Republican Party

Yesterday, Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, came out as gay, which is just the latest development signling that the Right is losing its fight against gay marriage.

But don't think for a second that the Right is going to give up without a fight, as Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski, both from the Family Research Council, have already written an op-ed telling the GOP not to even think about abandoning social conservatives on this issue: 

Republican leadership is working hard to prevent a party split. Millions of Tea Party supporters are justifiably fed up with the GOP, and threatening to abandon the GOP in favor of a third party if Republicans do not fully attack out-of-control federal spending and power with a commitment to constitutional government.

That danger cuts both ways.

Social conservatives cannot be played as fools by the Republican Party. They are not “useful idiots.” If Republican leaders abandon social conservatives and the party platform, then they will face the same kind of disaster they could be facing if Tea Partiers abandon the GOP -- Millions of social conservatives will either stay home, or will vote for a third-party candidate who takes up the mantle of marriage, life, faith and family.

As we discuss in the introduction of our book, “The Blueprint,” this is exactly what President Obama wants to see. If a majority of Americans reject the agenda of President Obama and his Democratic Party—as they do today—the only way that Obama and the Dems can hold on to power is to split the opposition vote.

If the GOP splits either over economic issues or over social issues, then President Obama could be reelected with as little as 40% of the vote.

Think that sounds preposterous? It’s happened before in American politics, with 1912 as a perfect example. The year 2012 will be the 100-year anniversary of when a Republican split gave America a Democratic president.

If Republicans flinch on marriage, America could have eight years of President Obama.

Earlier this week, Peter LaBarbera called on Ann Coulter to cancel her scheduled speech at GOProud's upcoming HomoCon 2010 because ... well, GOProud is a gay conservative group which means that, by definition, they work "directly against the Republican Party’s pro-family and pro-marriage platform."

Now Rick Scarborough of Vision America is getting in on the action, sending out an email likewise demanding that Coulter withdraw from the event:

She can't appear at a homosexual group's event while disavowing its agenda.

Coulter says she supports the family and disdains elitism. The voters of 30 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit gay "marriage," by an average vote of 67%. GOProud is telling these voters to shut up and obey their judicial masters. By extension, so is Ann Coulter.

Coulter says she's a devout Christian. One of her bestselling books was titled "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." Does she now occupy the front pew?

Ann Coulter has long been one our best and most courageous spokespersons, but she can't have it both ways - She can't hold herself forth as a defender of traditional values while playing footsie with homosexual groups. Does anyone entertain the notion that a spokesperson for the Gay-Lesbian Straight Education Network would be happy to help me raise funds for Vision America knowing my open opposition to their agenda, because we might agree on taxes and fiscal policy? (We don't and I can assure they won't!)

Conservatives should let Coulter know what they think of her support for GOProud and let her know this betrayal to our values is not without cost. If she fails to respond, then I will no longer buy her books and I call you to send her the same message if she speaks at "Homocon 2010."

Interestingly, the email concludes with this:

Please consider joining us at 6:30 p.m. on August 31st in Houston, TX at the Westin Galleria for our annual Heroes of Faith Gala with Governor Mike Huckabee as our keynote speaker. We will also honor him with the National Hero of Faith Award.

You can read more about that gala here, but I just think this provides a good excuse to relive the infamous Huckabee-Coulter debate about whether he is  "pro-gay, pro-sodomy":

So let's see: Coulter is speaking at an event for a gay group while Huckabee is speaking at an event for an anti-gay group that is blasting Coulter for speaking at an event for a gay group ... and yet it is Coulter who accuses Huckabee of not being a real conservative because he is "pro-sodomy"? 

Given that we are in the middle of Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearing and keep hearing all sorts of complaints from the Right about "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" and whatever, I just wanted to highlight this article from Focus on the Family because it  perfectly demonstrates just how bogus this entire talking point really is: 

A new front just opened Monday in the political tug-of-war over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" – a Clinton-era policy prohibiting people who are openly gay or lesbian from serving in the military.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips in Riverside, Calif., agreed to hear a case that challenges the military policy. The lawsuit was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, a fiscally conservative, gay-activist group within the Republican Party.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for CitizenLink, is concerned the proceedings could become a show trial – with the underlying intent to solidifying the concept that gay members of the military are a victimized class and in need of special protections.

"Once again, gay activists want to use the courts to impose social change rather than leaving this issue to the democratic process," said Hausknecht. "There never seems a lack of judges who will jump at the chance to legislate from the bench."

Hausknecht is angry that the Log Cabin Republicans are trying to use to the courts to impose this change instead of allowing the democratic process to take care of it.  At the same time, Focus on the Family is vehemently opposing efforts in Congress to repeal DADT, which is the very "democratic process" they say should be used. 

So what happens if Congress does manage to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

Robert Maginnis, senior fellow for national security with the Family Research Council, doesn't make much out of this case, as he believes Congress will succeed in repealing the policy well before the November election – and before the court can rule.

"The real decision's going to be made by the Congress," said Maginnis, "and then we have a fight after that – if, in fact, they do repeal."

Hmmm .... is FRC suggesting that they will go to court to fight the repeal of DADT?  

But what about the sanctity of the "democratic process"?  What about using judges to impose decisions contrary to the will of the people?  What about legislating from the bench? 

So apparently the Religious Right is opposed to using the courts to try and repeal DADT ... but entirely willing to use the courts to try and repeal any repeal of DADT. 

Last year, we wrote a series of posts about the How To Take Back America Conference which was hosted by Janet Porter and Phyllis Schlafly and several other Religious Right groups and featured as speakers everyone from Mike Huckabee to Michele Bachmann to Trent Franks.

This year, the event has been taken over by Joseph Farah and WorldNetDaily and seems to have lost most of its ties to the Religious Right, which is why we had not really mentioned it until now. 

The speaker's list contained just the sort of fringe right-wing activists you'd expect from a WND-organized conference: Birthers like Alan Keyes and Jerome Corsi, fake prostitutes like Hannah Giles, rabidly anti-gay critics like Matt Barber, impeachment advocates like Floyd Brown, and all around kooks like Victoria Jackson.

But recently, Farah announced a few new big-name attendees, including Ann Coulter and now Rep. Michele Bachmann:

Rep. Michele Bachmann, the red-hot rising star of the Republican Party, has joined an all-star lineup of speakers, debaters and presenters, including Ann Coulter, Alan Keyes, Victoria Jackson, Hannah Giles, Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi, at WND's "Taking America Back" national conference in Miami Sept. 16-18.

"Michele Bachmann is one of the leaders in calling for a repeal of Obamacare," said Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND. "She's a rock star, a principled, liberty-loving woman of conviction. It will be a treat to see her and hear her and interact with her in Miami."

Other speakers include Gary North, son-in-law of Christian Reconstructionist guru R.J. Rushdoony and an open Reconstructionist himself:

While many Christians believe that biblical law is a guide to morality and public ethics, when interpreted in faith, Reconstructionism is unique in advocating that civil law should be derived from and limited by biblical law. For example, they support the recriminalization of acts of abortion and homosexuality, but also oppose confiscatory taxation, conscription, and most aspects of the welfare state. Protection of property and life needs grounding in biblical law, according to Reconstructionism, or the state set free from the restraint of God's law will take what it wishes at a whim. Accordingly, Reconstructionists advocate biblically derived measures of restitution, a definite limit upon the powers of taxation, and a gold standard or equivalent fixed unit for currency.

Another Reconstructionist also scheduled to speak is Gary DeMar of American Vision, whose mission is to see "an America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life, where Christians apply a Biblical worldview to every facet of society. This future America will be again a 'city on a hill' drawing all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching them to subdue the earth for the advancement of His Kingdom."

So that is whom Bachmann has signed on with - a bunch of Birthers, fake prostitutes, anti-gay militants, rhetorical bomb-throwers, and Christian Reconstructionists.

PS: Interestingly, DeMar's American Vision is also hosting its own "Sovereignty and Dominion" Worldview Super Conference next month that includes Liberty University Law School among its sponsors:

The Bible tells us in Genesis 1:28 that God created us to multiply, fill the earth, and take dominion of His creation for His Glory. When Jesus came to earth, He gave his disciples the Great Commission and told them to make disciples of all nations, Baptize them, and teach them to obey all that he had commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). These two mandates form the basis for why Christ’s Church exists on this planet. Every square inch of this world belongs to King Jesus. It is our privilege to serve Him by exercising servanthood dominion in every area of life.

• Religion Dispatches: Generation Joshua, a program run by homeschooling advocates, aims to get young people working to "help America return to her Judeo-Christian foundations."
• Political Correction: Steve King: Obama Favors The "Black Person" By Default.
• Warren Throckmorton: Lou Engle expressed support for Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill – Guest Post by Jeff Sharlet.
• Sarah Posner: The Duggars To Headline Values Voters Summit.
• TPM: Alabama Tea Partier Defends 'Gather Your Armies' TV Ad.
• Ed Brayton: Christian ministry loses suit over leafleting at Dearborn Muslim festival.
• Steve Benen: The Angle to the Right of the Republican Party.
• Andy Birkey: Bachmann for Senate?
• SPLC: MCDC Founder Simcox Reported on the Run.

While I appreciate the risk some Religious Right leaders are taking in supporting immigration reform legislation, it would be nice if they were at least willing to admit where the problem lies:  

Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land and other evangelicals called for Congress and President Obama to set aside partisanship and special interests to resolve the controversy and problems of illegal immigration.

The immigration crisis "is fanning the flames of hostility and animosity and distrust between various elements in our society, and it is time for our representatives in Congress and our president to put aside partisanship, to put aside narrow political interests and do what is best for the country," said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

"This just takes national will and insistence that our representatives and our senators and our president do what is in the best interest of the nation," Land said.

Both parties have failed on the issue, said Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

"Democrats are willing to save the auto industry, the housing market, health care and banks but somehow do not find time or the political will to save children from being separated from their parents, securing our borders and integrating 12 million into a legal status that would reconcile our communities," Rodriguez said.

It's not Democrats and the President who have consistantly killed efforts to reform our immigration laws - it's Republicans and conservative activists. 

But you do have to admire how Rodriguez, like Land, is openly admitting that his support for immigration reform is frankly part of an effort to lure Hispanics into the conservative movement:

The Republican Party "stands at the brink of repeating history by completing a wall, not between Mexico and the United States but between Hispanic Americans and the conservative movement. How ironic," he said. "The group that [President Ronald] Reagan believed would invigorate the Republican Party via its traditional values of God, family and country today potentially stands rejected by the party of Reagan. The family values party is alienating the most pro-life, pro-family constituency in America. Go figure."

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is, predictably, getting hammered from social conservatives for his statement that the next president will have to call a "truce" in the culture war in order to focus on economic issues.

He has already been blasted by Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council and right-wing activists continue to pile on:

Others, like Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute and an early supporter of 2008 presidential hopeful John McCain, says Daniels will have a hard time winning the GOP nomination if he demurs on pro-life issues.

“Something like this will cost him any consideration from one of the key constituencies of the Republican Party," he told LifeNews.com.

...

Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America -- a group that has spearheaded efforts to oppose Elena Kagan and the pro-abortion health care bill -- didn't mince words either.

"When it involves life, no one can make no a truce. There is no room for gray area, no time to play dead, and no time to stick out head in the sand. When you realize that 1.3 million babies are aborted every year, Governor Mitch Daniels’ words show a level of cowardice that is not expected from a presidential hopeful," she told LifeNews.com.

Even Mike Huckabee, who has steadily been working to establish himself as the champion of the socially conservative wing of the party, is getting in on the action ... and using it to raise donations for his HuckPAC:

I received an astonishing email today from a concerned friend who has been very influential in the fight to end the scourge of abortion.

Apparently, a 2012 Republican presidential prospect in an interview with a reporter has made the suggestion that the next President should call for a “truce” on social issues like abortion and traditional marriage to focus on fiscal problems.

In other words, stop fighting to end abortion and don’t make protecting traditional marriage a priority.

Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues. They are moral issues. I didn’t get involved in politics just to lower taxes and cut spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization.

For those of us who have labored long and hard in the fight to educate the Democrats, voters, the media and even some Republicans on the importance of strong families, traditional marriage and life to our society, this is absolutely heartbreaking. And that one of our Republican “leaders” would suggest this truce, even more so. Governor Daniels is a personal friend and a terrific Governor, and I’m very disappointed that he would think that pro-life and pro-family activists would just lie down.

Are you ready to stop fighting for traditional marriage? I cannot. I will not.

Can you let the tragedy of abortion go unchecked while we get our financial house in order? I cannot. I will not.

A strong leader doesn’t need to focus myopically on one or two issues – but a strong leader is willing to fight for and defend their principles while rising to meet new challenges and solve all of the existing systemic problems confronting us.

For me these issues are critical. Indeed they are founding principles of my personal conservatism and part of the ideological foundation of the Republican Party. If you agree, I am asking you to help me send a signal.

...

Help me raise 2,012 new donations within the next 7 days for Huck PAC. That will help me show the importance of these issues to our Party and give us the financial resources we need to support strong conservatives who are fighting for life, traditional marriage, lower taxes, lower spending, secure borders and a strong national defense.

Help me send a strong signal – life and traditional marriage are NOT bargaining chips. Make a donation today.

Whenever Republicans win elections, the media is fond of attributing the victories to the influence of "values voters" - the Religious Right activists who make up a significant portion of the party's political base.  On the flip side, whenever the GOP loses elections, we start seeing all sorts of articles about the decline in the Religious Right's influence and predictions of their forthcoming extinction.

And inevitably, those sorts of articles are followed some time later by new articles discovering that the Religious Right has not, in fact, disappeared and are extremely motivated heading into the next election. 

Articles just like this:

Angry over health care reform and the abortion fight it reinvigorated, worried about the expansion of gay rights and frustrated by President Obama's criticisms of Israel, religious conservatives are eager to play a key role in the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections.

But many are also not sold on the Republican Party, and analysts are wondering whether some of them will sit out November's elections - something religious conservatives have done in the past when neither party appealed to their interests.

"There certainly seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that the Christian right is more energized this year," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council in Washington. "But I don't think that's necessarily a windfall for the Republicans."

Mr. Perkins said conservative Christians - as well as Orthodox Jews and abortion opponents - are unhappy with Mr. Obama and looking for change; yet sizing up candidates who can deliver is another matter.

"The Republicans could be that change," Mr. Perkins said. "But in a lot of ways, they are not there yet."

...

Gary L. Bauer, president of the pro-life group American Values, predicts a simmering intensity among values voters. He said "hyphenated conservatives" who accepted Mr. Obama in the last election cycle are dumbfounded by the president's hard tack left and repulsed by runaway spending.

"It's almost like we're witnessing a complete mirror image of 2008, when all the passion was among young voters, minorities and first-time voters," said Mr. Bauer. "Now that energy is with conservatives and older voters. ... There's tremendous intensity out there."

Mr. Bauer, a former presidential candidate who served in the Reagan administration, said values voters consider Mr. Obama an apologist and not a defender of the United States, and dislike "his questioning whether we're even a Judeo-Christian nation" ... "That same week he issued the order to close Guantanamo [Bay prison]. We learned then that he cared more about the rights of jihadists than he did about the rights of unborn babies," Mr. Bauer said.

Abortion is also at the forefront of concerns for the Colorado-based Focus on the Family.

Tom Minnery, senior vice president for Focus' Citizen Link, said his group hasn't endorsed candidates for the fall but plans to be involved.

"We're very, very concerned about the largest expansion in abortion since Roe v. Wade," Mr. Minnery said. "And we are going to let our members know who voted for what."

Wow.  You mean major right-wing groups like FRC, Gary Bauer, and Focus on the Family don't like President Obama or the Democrats and are dedicated to doing all they can to vote them out of office?  Who ever would have guessed that? 

But you really have to wonder about this assessment that the Religious Right is going to throw in with "outsider" candidates like Rand Paul: 

With both parties stumbling, many values voters are supporting "outsider" candidates, such as "tea party" favorite Rand Paul, who won the May 18 GOP primary in Kentucky to run for the U.S. Senate this fall.

Mr. Paul won the primary over a candidate who had been backed by the Republican Party establishment in Kentucky and Washington - and he did it with the help of outsiders such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and conservative religious broadcaster James Dobson.

First of all, how many Rand Paul-like candidates are there?  And secondly, Sarah Palin and James Dobson are considered "outsiders"?  Really? Dobson has been among the most influential Religious Right leaders for decades and Sarah Palin was, the last time I checked, the GOP's vice-presidential candidate in the most recent election.

On Tuesday, Rand Paul shocked the Republican establishment by winning the GOP Senate primary in Kentucky.

On Wednesday, Paul shocked everybody by suggesting that he doesn't really like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and thinks that the government has no business fighting discrimination in private enterprises.

Not surprisingly, Republican Senators are not particularly eager to come rushing to Paul's defense, for which they are being criticized by right-wing activists like the Family Research Council's Tom McClusky:

Where the NRSC comes back into play is in how quickly its chairman, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), threw Rand Paul under the bus. Instead of talking to the candidate directly, or not commenting at all until he did, the Texas Senator told Politico “I don’t know what he means by that. I support non-discrimination of people, so I would need to talk to him to see what precisely his concerns were.” Translation: “I’m not a racist, but Rand Paul might be.” Not exactly strong support for a candidate you are supposed to be supporting now that he has won his primary. It is very likely the Republicans will pick up a few Senate seats this year, and even more likely two of those seats will be candidates the NRSC did not initially support, Mr. Paul and Mr. Rubio. Despite any victories the Senate Republicans might see it will definitely be time for new leadership at the NRSC prior to the 2012 elections. In that year Senate Republicans have an even larger chance of gaining the majority – but only if they play it smarter than they have been so far.

Interestingly, Paul doesn't seem to consider himself a Republican candidate so much as he does a Tea Party candidate, telling CBN's David Brody that he has no intention of blindly supporting the GOP and is instead focused on representing and unifying the Tea Party movement so that it can change the Republican Party:

Many people can be a Tea Party candidate but I think in my case it sort of fits the bill very well. I’ve never run for office, never been elected to office and I really and part of the movement in the sense that from the very beginning I went to all their meetings and many people thought that I just had the vote from the beginning. You have to earn the Tea Party vote. I interviewed with every one of the different committees in the Tea Party and they will ask you: will you be a rubber stamp for the Republican Party and that’s not a good thing because they say sometimes the Republican Party is wrong.

...

They do need a Tea Party platform and so I say lets coalesce it into some specific things and these are things I want to run on so when the primary is over and we run in the fall I don’t want to run away from the Tea Party I want to define what the tea party is.

If you go around Kentucky every tea party is by city and sometimes by county and sometimes counties have two of them and sometimes they’re not talking so it will be a job and I’m hoping since I’ve been all around the state and met everyone that I can be a conduit for bringing some of them together and I’ve been suggesting for weeks now lets have a Kentucky Tea Party Convention and try to join together and talk about a platform and I don’t see this as outside the Republican Party. I see this as an influence that can be influential within the Republican Party.

You know, it's hard to see why the Republican establishment should come rushing to defend Paul when Paul considers himself to be a Tea Party candidate on a mission to do away with the Republican establishment.