Janet Porter (née Folger)

As we’ve chronicled several times over the last few weeks, the “Values Voter Presidential Debate” is scheduled for September 17 in Florida.  Featuring a variety of right-wing leaders, the event is designed to give Republican presidential candidates an opportunity to directly address the concerns of, and answer questions from, figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Don Wildmon, Paul Weyrich, Roy Moore, Janet Folger, and Rick Scarborough.

Unfortunately for the organizers of the event, not one of the four top GOP candidates is willing to be seen with them:

The festivities, however, look likely to go off without a marquee name. Queried yesterday by The New York Sun, the McCain campaign cited a scheduling conflict. "We are not attending," a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, Brooke Buchanan, replied by e-mail. "It's the last day of the No Surrender tour — we will be in South Carolina."

Likewise, the Romney campaign's Florida spokeswoman, Gail Gitcho, told the Sun that the former Massachusetts governor had "declined due to a scheduling conflict."

Mr. Thompson's press office also is citing "another event on his calendar that day."

The Giuliani camp didn't even bother with the scheduling-conflict ruse, providing the Sun with the text of a letter the former mayor's campaign manager, Michael DuHaime, sent to the debate's organizers on Friday. "Thank you for your kind invitation for Mayor Giuliani to attend a presidential debate hosted by Values Voters," Mr. DuHaime wrote. "Unfortunately Mayor Giuliani will be unable to accept your invitation."

Undoubtedly, that snub is not sitting well with them – and it is probably only being made worse by this:

Today FRC Action announced that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney will speak in a prime-time slot at the Washington Briefing 2007: Values Voter Summit on Friday evening, October 19.

So Romney is willing to show up at a “values voters” event hosted by the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Values and others that features the likes of Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Robert Knight, and Richard Land but won’t have anything to do with the other Values Voter folks?  

It seems as if Romney is willing to accept an invitation to speak to right-wing leaders and activists but is unwilling to actually take questions from them.  While FRC and FOF tend to be considered more “reputable” right-wing groups than the Eagle Forum or Vision America, there is, in actuality, no substantive difference between the views, rhetoric, or mission of these groups.  In fact, several of the participants in the Values Voter Debate are also participating in FRC’s Values Voter Summit, including Star Parker, Bobby Schindler, and Phyllis Schlafly.

So why is it that Romney is willing to pander to the Right at the Values Voter Summit, but is unwilling to actually answer questions from them at the Values Voter Debate? 

Could it be because, while they want their support, they hope to achieve it in a way that allows them to avoid publicly pandering to them by answering questions such as “Do you believe the Ten Commandments should be posted on public property?" or “Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?”

It looks as if the “Values Voter Debate” we mentioned a few weeks back is moving ahead, judging by this new press release:

A Values Voter Presidential debate will be held at the Broward Center for the Performing Arts on Monday, September 17th at 7:30 p.m. The majority of the Republican candidates have confirmed their attendance at the event.

30 of the nation's most influential groups will asking the questions of the presidential candidates that matter most to the Values Voters - the largest voting block in America.

Also participating will be key pro-family leaders including:

    * Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum,

    * Don Wildmon, Chairman of the American Family Association,

    * Paul Weyrich, President of the Free Congress Foundation,

    * Judge Roy Moore, Chairman of the Foundation for Moral Law,

    * Janet Folger, President of Faith2Action,

    * Rick Scarborough, President of Vision America,

    * Mat Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel,

    * Star Parker, President of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education,

    * Bobby Schindler of Terri's Fight, and

    * Stephen Bennett of Stephen Bennett Ministries.

The debate will reportedly be aired on Sky Angel television and be streamed live on the ValuesVoterDebate.com  and AFA.net websites.  

The organizers say that “All of the candidates who place our values (and our votes) as a priority will be there” though they have yet to provide any confirmation about just which Republican hopefuls will actually be attending.  Not too long ago, the organizers were claiming that “seven of the nine Republican presidential candidates” had agreed to participate, but that has since been reduced to “a majority of the Republican candidates.” 

Thus, it still remains to be seen just which candidates will agree to travel to Florida in order to rub elbows and be publicly grilled by this group of right-wing zealots.  

Earlier this month, Vision America President Rick Scarborough derided Democratic candidates who attended a forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and Logo TV by writing, “What’s next? The Cross Dresser Debates? Or perhaps the NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Lovers Association) Debates? Or here’s one for the ages -- The Bestiality Debates.”

Now, Scarborough has revealed that he will take time away from his 70-week electoral “crusade” to join Phyllis Schlafly, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Janet Folger in interrogating at least 7 Republican candidates at the so-called “Values Voter Debate” next month in Florida, leading those of us following the parade of GOP contenders wooing the Religious Right to ask: What’s next?

Writes Scarborough:

It's time for the candidates to be asked whether homosexuality is a sin. It's time for them to declare whether the killing of the unborn is ever right. It's time for them to answer whether their Justice Department would prosecute preaching biblical truths as hate crimes.

For candidates nervous about appearing before these far-right luminaries, Scarborough has posted a crib sheet of potential questions he may ask:

No, not her - OneNewsNow reports that "Seven of the nine Republican presidential candidates have committed to taking part in the 'Values Voter Debate' next month in Fort Lauderdale, Florida" being put together by Phyllis Schlafly, Janet Folger, Paul Weyrich, and Don Wildmon. No word on which two have yet to commit.

Religious-right leaders are flocking to defend a mayor whose anti-gay comments have drawn public criticism.

Last month, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Mayor Jim Naugle proposed replacing the bathrooms at the city’s beaches with $250,000 self-cleaning robo-toilets to combat the purportedly rampant problem of gay men using public restrooms for sexual encounters. In discussing his plan, he commented:

"I don’t use the word ‘gay,’ I use the word ‘homosexual.’ Most of them aren’t gay. They’re unhappy."

After a public uproar, Naugle then scheduled a press conference to offer an“apology” for his comments. But the "apology" he offered was for not being aware sooner that sex in public bathrooms was such a problem. The major flaw with this apology, in addition to the obvious bait-and-switch which infuriated local gay-rights activists, is that a Fort Lauderdale police spokesman has characterized the supposed problem as “non-existent.”

Nevertheless, adulation from the religious right has been forthcoming, with Rick Scarborough calling Mayor Naugle “bold,” and Concerned Women for America labeling him “gutsy.” Faith2Action’s Janet Folger even presented Naugle with her weekly “Protector of the Family” award for his efforts. A collection of extremely anti-gay religious-right groups including Americans for Truth, Concerned Women for America, Coral Ridge Ministries, and Faith2Action have even formed their own website, www.healthypublicplaces.com.  Although to date it's nothing more than a link to a press release, the site is further evidence that religious-right leaders are willing to circle the wagons around any politician who spouts anti-gay rhetoric.  

(Photo: Janet Folger presents Naugle with the "Protector of the Family" award.)

Last Thursday, the American Enterprise Institute hosted a debate on “Darwinism and Conservatism” in which Discovery Institute fellows John West and George Gilder sought to persuade conservatives that the scientific theory of evolution is incompatible with their political ideology, no doubt by attempting to link evolution to eugenics and abortion. That same night, the idea was tested in a more practical theater: the Republican presidential debate. John McCain was asked whether he believes in evolution – his answer, after a pause, was yes. Then the co-moderater asked for a show of hands:

As we noted repeatedly over the last several years, the president’s power to nominate individuals to federal court and most importantly, the Supreme Court is an issue of paramount importance to the nation and control over the process has long been the number one political priority for the Right.  

The nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito were met with jubilation by the Right and with the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, President Bush appears to have delivered on their demands for reliable,  hard-line ideologues:   

Vision America

What a vivid reminder this is that Christians must remain politically active -- as it was Values Voters who are responsible for this first step toward overturning Roe v. Wade … This should be a stark reminder to Christians of what’s at stake in the next election.

Traditional Values Coalition

The 5-4 decision, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, clearly shows the importance of having strong judicial conservatives on the bench.

Christian Defense Coalition

There is no doubt this decision would not have been reached if Sandra Day O'Connor were still on the bench instead of Samuel Alito.  If President Bush gets an opportunity to nominate another Supreme Court Justice, he could shape the direction of the court for a generation to come.  Also, that next appointment may be the 'swing' vote in overturning Roe.

Rep. John Boehner

[T]his decision is further confirmation Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, President Bush's two successful appointments to the high court, are who we hoped and thought they were.

Janet Folger

One more president. One more judge. And one more chance to finish the work we began 34 years ago. Our work is not in vain.

Gary Cass

Dr. Gary Cass, executive director of the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, responded, "This is what we hoped and prayed for when we elected pro-life Americans who would nominate and confirm judicial nominees. This is what we hoped and prayed for when two new Supreme Court justices were added to the bench. Today, those years of hoping and praying have borne the best kind of fruit—-the protection of defenseless lives."

Richard Land

Thank God for President Bush, and thank God for Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

Tony Perkins

[The] president of the Family Research Council said the decision vindicated the 2004 victory of Mr. Bush and "shows that elections have consequences." Since conservatives "know that next vacancy is just so incredibly important."

It is not often that we find ourselves in agreement with Tony Perkins, but when he notes that this decision shows just why the “next vacancy is just so incredibly important” we couldn’t agree more.   

Janet Folger, formerly the National Director of the Center for Reclaiming America and current President of Faith 2 Action, announces that she will not be voting for Tommy Thompson, primarily because he reportedly supports the use of implantable Radio Frequency Identification chips. 

And that smacks too much of the Book of Revelations for Folger’s liking:   

He wants us all to be "chipped" with Radio Frequency Identification and sits on the board of the VeriChip Corp., a company currently talking to the Pentagon about inserting the grain-sized microchip into American citizens, beginning with our soldiers.

High-tech stuff like that you can find in the book of … Revelation – written 2,000 years ago. Here's what I remember from Sunday School: In the end times, there's a one-world government and a good-looking charismatic leader who seems like a really great guy, except for the fact that he happens to be the Antichrist. He talks all about peace and requires that everyone take this mark in order to buy and sell. The upside of taking the mark: you get to buy and sell; the downside: you go to hell forever.

Folger, author of The Criminalization of Christianity, has a flair for dramatic rhetoric.  As a featured speaker at the 2006 “War on Christians” conference, she stated that Christians have the right to remain silent in the face of persecution and hostility but “if you use your right to remain silent, those are the last words you’ll hear before seeing the inside of a prison cell.” 

But even for an expert in hyperbole, Folger’s insinuation that Thompson may be the anti-Christ, or at least on of his henchmen, is pretty remarkable.

As I wrote about in my book, "The Criminalization of Christianity," a wave of an implanted hand buys you drinks in Barcelona, Spain. Now it's being used to buy groceries and clothes.

But the mark in Revelation is "required," just like in Mexico where many government workers are required to be chipped – all brought to you by Tommy Thompson's VeriChip Corp. And now it's in Ohio where workers in Cincinnati are being chipped by CityWatchers – a government video surveillance contractor. Big Brother full scale.

Now, I'm not saying that people who get "chipped" at this stage are taking the Mark of the Beast – that would take a software change. But, I can tell you that I'm not going to let anyone put anything in my hand (or forehead), period. No matter how "logical," "reasonable" or "practical," if it's inserted into the hand (or forehead) to identify, buy or sell, you can say whatever you'd like, but I'm out. I don't care if it means I can't buy anymore. I don't care if it means I can't fly anymore. I don't care if it means I die. You can make your case, but I already made that decision – when I was about 10 – before any of this technology even existed.

Not surprisingly, Folger is one Religious Right activist who won’t be turning to Thompson as an alternative to the GOP frontrunners.

If this chip is truly a pre-curser to the Mark of the Beast, it may happen soon anyway, but the way I see it, it doesn't have to happen "on our watch." And we don't have to play a role in expediting it. Just another reason why Tommy Thompson's not getting my vote.

One has to wonder just what world right-wing commentator Cal Thomas inhabits.  The fact that the Right is resoundingly under-whelmed and dismayed by the current crop of GOP presidential frontrunners is not to be taken as a sign that their influence may be waning, but rather as sign that “Conservative Evangelical Christian voters” are supposedly “maturing” in their political outlook: 

Conservative Evangelical Christian voters have come a long way in a short time. From their nearly unanimous condemnation of Bill Clinton for his extramarital affairs, a growing number of these “pro-family” voters appear ready to accept several Republican presidential candidates who do not share their ideal of marriage and faith.

Thomas then goes on to recount the various infidelities of Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John McCain before concluding

That substantial numbers of conservative evangelical voters are even considering these candidates as presidential prospects is a sign of their political maturation and of their more pragmatic view of what can be expected from politics and politicians.

Seeing as these men are widely considered to be among the GOP’s frontrunner and that the first Republican presidential primary is still almost a year away, these voters don’t really have much choice but to consider these candidates at this point.  Nonetheless, according to the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll, they don’t seem too happy about it:

ASKED OF REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY:

Are you generally satisfied with the candidates now running for the Republican nomination for President, or do you wish there were more choices?

Satisfied – 40%

More choices – 57%

DK/NA – 2%

But if, in fact, “conservative evangelical voters” really are willing consider these candidates despite their past infidelities, then they are a lot more forgiving and mature than some of their self-described political leaders, who are actively writing off GOP candidates for an endless variety of reasons: