept. 24, and conclude on the Sunday morning, Nov. 2, before Election Day. According to the website for the vigil, iLiveValues.com/prayer, the vigil begins with 37 days of daily prayer and concludes with a recommended 40 hours of around-the-clock intercession during the final three days of the initiative.

...

It is not happenstance that the vigil ends just days before Election Day, the two Southern Baptist leaders confirmed.

"As Election Day approaches, we as Christians know we need to be committed to praying for the outcome and for those who will be elected to lead us," Hammond said. "But milestone moments like this in our history should remind us of the importance of asking God for spiritual awakening in our land."

"As Christians, we need God to give us wisdom as we select the next president of the United States," Land said. "People must realize that government at every level is a lagging social indicator," he added. "True and lasting change in our nation will come from spiritual renewal in the hearts of America's citizens, not from government programs."

As the AP reports:

Southern Baptists are organizing a nationwide prayer campaign to accompany their values-voter registration drive, seeking spiritual renewal for families and churches, and God's favor for public officials who are guided by the Bible.

The 40/40 Prayer Vigil for Spiritual Revival and National Renewal will run from Sept. 24 through Nov. 2, two days before the general election.

The daily prayers include requests for God's guidance in voting, for the election of more "godly Christians," for God to "help churches find ways to help Christians get to the polls" and for public officials to be protected "from the attacks of Satan."

The effort is a companion program to the iVoteValues registration campaign, which began in 2004 and is jointly led this year by Southern Baptists, the largest Protestant group in the country, and the Family Research Council, a conservative Washington-based advocacy group.

Ezra Klein predicts that John McCain will choose Joe Lieberman as his running mate and explains his reasoning:

For the Republicans, however, 2008 can't be [about] mobilization. Their half is too small. Their brand is too damaged. And they recognized that when they chose John McCain -- who's not a base mobilizing evangelical conservative anyway -- as their nominee … [Lieberman] lets McCain telegraph an ideological ambiguity and shift towards a policy agenda that's about process, about "reaching across party lines and getting things done," rather than about sops to the conservative base.

That may very well be true, but for this strategy to work one has to assume that the McCain camp would be willing to sacrifice nearly the entire Religious Right base in an effort to win support of moderates and independents because, as the Right has made abundantly clear, their now tepid support for McCain hinges almost entirely on his choice of running mate.  

Just last week, we were noting how the Right was nearly unanimous in their opposition to Lieberman and that, while they were just starting to warm up to McCain, their efforts at mobilizing their grassroots activists on his behalf came to a screeching halt when he suggested that he was open to the idea of naming a pro-choice running mate.  

Right-wing activists have been battling one another over whom best fills the McCain campaign’s need to appease the base for weeks now, a battle that continues even to this day:

Among those doing some soul-searching this week is Betty Kanavel, who lives in the tiny Monroe County town of Ida and will vote for no one who isn't anti-abortion. She would like McCain to pick Mike Huckabee, the charismatic preacher and former Arkansas governor who finished third in Michigan's primary.

The 56-year-old Kanavel, who works part-time at her church, also is concerned over Romney's religion.

"I probably shouldn't go there, but I will anyway: The Mormon religion is totally not the Bible," Kanavel said, adding: "It's very hard, but if he's the choice, OK. He is a good man."

But this is a debate that has raged over Mike Huckabee vs. Mitt Romney and is rooted in the fact that both are, at least nominally, pro-life.  Lieberman, for all his faults, is ostensibly pro-choice - a fact that will not be easily glossed over by the Religious Right: 

Let us be clear on this. Our values and our respect for the Constitution make clear that women must have the right to choose—and we will continue to fight for that right

When McCain floated the idea of a pro-choice running mate a few weeks ago, the Right went completely off the rails and leaders like Richard Land have been taking every opportunity to make absolutely clear just what such a decision would mean to McCain's campaign: 

If he picks a pro-life running mate, it will really cement evangelical support. If he picks a pro-choice running mate it will give oxygen to all those doubts, and deflate the momentum that has been building.

As James Dobson explained last month when he announced that he was changing his position from “never” to “maybe” on McCain, his support hinged in large part on McCain’s choice of running mate:

I don't even know who his vice-presidential candidate will be. You know he could very well choose a pro-abortion candidate and it would not be unlike him to do that because he seems to enjoy a frustrating conservatives on occasions. But as of this moment, I have to take into account the fact that Senator John McCain has voted pro-life

consistently and that's a fact.

In case that wasn’t clear enough, FOF’s Tom Minnery recently told the San Francisco Chronicle that Dobson is essentially waiting to see who McCain picks before officially endorsing him:

"Admittedly, for a lot of us, McCain is an acquired taste," said Tom Minnery, who leads the government and public policy division for Focus on the Family.

But if McCain chooses a strong social conservative for his running mate, Focus on the Family's leader, James Dobson - whose conservative radio broadcasts are heard by 200 million people worldwide - could endorse him.

"We'll wait to see who his vice president is before embracing him," Minnery said.

If the McCain campaign decides that a pro-choice running mate is what the campaign needs, it’ll be because it has concluded that he can with without the Right or, more likely, that the Right will put aside its principles because they have no alternative but to support the campaign regardless of his running mate.  But the Right is in no mood to be insulted in this manner.  As it stands now, McCain’s support from the right-wing base is tenuous at best and will likely collapse completely were he to fill out his ticket with a pro-choice candidate.

As Dobson explained it, McCain has a history of going “out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes” of the Religious Right – and choosing a pro-choice running mate would be the ultimate poke in the eye to the Right; one that would make it nearly impossible for them to support him.

Just posting this quote from Richard Land because I have a feeling that it'll come in handy at some point in the future:

Is America a Christian nation?

America has always been a very religious country, but I don't think America is a Christian nation. I don't think it was founded as a Christian nation. The majority of the country thinks so, and I think the majority of the country is wrong.

As an evangelical, I find the phrase "Christian nation" to be problematic because for me being a Christian is an individual decision and a personal relationship.