Don't Get Any Ideas Romney

Last week we noted that several high-profile Religious Right leaders were part of an effort to express thanks and support to the Mormon Church for its efforts to help pass Proposition 8 in California. But just because the Right is appreciative of the role that Mormons played in the effort doesn't mean that they are necessarily ready to actually vote for a Mormon for president, as Christianity Today points out:

Evangelicals were content to partner with Mormons on Proposition 8 because the groups agreed on the end goal, said Gerald R. McDermott, professor of religion at Roanoke College and coauthor of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate.

"The outcome is to have a marriage policy that is completely agreeable to evangelicals. Before, the outcome was someone in office who, to a lot of evangelicals, represented a theology that was completely disagreeable," McDermott said. "They agree on these horizontal issues while they disagree with the vertical issues, which are theological."

While some, like early Mitt Romney supporter Jay Sekulow, are trying to tie the two issues together, saying that the cooperation between evangelicals and Mormons on Prop 8 will only strengthen Romney's chances should he choose to run again, the militantly anti-Mormon activists in the movement want to make it clear that that is not going to be the case at all:

During Romney's candidacy, Robert Jeffress, pastor at the First Baptist Church of Dallas, told his congregants that they should prefer Christian candidates to Mormon candidates, but he is grateful for Mormon involvement in helping pass Proposition 8.

"I think there has been a strain in the relationship with Mormons, but I think Christians need to understand that Mormonism is not Christianity," Jeffress said. "The differences between Mormonism and Christianity aren't just minor theological differences that can be erased just because we agree on moral issues."

Of course, Jeffress was far more radical in his opposition to Romney than were most right-wing leaders, repeatedly declaring that "Mormonism is a cult" and that they "worship a false god," so it is not very surprising that he is still opposed to Romney.  But still, it should serve as a warning to Romney and any of his backers who are hoping that the Right's gratitude for the Mormon's cooperation in furthering their anti-gay agenda will somehow overcome their deep distrust and opposition to his faith.

PFAW

Staver Becoming Increasingly Radical

For many years, Mat Staver of the Jerry Falwell created Liberty Counsel had seemed like a relatively reasonable man.  We didn’t agree with his legal views or agenda, but he wasn’t necessarily the type of right-wing figure to start spouting utterly nonsensical and offensive views about gays or abortion or Democratic politicians or what have you.  

But something seems to have changed recently and, ever since he agreed to join various other second and third-tier right-wing figures for the Values Voter Debate in Florida last year, he has become increasingly unhinged. 

For instance, not too long ago he was blaming our current financial crisis on the “radical redefinition of marriage” and saying that American will be cursed if it elected Barack Obama.  After Obama won, Staver told Newsweek that people who believe Barack Obama might be the Antichrist are not necessarily crazy, but are just “expressing a concern and a fear that is widely shared.” 

Now we get Staver warning that Obama (and his gay allies) are the “biggest threat to religious liberty we've ever had”:

Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a religious liberty legal organization, told Baptist Press he believes religious freedoms could be impacted under Obama, especially if the bills he supports become law.

"I would consider him to be the biggest threat to religious liberty we've ever had [in the White House] because he will push the homosexual agenda," Staver said. "... I think churches and pastors will be very negatively affected by Obama's policies."

"My biggest fear is that his agenda will not only advance the homosexual agenda but restrict freedom of speech and freedom of religion," Staver said ... "What we've seen recently with the violence and the attempt to intimidate Christians into silence following the passage of Prop 8 by the homosexual activists ought to be a wake-up call for Christians," Staver said. "That's what's coming if we don't stand up and resist now these homosexual policies."

PFAW

Marriage Equality “Deprives Children of a Mom or a Dad”

Back in October we noted that the Family Policy Council of West Virginia was pressing the Governor and state legislature to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the next ballot based entirely on a poll they took that reportedly showed that more than 70% of voters would support such an amendment.  Shortly thereafter, the call was seconded by the West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists and now the Family Policy Council is starting to mobilize right-wing support in order to force the Governor and legislature to place an amendment on the ballot  

Members of West Virginia's religious communities are mobilizing to protect traditional marriage.

The Family Policy Council of West Virginia has taken the lead in asking Democratic Governor Joe Manchin and the legislature to let voters decide whether to change the state's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage." Jeremiah Dys, founder of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia, explains the apparent conservative viewpoint.
 
"They do not want their government setting a policy, and they especially do not want courts imposing a system that...deprives children of a mom or a dad -- and so we're simply asking our legislature, we're asking our governor especially, to lead the effort to allow West Virginians to do what they want to do," he notes.

As we noted last time, West Virginia does not have a petition process allowing citizens to gather signatures and place a constitutional amendment on the ballot so any such amendment must first pass through the state House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Democrats, so it is up to the Family Policy Council to pressure them into letting West Virginians “do what they want to do” and pass an anti-gay constitutional amendment so as to ensure that the courts don’t “deprive children of a mom or a dad.”

PFAW

Ken Hutcherson Meets The Onion

A few weeks ago, The Onion ran a satire piece entitled “I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians” in which the author explained her personal brand of Christianity:

My faith in the Lord is about the pure, simple values: raising children right, saying grace at the table, strictly forbidding those who are Methodists or Presbyterians from receiving communion because their beliefs are heresies, and curing homosexuals. That's all. Just the core beliefs. You won't see me going on some frothy-mouthed tirade about being a comfort to the downtrodden.

I was reminded of that piece today when I came across two articles mentioning the rabidly anti-gay right-wing preacher Ken Hutcherson who has made a name for himself in recent years by trying to take over Microsoft and trying to shut down the Gay-Straight Alliance in his daughter’s school.

Now it seems as if Hutcherson has turned his sights on saving eHarmony from the scourge of the homosexuals:

A well-known Christian activist says it's outrageous that the founder of the world's largest online dating site has bowed to the pressure of homosexuals.  

eHarmony was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren who is a professing Christian. Three years ago, a homosexual filed a lawsuit claiming he was the victim of discrimination when the company refused to accept his advertisement for a same-sex partner. And now eHarmony has agreed to begin matching homosexual couples -- a decision that stemmed from the lawsuit settlement.

Dr. Ken Hutcherson is pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, Washington and he is not surprised with the court's ruling against eHarmony. However, Dr. Hutcherson says eHarmony should have taken a stand.

"To bow and say okay…that is turning against God who made his business successful," he argues.

Hutcherson says it is time for Christians to take a stand. "We're simply becoming evan-jellyfish with no spiritual vertebrae…and I'm appalled, I am mad, I am frustrated.  I want to fight this and that is something we need to do," he chides.

But it is not as if Hutcherson is solely focused on battle the gay agenda, because he also shows up in this CBN News article on the rise of “tent cities” in Seattle, Washington due to the economic and housing crises.  The article notes that several local churches have been allowing those living on the streets to set up tents on their property, and Hutcherson is not happy about that either

Providers of tent cities say they are offering the homeless much needed shelter. But some are offering a much different perspective on tent cities.

"Our Saviour died to keep us off the cross. I don't think he'd be satisfied keeping us in tents," Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, Wash., said.

"I think the Bible gives it to us straight, if you don't work, you don't eat," he said. "We're supposed to give hands up, not hand outs to the point of letting people stay the way they are."

PFAW

Heads We Win, Tails You Lose

The Religious Right is understandably concerned about what a Barack Obama administration will mean for their influence and agenda in the coming years and its leaders are already hard at work trying to reign him in by suggesting that, despite his clear victory, he doesn't have any sort of mandate: 

Wasting little time, conservative Christian groups have already drafted open letters to Obama stressing their opposition to abortion, and are taking steps to reassure supporters that they will fight any attempt to give the new administration a blank cheque -- especially on social issues.

"Barack Obama can clearly claim a mandate from the American people on the economy, maybe even our standing in the eyes of the rest of the world, but he cannot claim a mandate to impose or to advance a liberal social agenda," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council ...

Though conservative Christians won't have "the same type of relationship we had with the Bush administration," Perkins said the passage of amendments in three states that banned same-sex marriage shows their values have staying power.

"This was, I think, more of a referendum on the Republican Party than conservative values," he said. "We focused upon the marriage amendments in the three states ... They passed in two states (California and Florida), which Barack Obama carried handily."

Fair enough, but what about the various anti-choice issues that were also on the ballot and all lost? Those apparently don't count:  

None of the state referenda on abortion -- including one on parental consent in California and a "personhood" amendment in Colorado -- passed on Election Day, but [Richard] Land said conservative Christians will be undeterred by those losses at the polls.

"Pro-life Catholics and pro-life evangelicals aren't going anywhere," he said.

So the anti-gay amendments that passed prove that Obama has no "mandate to impose or to advance a liberal social agenda," but conversely nothing at all can be concluded about choice issues even though every such initiative failed just because the anti-choice forces say so?  

PFAW

FRC Tells GOP: It's Us or Them

for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.One of the prevailing themes of the Republican Party at the moment is rampant finger-pointing in which just about every faction of the party is blaming every other faction of the party for the fact that they keep losing elections. 

First you had moderates blaming the Religious Right while the Right was blaming the Republican leadership for being insufficiently committed to the right-wing agenda and others were blaming the anti-immigration "nativists."

Now comes the Family Research Council complaining that Rep. Pete Sessions, incoming Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, dared to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans and warning that any moves toward treating them like a legitimate element of the party will only undermine the GOP's efforts to reach out to Black and Hispanic voters and will ultimately doom the Republicans to being in the minority for the foreseeable future:

According to a press release from the pro-gay "marriage" group, Log Cabin Republicans, one of the first stops for the newly elected Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Congressman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), was the fundraising dinner for the homosexual organization. The release states that Representative Sessions said that the GOP cannot win elections and reach out to voters if it continues to oppose the issues that Log Cabin stands for, presumably including same-sex "marriage." My team sought clarification from Sessions' office and was told he did speak to the Log Cabin group, but that a copy of his remarks was not available. If the Log Cabin portrayal is true, it is disturbing on a number of accounts. One, Sessions' new position as the head of the NRCC is to train and recruit new candidates for the Republican Party. If this is his idea of "campaign advice" then the Republicans better prepare for a longer term in the minority then they faced prior to 1994. Secondly, if the GOP is serious about reaching out to new voters, especially African-Americans and Hispanics, then it should look closely at the exit polls on issues important to families. Both minority groups strongly support traditional family values that embrace life and protect marriage, two things the Republican Party once stood for also. Under these circumstances, pro-family voters should reserve judgment about giving their financial support to either political party.

FRC might soon actually have a lot more say in these sorts of matters now that Ken Blackwell, one of its own Senior Fellows, is contemplating his own run for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.

PFAW

Anti-Gay Forces Pretend to Rise "Above the Hate"

Via Good as You we find out that the National Organization for Marriage has launched a petition drive to thank the Mormon Church for its deep involvement in the passage of Prop 8 and to declare solidarity with them:

We write firstly to express our deep gratitude to you and the entire LDS community for the large and impressive contributions of your church and its members in protecting marriage in California and Arizona.

Anyone who participated in this process has come to admire the competence, diligence and moral courage that so many members of your faith community displayed as part of this coalition effort—as Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, and people of other faith communities all came together to fight this great battle for marriage.

But we write for an even more important purpose: to express our outrage at the vile and indecent attacks directed specifically and uniquely at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members because of your courage in standing up for marriage.

The best thing about this is the name they have chosen for their new effort - Above the Hate.com.  Its name is especially ironic considering the list of those who rushed to add their signatures to the letter:

Maggie Gallagher

Donald E. Wildmon

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.

Charles W. Colson

Tony Perkins

Paul Weyrich

Dr. Gary Bauer

Bishop Harry Jackson

Richard Land

Tom Minnery

Ron Prentice

John Stemberger

Phil Burress

Kelly Shackelford

Regina Griggs

Wendy Wright

Janice Crouse, PhD

That's right - the leaders of the professional anti-gay lobby are "rising above the hate" to thank the Mormon Church for helping them deny gays and lesbians their basic equality.

PFAW

Prop 8 Proponents Try to Distance Themselves From Their Allies

The San Francisco Chronicle has a good article on how the folks behind Yes on 8 are trying to bar the Campaign for California Families, Randy Thomasson, and Mat Staver from getting involved in the on-going legal dispute because of the latter’s extreme anti-gay views, which Yes on 8 fears will make them all look bad: 

The group, now known as the Campaign for Children and Families, is run by Randy Thomasson, who for years has been one of California's most visible opponents of gay rights and what he bills as "the homosexual agenda."

The people behind Prop. 8 have been butting heads with Thomasson for years, arguing that his efforts to outlaw same-sex marriage and curb domestic partnership arrangements are a long step further than a majority of California voters is willing to go.

In 2005 and again in January, Thomasson and his allies proposed initiatives that not only would bar same-sex marriage but that also "voids or makes unenforceable" rights conferred by California law on couples, gay or heterosexual, registered as domestic partners, including community property, child custody, hospital visitation and insurance benefits.

"It was like the nuclear option to obliterate the entire domestic partners law," [Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign] said. "We were constantly hassled by that organization, who thought we weren't aggressive enough."

But the disputes between the groups have grown in the past few days, with Thomasson launching an all-out attack against the Supreme Court for accepting the challenge to Prop. 8, a court decision Pugno and others from ProtectMarriage.com had welcomed.

"If the court disobeys the constitution by voiding Prop. 8, it will ignite a voter revolt," Thomasson said in statement released after the court agreed Wednesday to hear arguments over the validity of the constitutional amendment. "The court is playing with fire by threatening to destroy the people's vote on marriage."

Pugno and others from the Prop. 8 campaign want to avoid such fiery challenges and threats to the court and keep matters on a quiet legal level until the court rules on same-sex marriage sometime after March.

"What we are not doing is discussing the possibility of recalling justices who oppose us," Ron Prentice, chairman of the Yes on Prop. 8 effort, said in an e-mail to supporters Wednesday. "Making threats to recall justices from office is counterproductive and harmful to our chances of winning in court."

So the “moderates” who want to deny equality for gays are afraid that people like Thomasson, who’s been busy freaking out about everything the use of “Party A” and “Party B” on marriage licenses and proposals for Harvey Milk Day, are going to make them look too extreme?  I think that, considering that they just spent tens of millions of dollars to getting California voters to strip gay couples throughout the state of their constitutional right to marriage, it’s a little late for the Yes on 8 troops to start worrying about looking like of bunch of anti-gay extremists.

PFAW

It’s Only Discrimination if Skulls Are Cracked

Mike Huckabee has been on quite a roll lately.  While he’s out hawking his latest book, he’s also been weighing in on the issue of Prop. 8’s passage in California.  

Yesterday, he told “The View” that gays haven’t really been seeing their rights violated because they haven’t been getting the skulls cracked:

HUCKABEE: It’s a different set of rights. People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that’s not really the issue. I know you talked about it and I think you got into it a little bit early on. But when we’re talking about a redefinition of an institution, that’s different than individual civil rights.

BEHAR: Well, segregation was an institution, too, in a way. It was right there on the books.

HUCKABEE: But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge.

And today he told Bill Bennett that Prop. 8 didn’t actually take away anyone’s rights at all:

HUCKABEE: The very people who voted for Barack Obama in California…also voted to sustain traditional marriage. I refuse to use the term, “ban same-sex marriage.” That’s not what those efforts did. They affirmed what is. They did not prohibit something. They simply affirmed something that which has and forever has existed.

Of course, as Think Progress pointed out, that is exactly what Prop. 8 did – it was right there in the description of the amendment: “Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.”

PFAW
Filed under:

Marriage Protests Caused God to Send CA Wildfires

Controversial “ex-gay” right-wing preacher James Hartline offers a clearheaded explanation of the cause of the wildfires raging in California – it’s the fault of the gays

God keeps trying to get their attention. They, for their part, are shouting so loud for the acceptance of homosexuality, that they cannot hear the thunderous warnings of God: "Repent! For the judgment comes soon!"

Each time homosexual activists attempt to force their agenda on California, there have been raging, massive, incinerating fires sweeping across the California landscape.

Today, people are running for their lives as 800 California homes have burned down and the firestorm is spreading like a nuclear holocaust. Yet, the radical homosexual anarchists rampage upon the streets of this state demanding the destruction of marriage and family, and the establishment of their socialistic dark vision for society.

You see, the problem is this: God has plans for California in the near days ahead. Thus, these attempts to force an ungodly tyranny on this state are being met blow with blow by God. God is saying, "California shall be a refuge for America when the catastrophes come. California belongs to Me, not the advocates of sexual anarchy."

The more that homosexual activists press their battle in California, the more there will be great calamaties in this state. Go ahead, challenge the Lord Thy God in this season. For I have heard the voice of the Lord say, "This state belongs to God! It is not the land of degradation and immorality anymore. I shall have My way, for this land, I created. And this land is Mine!" thus saith the Lord.

Via Mike Tidmus

PFAW

Baptists Press for Marriage Amendment in WV

After last week's election, the Christian Coalition announced that one of its primary goals for the short-term future was seeing that the 20 states that do not currently ban gays from getting married do so and that those states that do allow marriage put an end to the practice.  

Presumably, the first step in that battle will take place in West Virginia. The Family Policy Council of West Virginia is already threatening the Governor that if he doesn't call a special legislative session to put an amendment on the ballot, he'll face the wrath of the voters and now the West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists has joined the call:

The resolution, adopted at the 38th meeting of the West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists, passed unanimously.

"As citizens of West Virginia, we avail ourselves of the opportunity to affirm the historic, legal, and reasonable definition of marriage by supporting and promoting a marriage amendment to the state constitution," the resolution states. "... [W]e will strongly encourage Christians throughout West Virginia to engage in the civic process in defense of marriage and in support of the government's leadership in defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Romans 13)."

...

The resolution commits to praying regularly for the governor, legislators and judges. It also makes it clear that West Virginia Southern Baptists believe "same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex couples."

"[T]o believe otherwise is to ignore the uniqueness of each gender's design and undermines marriage (Genesis 2:18)," the resolution reads. "The break down or weakening of the institution of marriage has devastating moral, spiritual, economic, and social effects on the whole of society. Marriage protects children by giving them an opportunity to grow up in the ideal environment: with a married mom and dad. Knowingly depriving children of that opportunity exposes our children to a great social experiment that is in no one's best interest."

As the Baptist Press article "West Virginia does not have a petition process allowing citizens to gather signatures and place a constitutional amendment on the ballot" so any such amendment must first pass through the state House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Democrats.   But seeing as passing anti-gay amendments seems to be the only thing the Right has been having any success with in recent years, it is probably safe to assume that West Virginia leaders are going to be coming under increasing pressure to put one on the ballot there as well.

PFAW

The Right Explains Prop. 8's Success

It seems as if the Right has finally come up with an explanation for the role that African Americans played in the passage of the various anti-gay marriage amendments around the country last week: it was the result of blacks getting tired of gays comparing their quest for equality to the civil rights movement (or, as African American pastor Dwight McKissick likes to put it, comparing their sin to his skin.)

Here's Jeff Jacoby:

If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like. Perhaps it is because they resent the assertion that adhering to the ageless meaning of marriage is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of Jim Crow. Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations of "intolerance" and "hate" by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon hatemongering.

Or perhaps it is because they understand that a fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for same-sex marriage. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites. The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That isn't civil rights - and playing the race card doesn't change that fact.

And here is the same point from Matt Barber, who explains it all in the reasonable and classy manner we've all come to expect from him:

For decades now, well-organized, well-funded and highly influential "gay" political pressure groups have, with impertinence, hijacked the language of the authentic civil rights movement. In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, self-styled "queers" have disingenuously and ignobly hitched their lil' lavender wagons to a movement which, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.

An illegitimate offspring of the '60s sexual revolution, the newfangled "gay rights" cult is today's postmodern, sex-centric cause célèbre. Its core tenets include, among other things, mandated moral relativism, social androgyny and forced acceptance of a pleasure-based, though demonstrably destructive, lifestyle. Apart from practitioners of "the sin that dare not speak its name," its devotees are in large part institutional fringe elitists confined to blue-state America who almost universally suffer the insufferable pangs of white guilt.

Like an addict jonesing for a hit, they long for that rush of self-righteous affirmation associated with belonging to something perceived as larger than themselves. Central to the movement's success is the ability to draft adherents who are easily manipulated through superficial slogans, appeals to emotion via anecdotal parades of horribles, and a mindless propensity to conform to nonconformity.

By drawing artificial parallels between the systematic persecution experienced by blacks over centuries past to the inherent aversion most have toward biologically unnatural, traditionally immoral and objectively perverse sexual behaviors, the homosexual lobby trivializes and diminishes the African-American struggle for civil rights. It's dishonest and offensive for people who choose to define their identity based upon aberrant sexual proclivities to compare sexual temptation and volitional sexual conduct to immutable and innocuous biological traits such as skin color ... Understandably, blacks want all this nonsense to stop.

Of course, the real explanation is a bit more complex, but if you are looking for an explanation that is simplistic and insulting, well, there you have it.

PFAW

It’s Not That Kind of Culture War

Townhall today features a gloating report on how evangelical and rural voters provided the muscle to push through Arkansas’ anti-gay, anti-family, anti-child constitutional amendment to prevent unmarried couples from becoming foster or adoptive parents.

 

Rural and evangelical voters propelled Arkansas to adopt one of the nation's few bans against unmarried couples becoming foster or adoptive parents.

Championed by religious conservatives and fueled by a pulpit campaign, the ban passed with the endorsement of 56.9 percent of the voters. Major support came from rural counties in southwest Arkansas, where about two-thirds of voters supported the measure.

. . .

The ban, which takes effect Jan. 1, will reduce the pool of available homes for children who need parents and guardians, the governor said.

 

 

 

 

They must be so proud.

 

I used to live in Arkansas, so I was a little confused by the photograph they used to illustrate the article. It didn’t look like any part of the state I remembered, but I guess that’s because it’s actually a Congolese rebel army.

 

Is this a signal of the next steps for the Religious Right? Preventing children from finding loving homes by any means necessary?
 

PFAW

Christian Coalition Promises More Anti-Gay Amendments

On the heels of success of the anti-gay marriage amendments in Florida, California, and Arizona, the Christian Coalition announces that it's goal moving forward is to get amendments on the ballots in every state that has not already passed one:

Thus far, 30 states have outlawed homosexual "marriages" by an average close to 70% approval by voters through amendments to the state constitutions. In addition, the voters in Arkansas yesterday approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. It will be the goal of Christian Coalition to ensure that the other 20 states adopt similar amendments banning homosexual "marriages" including the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut which also had two judicial decisions, by one vote margins, legalizing these abominations.

Considering that the Christian Coalition hasn't been particularly relevant for quite some time, it's pretty clear that they think that hopping on the bandwagon in pushing these amendments will be a way for them to regain at least some of their influence within the contemporary Religious Right movement.

PFAW

The Right Saves One of Two

A few weeks ago, the Right swung into action to try and save a couple of their imperiled "shining stars" in Rep. Michelle Bachmann (MN) and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. 

The Family Research Council lit into the National Republican Campaign Committee for pulling its advertising from their races, as did David Barton who then took it upon himself to raise money for Musgrave himself. 

As it turned out, Bachmann barely managed to hang onto her seat, but Musgrave did not:

Betsy Markey won a sweeping victory over incumbent Rep. Marilyn Musgrave on Tuesday, becoming the first Democrat in two generations to represent Northern Colorado in Congress.

So at least the Right can take solace in knowing that they manged to keep at least one of their shining stars in office, while we can take solace in the fact that there will be one less right-wing anti-gay zealot on the Hill. 

Speaking of which, Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern also managed to hang onto her seat:

FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT NO. 84

SALLY KERN REP 7,230 57.95%
RON MARLETT DEM 5,247 42.05%

Seriously, how big of an anti-gay bigot do you have to be for it to actually cost you your seat in Oklahoma? Apparently, an even bigger one than Kern which, I dare say, is nearly impossible.  

PFAW
Syndicate content