Family Research Council

Yesterday we wrote that Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was preparing to announce a new PAC that, we presumed, would endorse John McCain and Sarah Palin. As it turns out, that FRC is apparently still not quite sure enough about McCain to do so:

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins announced the group's new political action committee that will endorse candidates and raise money.

The PAC will not endorse a presidential candidate, however.

"There are still lingering concerns about some of John McCain’s positions," Perkins said at a press conference. Conservative Christians have voiced concerns in the past over McCain's over embryonic stem cell research and the federal marriage amendment.

Although FRC extended invitations to John McCain, Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin, none of them will appear. Perkins said he believes Palin could have an impact on McCain's policy decisions.

"I’ve had a number of conversations with John McCain, we’re not golfing buddies by any means … she’s not just window dressing, she’s going to be an active partner,"

Perkins said. "While it may not have been a vigorous conversation, John McCain and his campaign were listening." Perkins said the PAC plans to raise about $250,000 and put the money into one of the tighter races.

"We’re not looking to make a huge impact monetarily," he said. "We’re there saying, this is the candidate who lines up with those who are concerned about families."

The PAC endorsed about 80 candidates with just two Democrats on the list: Rep. Heath Shuler and Rep. Mike McIntyre.

Should it be of concern if a candidate, particularly a vice presidential candidate, thinks that the Earth is only a few thousand years old despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary?

Not at all, says Tony Perkins, who happens to believe exactly that:

As Alaska governor, Sarah Palin endorsed the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. That would appear to put the Republican vice presidential nominee in the camp of those who endorse a literal interpretation of the Bible to explain life on earth.

On Wednesday, prominent evangelical leader Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council defended Palin and creationism at a breakfast in Washington with reporters.

Asked if candidates who “literally believe the world is 7 or 8,000 years old, which flies in contradiction of all scientific evidence” are qualified for the White House, Perkins replied: “I think so.” He went on to say: “I hold the same beliefs. And there’s a lot of Americans, especially in the faith community, that believe that God created the earth. And there are flaws in the evolutionary theory — and it is a theory … So, certainly doesn’t disqualify her in their minds.”

The fact that Palin is apparently a creationist and that her creationist belief “doesn’t disqualify her in [the] minds” of other creationists is not particularly surprising, nor is it particularly reassuring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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.

As we noted several times recently, the Right has been anything but unclear that a pro-choice running mate for John McCain would be utterly unacceptable. But even worse than that would be a pro-choice, former Democrat like Joe Lieberman.

As we wrote earlier this week, picking Lieberman would be an unmistakable poke in the eye by McCain to the GOP's right-wing base - one that would not go unnoticed:

But Lieberman’s long history as a Democrat could make for a bizarre debate with Biden — with the two of them sharing long records supporting labor causes and abortion rights and a host of other issues that would infuriate McCain’s activist base.

In essence, said one insider, a Lieberman pick “means McCain would run a campaign without a core constituency of the Republican Party.”

Phyllis Schlafly, of the conservative Eagle Forum, was more blunt: “I think there would be a walkout on Lieberman at the convention. He’s not a Republican.”

For their part, the Family Research Council can't imagine what McCain could possibly be thinking either:

McCain would presumably pledge not to run again and Lieberman would never be the GOP nominee in 2012, thus it would be the swan song for them both. Joe Lieberman has a reasonable and thoughtful image, but his positions on abortion and homosexual marriage would mark a major break for the GOP. It's hard to imagine a more divisive step for McCain, but it would be odd at other levels. By acknowledging from day one that his administration is lame duck, by holding simultaneously the thought that he would remake American politics without touching the nature of his own party, by making his ticket focus solely on foreign policy when economic news dominates the headlines, McCain would be letting the air out of his own balloon.

For most of the election season, the Right has been anything but energized about supporting John McCain.  That had started to change in recent weeks, as their fear of a Barack Obama presidency began to overpower their principles and they initiated efforts to mobilize on his behalf.  At least until McCain suggested that he was open to the idea of naming a pro-choice running mate, at which point the Right began to freak out and, as World Magazine reports, the massive mobilization efforts they had planned came to a screeching halt:

[Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values] said McCain appeared sincere and serious about his pro-life and pro-marriage views. After the June meeting, Burress was poised to deliver for McCain in Ohio: With nearly 1 million contacts in the CCV database, Burress began planning mailings that would tout McCain’s pro-life position.

Burress told WORLD he was also in talks with other Christian groups to send material to their state mailing lists: 100,000 contacts from Focus on the Family, 100,000 from the American Family Association, and some 50,000 from the Family Research Council, according to Burress.

…

Then came August 13: When Burress heard McCain’s comments about the possibility of a pro-abortion running mate, the grassroots gears screeched to a halt. “The train has stopped in its tracks,” Burress told WORLD.

Until McCain announces his running mate, Burress says all plans for grassroots activities are on hold. Political observers say McCain will likely announce his running mate next Friday— the day after Obama delivers his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Burress and other social conservatives remain hopeful that McCain will pick a pro-life candidate, and Burress says he’s confident that evangelicals in Ohio would enthusiastically support him if he does. If he doesn’t? “It will feel like a kick in the stomach,” said Burress. “And you don’t feel like working very hard when you’ve been kicked in the stomach.”

Last month, Politico quizzed some right-wing leaders to get their thoughts on the prospect of John McCain tapping Joe Lieberman as his running mate ... and they weren't pretty:

“Lieberman’s a great pick for McCain if he doesn’t want to be president,” said Tony Perkins, a Christian conservative leader who is the president of the Family Research Council.

Fellow social conservative leader Richard Land, the former director of the Southern Baptist Convention, called a possible Lieberman vice presidential pick "a catastrophe.”

“This would be the kind of thing that could destroy McCain’s campaign for the presidency,” added Don Devine, the vice chairman of the American Conservative Union. “McCain might like to do this in some deep recesses of his heart, but I can’t believe at the end of the day he would do it — and if he did, it would be disastrous. Lieberman is just too far out of any idea of conservatism. It’s just crazy idea.”

“Lieberman is an impossible vice presidential choice,” said Grover Norquist, a conservative anti-tax activist. “You don’t average out a guy who votes hard left on economic matters because he has enthusiasm for occupying Mesopotamia.”

Lieberman has now been tapped to speak at the Republican Convention and the Washington Times is reporting that there are signs that McCain may seriously be considering him for the ticket and that GOP officials are scrambling to figure out how to stop it, even if that means rejecting him on the convention floor:

Officials with John McCain's campaign made a series of conference calls Monday and Tuesday with supporters nationwide to say that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman may be named as the Arizona senator's vice presidential running mate, immediately sparking a frenzied effort by some state Republican officials to come up with a strategy to head off such a move, The Washington Times has learned.

...

Concerned state GOP officials on Tuesday discussed by telephone and e-mail whether to organize delegates to reject Mr. Lieberman if his name comes up for a floor vote for the vice presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention -- if Mr. McCain actually does name him, either before or at the beginning of the Sept. 1-4 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.

But heading off a Lieberman pick beforehand would avoid having to embarrass the GOP nominee by publicly rejecting his judgment on the choice for vice president at a convention watched on television by much of the nation.

Earlier today, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins participated in an on-line Q&A on The Washington Times’ website during which he set out the characteristics the Right is looking for in John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate.  His choice of words that the running mate “needs to be strong where he is weak” by having “have a record of delivering” on the issues that matter to the Right suggests that he, like so many others, is not particularly enthused about McCain:

Question: There has been a lot written about possible VP candidates for McCain that will be acceptable to the Christian value voters. Who are a few possibilities that you could see this coalition being comfortable with?

Answer: To date I have resisted the temptation to play the name game. Rather, I have focused on the qualities we would like to see in John McCain’s running mate. His running mate needs to be strong where he is weak, someone who is not reluctant to talk about the issues that remain top priority for most social conservatives; the sanctity of human life, the preservation of traditional marriage and the strengthening of the family. Not only must this person be able to communicate a concern and a commitment for these issues, they have to have a record of delivering on these and other issues.

So who would be a good choice?  Mike Hucakbee, of course:

Answer: There is no question in my mind that Mike Huckabee would raise the intensity level of support for John McCain, something the Senator really needs. I do have some policy differences with Mike, but we share a common view on most, if not all, of the social policy issues. I think he would compliment John McCain and I would be supportive of him as John McCain's running mate.

It seems that just about every right-wing activist currently supporting McCain wants him to pick Hucakbee and is warning him not to pick Mitt Romney.  In fact, as we reported yesterday, McCain is currently in Michigan meeting with former Huckabee supporters who are telling him the same thing yet again.  And just in case that message hasn’t yet sunk in, another group of Huckabee supporters in Ohio are starting groups all over the state in order to get the message out: 

Some Ohio social conservatives say they know whom they don't want John McCain to pick as his running mate: former Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney.

In a move that may say as much about their continuing uneasiness regarding McCain as it does about their mistrust of Romney, an alliance of Buckeye State social conservatives is trying to form a group: Social Conservatives Against Romney.

Although McCain is keeping his potential vice-presidential choices a tightly held secret, Romney is said to be on the short list.

"Christians are praying earnestly for the right person," said Diane Stover, a Parma resident who was a delegate for GOP candidate Mike Huckabee, a favorite of many social conservatives, in the Ohio primary. "McCain wouldn't have been our person. But we definitely feel like it would be a huge help to John McCain to pick someone we can be confident will represent the value-voter position. I don't think it helps him (McCain) at all in Ohio if he picks Romney."

…

Jane Maines of Hamilton, also a former Huckabee delegate, said the anti-Romney Ohioans hope their group will spread to other states.

Stover and Maines are among about a dozen activists who met near Cincinnati last week, with Stover participating via phone from the Cleveland area, to discuss how to launch the group.

"We're hoping this will become hugely widespread," Maines said.

Presumably, the fact that McCain is not ruling out the possibility of naming a pro-choice running mate is only going to displease the Right further:

IN A WIDE-RANGING INTERVIEW aboard his campaign plane this morning, John McCain said that he is open to choosing a pro-choice running mate and named former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge as someone who merits serious consideration despite his support for abortion rights. McCain also criticized Barack Obama's presidential campaign for attempts to "politicize" the debate over Georgia and criticized President Bush for failing to recognize the true nature of Vladimir Putin.

"I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party," McCain said. "And I also feel that--and I'm not trying to equivocate here--that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out."

Every few years, right-wingers from all over the globe gather for the World Congress of Families in order to “affirm that the natural human family is established by the Creator and essential to good society,” share strategy, and urge their governments to adopt policies that “protect and support the family, and not usurp the vital roles it plays in society.”  Not surprisingly, high on their list of priorities is the protection of marriage and families against “pornography, promiscuity, incest or homosexuality”: 

The complementary natures of men and women are physically and psychologically self-evident. These differences are created and natural, not primarily socially constructed. Sexuality is ordered for the procreation of children and the expression of love between husband and wife in the covenant of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman forms the sole moral context for natural sexual union. Whether through pornography, promiscuity, incest or homosexuality, deviations from these created sexual norms cannot truly satisfy the human spirit. They lead to obsession, remorse, alienation, and disease. Child molesters harm children and no valid legal, psychological or moral justification can be offered for the odious crime of pedophilia. Culture and society should encourage standards of sexual morality that support and enhance family life.

So where is the next World Congress of Families going to be held, you ask?  Of all places, Amsterdam:

Last week, the Selection Committee for World Congress of Families V met in Washington, D.C. and unanimously recommended Amsterdam as the site for the next Congress. Their recommendation was accepted by the WCF Management Committee.

If the World Congress of Families sounds like some sort of international version of the sorts of “values voters” events put on in this country by right-wing political groups, that probably has something to do with the fact that many of those same groups are members of the WCF’s various steering committees, with groups like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America all playing a role:

The 16-member Selection Committee was composed of: Ignacio Arsuaga (HazteOir.org, Spain), Chuck Donovan (Family Research Council), Don Feder (World Congress of Families), Farooq Hassan (Pakistan Family Forum), Jesus Hernandez (The Family Network, Mexico), Marie-Claire Hernandez (Family & Society, Mexico), Randy Hicks (Georgia Family Council), Robert Knight (Culture and Media Institute, Media Research Center), Ewa Kowalewska (Human Life International,  Europe), Gwendolyn Landolt (REAL Women of Canada), Yuri Mantilla (Focus on the Family), Dorothy Patterson (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), Austin Ruse (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), Mary Ellen Smoot, Jennifer Swim (GFC Foundation) and Father Jaroslaw Szymczak (Institute of Family Studies, Poland). The meeting was chaired by Gwen Landolt (Real Women of Canada).

...

The Management Committee, which has ultimate oversight of the Congress, consists of Carlson, Janice Crouse (Senior Fellow, Beverly LaHaye Institute, Concerned Women for America), Paul Mero (President, Sutherland Institute), William Saunders (Senior Fellow & Human Rights Counsel, Family Research Council) and Christine Vollmer (President, Latin American Alliance for Families).

When the event was held last year in Poland, members of the European Parliamentary Working Group on Separation of Religion and Politics were not particularly jazzed that right-wing advocates were preparing to use the nation as a staging ground for saving Europe and the rest of the world from the “demographic winter and … the secularists.”

But the group soldiered on, despite the opposition. As Robert Knight of the Media Research Center put it: 

This is a nation that has suffered enormously over many decades. First from Nazism and then communism. They're a tough bunch of people who appear to have the strength to resist especially the homosexual agenda. If you've been victim of communists and Nazis, you're not going to run in fright from the forces from San Francisco.