Posts on Politics

There have been several articles in recent days from conservative Republican and Religious Right leaders arguing about how the GOP can re-establish itself as a viable force in American politics after getting thumped in the last two elections.  Immediately after the election, some voices emerged suggesting that the only hope was for the party to throw the right-wing elements overboard, a suggestion that was not surprisingly met with outrage by the leaders of that section of the base.  

Now it seems as if the GOP’s “culture warriors” have found their voice and decided to fight back on their own terms.  Thus, you have Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina arguing that what the party really needs is to establish tighter control over its “franchise” and just who had the right to call themselves a “Republican” because the party’s “tent cannot be so big as to include political franchisees who don’t act on the core tenets of conservatism.” And you have Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party and RNC Chairmanship hopeful, calling on the GOP to “renew our commitment to our Party’s timeless principles…by reconfirming our commitment to be the party of smaller government, lower taxes, individual freedom, strong national security, respect for the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, the importance of family and the exceptionalism of America.” 

Along the same lines, you have Rod Dreher arguing not only that the social conservatives were in no way responsible for the GOP’s current plight, but that they offer the only route to political salvation for the party:

[W]as it the religious right that conceived and executed the disastrous Iraq war? Did preachers deregulate Wall Street? Did evangelical leader James Dobson screw up the Federal Emergency Management Agency's response to Hurricane Katrina? Jack Abramoff — did he concoct his crooked lobbying schemes during long protest vigils outside abortion clinics? To be fair, religious conservatives didn't stand up to any of this. We own a share of the GOP's failure. But to scapegoat us for the Republican implosion is preposterous … far from being the demise of the GOP, the coming generation of evangelicals, Catholics and fellow travelers can be the seeds for the conservative movement's intellectual rebirth.

In case they weren’t being clear enough, the Right is making sure that its place in the party is clearly understood:  

"People are trying to rebrand the GOP; they're trying to find a course for the future. They want to get back in power, and many of the voices that the GOP is listening to are telling them we need to be moderate, we need to jettison the social conservative issues, we need to not talk about life or marriage," [David Nammo, executive director of Family Research Council Action] contends. "And if that is what the direction of the GOP is going to be, I think they're going to find themselves in the minority party for many years to come."

Even James Dobson has gotten in on the action, personally penning a response to Kathleen Parker entitled '”We Won’t Be Silenced”:

[W]e don’t need an embossed note from Ms. Parker — or anyone else — to take part in the political dialogue — of either party. Our invitation to engage the process comes straight from our Founders. We will continue to stand up for the sanctity of human life, the sacredness of marriage and the right to have a say in the principles that will continue to guide this nation founded on biblical  principles. Where Ms. Parker gets it most wrong is in writing that socially conservative Christians are an “element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.”

We’ve never been that marginalized in our culture and government — and won’t be anytime soon, the efforts and epithets of big media notwithstanding.

If the moderate elements in the Republican Party thought they could just re-brand the GOP by dumping the Religious Right base, that base has now made it abundantly clear that any effort to that will result in an all-out war for control of the party that will likely doom it to minority status for years to come.

As I mentioned yesterday, I am currently in the process of reading Mike Huckabee's latest book and, having made it through 150 pages of his 216 page epic, I take issue with Huck's own assessment of the reviews saying that it seems bizarrely focused on former rival Mitt Romney:

The book, released yesterday, has stirred some controversy in the media over its apparent swipes at his former rival for the GOP nomination, Mitt Romney. In several instances in the book, Huckabee charged Romney for being out of touch with voters and for flip-flopping on certain issues. In an example from a debate where Romney was asked about how to help the economy, Huckabee writes that Romney was more focused on reciting lines about his business expertise than on helping the average American.

...

Huckabee reassured attendees of the book signing that there’s more to the book than the rehashing of an old beef with Romney. “It’s a very, very small part of the book,” he said. “It’s really not about the past or about the other people in the party. It’s about the future of the party, [which] starts with being true, authentic conservatives with clarity in our convictions.”

Let me just say this: as I was reading his book, I started to become distracted by just how frequently Romney's name appeared in the text, so I counted them all up - in the first 101 pages, the word "Romney" appears at least 60 times. In fact, in the first 21 pages, "Romney" appears 25 times.

And, for the record, in not one of those instances is Huckabee saying anything positive about him.

With the exception of Tommy Thompson, Huckabee doesn't really have anything positive to say about any of his other rivals; not even John McCain. But it is his visceral hatred of Romney and all that he represents that is the one unifying theme of his book.

Conservative columnist didn’t win any friends among the right-wing die-hards in the Republican Party when she penned a column in September calling on Sarah Palin to drop out of the campaign in order to stop the damage she was doing to John McCain’s campaign and the GOP.  Needless to say, her message did not go over well and the right-wing backlash ended up becoming a story in itself.  

So it is probably safe to assume that her latest column is probably not going to win back any friends among those who see the Religious Right as the foundation of the Republican Party and Sarah Palin as its future:

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

I'm bathing in holy water as I type.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.

But they need those votes!

So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners ...

Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows.

For its part, the “oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP” has no intention of letting the so-called moderates in the party throw them overboard.  Nor, as I’ve said before, does the GOP have any incentive to actually do so – at least not until the party can nominate a presidential candidate who openly eschews the Religious Right and still wins the election or the Right gets a dream nominee who makes the right-wing agenda the centerpiece of their campaign and then gets utterly destroyed at the polls.  Until then, the Religious Right and the moderates in the Republican Party are going to be stuck with each other whether they like it or not.

I fully understand the Religious Right's need to explain the trouncing the Republican Party experienced at the polls and fight back against the idea that they were somehow to blame.  I likewise understand their standard post-electoral trick when explaining such losses is to claim that the reason the GOP lost not because of the Right, but because the candidates and the party were not sufficiently committed to their right-wing agenda. 

But what I don't understand is this incessant effort to rewrite history, especially when the time frame at issue was just a few weeks ago:

Some pro-lifers, [Mike] Huckabee said, abandoned the Republican Party in recent years because it failed to stand up for pro-life principles. Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006 and then padded their majorities this year.

"We didn't lose elections because we were pro-life," Huckabee said. "We really started losing elections when we didn't act like that mattered. And so, the people who really do care about issues -- whether it's marriage, life, Second Amendment -- felt like, 'If this party isn't going to have a significant different stand than the Democrats, then why not just vote for the Democrats and give them a chance?'"

To hear Huckabee tell it, traditional Religious Right voters have started abandoning the GOP for Democrats because the Republican Party has abandoned the issues that they care about like marriage, abortion, and guns. 

When did that supposedly happen?  I've been watching the Right and the GOP pretty closely for several years now and I don't recall them ever offering up a bunch of pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-gun candidates.  In fact, I don't recall them offering up any such candidates.

And wasn't it just a few weeks ago that the Right was crowing that the Republicans had produced the strongest pro-life, pro-marriage, most conservative platform in party history?

For some reason, the Right is busy trying to convince itself and everyone else that the reason the Republicans lost this time around was because they had become just like Democrats on the social issues that traditionally conservative voters care about which, as anybody whose been paying any attention knows, is not even remotely true.

The Hill has an odd article about how conservative and right-wing bloggers are actually looking forward to the coming Obama Administration and Democratic control of Congress as an opportunity for it to develop into a powerful force that will reshape the Republican Party:

A Washington in the hands of Democrats offers online pundits on the right a fresh political target and a chance to vent against their ideological opponents. The reverse scenario allowed their liberal counterparts to blossom during the blogosphere’s infancy, when the GOP controlled the Congress and the Bush administration held power between 2003 and 2006 ...

“The rightosphere will be much better when the right has something to oppose,” said Jon Henke, who writes at The Next Right.

Obama and Democrats will eventually provide conservatives with a “unifying grievance” that they can seize on. On the Democratic agenda could be universal healthcare proposals that would expand government programs, union-backed card-check legislation that would allow workers to bypass secret-ballot elections when unionizing, and calls to reverse momentum to expand offshore drilling, Henke said.

Being in the opposition is also a natural posture for conservatives, who want smaller government but have seen GOP lawmakers in the last few years create more federal programs, expand the deficit and spend greater sums of taxpayer dollars.

“It’s hard to be anti-state when you are state,” Henke said.

Presumably, the desired outcome of this effort will be for Republicans to eventually retake the White House and Congress and actually govern, which is something these bloggers seem to be admitting they aren't all that good at or interested in.

After all, if they are "much better when they have something to oppose" and can't complain about the state when they are the state, what exactly do they intend to do if their plan actually bears fruit and they someday end up back in control?

Hopefully they'll figure out that puzzle before they actually end up in power. It's kind of important.

During his presidential campaign, one of Mike Huckabee’s signature traits was his willingness to publicly complain and whine about some supposed conspiracy among the nation’s Religious Right powerbrokers to refuse to support his candidacy.  And even though the campaign is over and Huckabee now has a lucrative new career on television and radio, it looks like he still hasn’t gotten over it, according to Time’s Michael Scherer who has gotten an early look at his new book:    

Many conservative Christian leaders, who never backed Huckabee despite their holding very similar stances on social issues, are spared neither the rod nor the lash. Huckabee writes of Gary Bauer, the conservative Christian leader and former presidential candidate, as having an "ever-changing reason to deny me his support." Of one private meeting with Bauer, Huckabee says, "it was like playing Whac-a-Mole at the arcade — whatever issue I addressed, another one surfaced as a 'problem' that made my candidacy unacceptable." He accuses Bauer of putting the issue of national security before bedrock social issues like the sanctity of life and traditional marriage.

Huckabee describes other elders of the social conservative movement, many of whom meet in private as part of an organization called the Arlington Group, as "more enamored with the process, the political strategies, and the party hierarchy than with the simple principles that had originally motivated the Founders." Later Huckabee writes, "I lamented that so many people of faith had moved from being prophetic voices — like Naaman, confronting King David in his sin and saying, 'Though art the man!'— to being voices of patronage, and saying to those in power, 'You da' man!' "

He calls out Pat Robertson, the Virginia-based televangelist, and Dr. Bob Jones III, chancellor of Bob Jones University in South Carolina, for endorsing Rudy Giuliani and Romney, respectively. He also has words for the Texas-based Rev. John Hagee, who endorsed the more moderate John McCain in the primaries, as someone who was drawn to the eventual Republican nominee because of the lure of power. Huckabee speaks to Hagee by phone before the McCain endorsement, while the former Arkansas governor is preparing for a spot on Saturday Night Live. "I asked if he had prayed about this and believed this was what the Lord wanted him to do," Huckabee writes of his conversation with Hagee. "I didn't get a straight answer." Months later, McCain rejected Hagee's endorsement because of controversial remarks the pastor had made about biblical interpretations.

So Huckabee is calling Hagee a sell-out for backing McCain instead of him, even knowing that McCain was eventually forced to disassociate himself from him because of Hagee’s outrageous views?  Doesn’t it seem odd that instead of thinking that maybe he dodged a bullet by not getting Hagee’s support, Huckabee is still mad about it?

Of course, Hagee’s support for Huckabee probably wouldn’t have been especially noteworthy since his ultra-right-wing views were no different than those esposed by his other supporters like on Don Wildmon, Janet Porter, Rick Scarborough, and Tim and Beverly LaHaye.

But considering that Huckabee is mulling over a future presidential run, it seems a little counterproductive to start badmouthing the very people from whom he’ll need support the next time around, especially since their lack of support this time was what helped to doom his campaign.

If Sarah Palin is slated to become the future of the Republican Party, someone apparently forgot to make that known to the Republican Governors Association which just announced its new leadership ... and one name was conspicuously absent:

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was voted RGA chairman, taking over the top job from Texas Gov. Rick Perry who will now serve as finance chairman. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is vice-chairman, while Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will serve as chair for the annual RGA gala, and Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue will head up the recruitment effort.

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty will also sit on the RGA’s executive committee.

“Republican Governors are natural leaders who will find solutions to our nation’s challenges and bring back the Party,” Sanford said in a statement.

Not on the list? Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who also attended the Miami meeting.

Via Think Progress

Yesterday, I noted that Tony Perkins was declaring Sarah Palin the "future of the [Republican] Party."  You know who will probably not become the future of the Republican Party?  Christine Todd Whitman, at least if the Religious Right has anything to say about it, because she says that Palin and people like Perkins are exactly what is causing the GOP to lose:

Following the conventional wisdom of the past two presidential elections, McCain tried mightily to assuage the Republican Party's social-fundamentalist wing. His selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose social views are entirely aligned with that wing, as his running mate was clearly meant to demonstrate his commitment to that bloc. Yet while his choice did comfort those voters, it made many others uncomfortable.

Palin has many attractive qualities as a candidate. Being prepared to become president at a moment's notice was not obviously among them this year. Her selection cost the ticket support among those moderate voters who saw it as a cynical sop to social fundamentalists, reinforcing the impression that they control the party, with the party's consent.

In the wake of the Democrats' landslide victory, and despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the GOP are arguing that John McCain was defeated because the social fundamentalists wouldn't support him. They seem to be suffering from a political strain of Stockholm syndrome. They are identifying with the interests of their political captors and ignoring the views of the larger electorate. This has cost the Republican Party the votes of millions of people who don't find a willingness to acquiesce to hostage-takers a positive trait in potential leaders.

Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It's long past time for the GOP to do the same.

You know who else probably won't become the future of the GOP? Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander, or Peter King:

As Congressional Republicans lick their political wounds and try to figure out how to bounce back in 2010 and beyond, they might want to consult with Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander and Peter T. King.

Senator Collins, Senator Alexander and Representative King were among Republicans who defied the odds in a terrible year for their colleagues. Their re-elections provide a possible road map for how the party can succeed in a challenging political environment. The answer, the three veteran politicians agreed, is not to become a more conservative, combative party focused on narrow partisan issues.

“What doesn’t work is drawing a harsh ideological line in the sand,” said Ms. Collins, of Maine, who early in the year was a top Democratic target for defeat but ended up winning 61 percent of the vote while Senator Barack Obama received 58 percent in the presidential race in her state.

“We make a mistake if we are going to make our entire appeal rural and outside the Northeast and outside the Rust Belt,” said Mr. King, of New York, who easily won re-election in a region shedding Republicans at a precipitous rate.

“We can stand around and talk about our principles, but we have to put them into actions that most people agree with,” said Mr. Alexander, of Tennessee, a self-described conservative who was able to attract African-American voters.

As much as I would love to see the GOP dump the Religious Right, I don't have much faith that it will actually happen.  In fact, the best chance the party had to do so was with John McCain, but instead of standing by his infamous "agents of intolerance" remark, the "maverick" utterly caved and capitulated to the Right.

Until the GOP can nominate a presidential candidate who openly eschews the Religious Right and still wins the election or the Right gets a dream nominee, someone like Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin, who makes the right-wing agenda the centerpiece of their campaign and then gets utterly destroyed at the polls, the Religious Right and the Republican Party are going to be stuck with each other for the foreseeable future, whether they like it or not.

John McCain and Sarah Palin haven't even lost yet, but it looks like the blame game has already started, with Gary Bauer blaming the campaign for failing to make more of Barack Obama's multitude of nefarious ties to America-haters and terrorists. That's right, Bauer is mad they didn't make it more of a focus in their campaign:

American Values president and McCain supporter Gary Bauer agrees with Palin that the McCain campaign should have made a concerted effort in the general election to highlight the Democratic nominee's ties to his longtime mentor. Bauer says the McCain camp missed some opportunities while zeroing in on Obama's associations with Wright and former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

"These associations would have explained to us the economic philosophy we're now hearing from Senator Obama," Bauer explains. "That is, William Ayers is a socialist. Pastor Wright is a black supremacist, but also a socialist.

"And so the fact that Barack Obama was comfortable spending time and being allies with those individuals makes a lot of sense when we realize now -- from Barack Obama's own words -- that he believes in socialism."

Bauer contends that the country is on the cusp of electing "the most radical candidate for president in American history."

Considering that the Right is already plotting how to grab the reins of the GOP and make the "culture war" the centerpiece of their agenda moving forward, this sort of myopic focus suggests that we could be in for a long four years if Obama wins next week.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was always near the top of the Right’s wish list when it came to potential running mates for John McCain. That “honor” went to Sarah Palin and now that Palin and McCain seem headed for defeat, it looks like Jindal is preparing for his own run in 2012:  

Jindal, the Louisiana governor widely seen as a Republican rising star, will keynote a high-profile Christian conservative fundraising dinner next month in Iowa, his office confirms.

Jindal will speak at the Iowa Family Policy Center's “Celebrating the Family” banquet in suburban Des Moines on November 22nd, according to his spokeswoman, Melissa Sellers.  While in the state, he also may to go to Cedar Rapids to see some of those areas impacted by the summer floods.   Jindal, of course, has led his state's recovery from Katrina since being elected in 2007.

It will be Jindal's first visit to Iowa, Sellers said.

The trip is a reminder that, even with a presidential election looming, caucus politics is never far away in the Hawkeye State.

The Christian conservative organization is led by Chuck Hurley, a well-known activist who first backed Sam Brownback before switching over to Mike Huckabee in this year's GOP nomination battle. 

Their flyer touting Jindal's speech features quotes from conservative luminaries.  "The next Ronald Reagan," says Rush Limbaugh.

Of course, Mike Huckabee has also hinted that he plans to run again, so it looks like next time around the Right will have a couple of true believers to pick from.  Frankly, I think that is a battle that Jindal wins especially in light of the fact that, as Kevin Drum says, Sarah Palin is nothing but a one-hit wonder.

Former Concerned Women for America president Sandy Rios diligently explains how the communists and radicals of the 1950s and 1960s have quietly been plotting for the last half century to destroy America from the inside.  

You see, while the communists committed treason in the 50s and the radicals used sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll to undermine American values in the 60s, they eventually realized that their plot would only succeed if they could take over the levers of power in our society and so they infiltrated the system, weakened it, and eventually co-opted it. And now are set to unleash their ultimate weapon and the culmination of their years of devious scheming – Barack Obama: 

As those frustrated radicals came of age, they realized they would have to game the system, and improve their plans to accomplish their goals. They got advanced degrees and begin to fill colleges and universities. They slowly infiltrated the professional organizations of almost every major field of endeavor—education, medicine, retired citizens and unions. Gradually, these professional associations began to use their members’ money to fund leftist causes. Leftist leaders spoke for their membership as if they had the right. And perception became reality for the members. Then they did what all socialist regimes have done … they radicalized public school. They virtually eliminated the American story from history, removed civics, dumbed down math and science and English with outcome-based education. It became more important that kids had the right “thinking” on social and environmental issues than that they understood the academic disciplines. They took over law school faculties, co-opted many mainline Christian denominations—like Methodists and Presbyterians—and subtly replaced the teachings of scripture on man’s need for redemption with emphases on social justice and helping the poor. Man could now obtain his own redemption without any inconvenient mention of sin or moral behavior.

Once again they infiltrated Hollywood and news media, this time without consequence. In fact they managed to turn the consequences upon those opposing leftist views. They produced movies and reported news designed to support their view of the country—and it wasn’t a good one.

As with the communist agitators in Western Europe and later China, they learned to agitate, to find trouble and make it worse. Natural disasters, strikes, environmental concerns, the method was the same. Agitate. Stir up. Scare people and make things worse than they were so that people would look to their movement for “change.”

For nearly four decades, while we were living our lives and enjoying our freedoms, they were working diligently to destroy them. And now their plans have found the perfect personification in the handsome and charismatic Senator Barack Obama.

Gary Bauer is complaining about the use of the “race card” and declares that John McCain is the real victim here.  Bauer says that “the race card is used to cower conservatives into silence” and that the left “portrays any criticism of Obama as somehow racist.” 

But the most interesting thing is this admission:

There are many ways to play the race card.  One way is to exploit ancient prejudices and stereotypes of one race as inherently inferior to another.  John McCain knows that one well.

He was the improbable victim of racism eight years ago when it was suggested to some South Carolina voters that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock. In fact, McCain’s adopted daughter, Bridget, is from Bangladesh.  It’s the type of racism employed by the David Dukes of the world, and it diminishes us all.  

McCain was indeed smeared by these sorts of efforts back in 2000 … by George Bush, Karl Rove, and Tucker Eskew, whom the McCain campaign recently brought on board:

But when I read the news that the McCain campaign had hired Tucker Eskew -- the Republican political hack who orchestrated a smear campaign against McCain's wife and daughter during the 2000 South Carolina primary -- it finally dawned on me: John McCain has adopted Gov. George W. Bush's South Carolina primary strategy.

Back in 2000, after McCain's surprising victory in the New Hampshire primary, George W. Bush and Karl Rove did two things: They adopted John McCain's reform message, claiming the Bush, not McCain, was a "reformer with results." And they went negative, attacking John McCain's record and character through numerous surrogates. Many, in the McCain campaign, including McCain himself, blamed Eskew, Bush, and Rove for spreading stories about Cindy McCain's drug use, about their adopted daughter Bridget's birth, and about whether McCain's Vietnam captivity had left him unbalanced.

Bauer seems to have a real memory problem regarding what happened during the 2000 election, which is odd considering that he was running for President at the time. He had ended his own campaign and endorsed McCain just days before the South Carolina primary, so surely he knows that McCain’s famous “agents of intolerance” speech was partially a response to the vicious attacks he had received in South Carolina … at least he should, since he helped him draft it.  

Presumably, Bauer didn’t intend to compare Bush, Rove, and McCain’s own staffers to David Duke … but that is just what he did, nonetheless.

For the last several days, the Right has been up in arms over this audio clip of Virginia Senate candidate Mark Warner warning that the state was on the verge of being taken over by the Religious Right

"Next weekend, you're going to see a coalition that has just about completely taken over the Republican Party in this state.

"And if they have their way, will take over state government, made up of the Christian Coalition, made up of right-to-lifers; but it's not just the right-to-lifers, it's made up of the NRA; but it's not just that, it's made up of the home schoolers; but not just that, it's made up of a whole coalition of people that have all sorts of different views that I think most of us in this room would find threatening to them and what it means to be an American.

Not surprisingly, it is being shopped around by Warner's opponent, Jim Gilmore,  who is currently getting crushed in the polls. 

So offensive were Warner's remarks, apparently, that the Family Research Council felt compelled to issue a statement:

Today, FRC Action decried comments made by Democrat Party Senate candidate Mark Warner. Warner, who served formerly as Governor of Virginia, was recently recorded speaking at a Democratic Party event. In his speech, Warner accused pro-lifers, homeschoolers, and members of the National Rifle Association, as threatening to "what it means to be an American."

...

"You have to wonder what Mark Warner finds so offensive about these groups," said FRC Action Executive Director David Nammo, "Is it the open practice of one's faith or the insistence on the right to bear arms that threatens Warner's America? The protection of innocent human life or the desire of parents to educate their own child? Perhaps Mark Warner should explain to the citizens of Virginia what parts of the Constitution he does agree with since it is clear he holds much of it suspect."

Oddly, nobody at the Family Research Council seems to know how to do any basic "research" - or understands the meaning of the words "recently recorded" - because, if they did, they'd realize that they probably should have issued this statement back in 1994 when Warner actually said it in relation to right-wing efforts to elect Iran-Contra criminal Oliver North ... or at least back in 2001 when the the RNC and Gilmore first tried to use the quote against him:

RADIO ATTACK AD DRAWS ANGRY DENIAL BY WARNER ; NATIONAL GOP SPOKESMAN DEFENDS COMMERCIAL
31 October 2001
The Richmond Times-Dispatch

Republicans launched a sharp-edged radio advertising attack on Mark R. Warner yesterday, saying the Democratic gubernatorial candidate views abortion foes, home-school advocates and "people of faith" as a threat to the nation.

Warner angrily denied the claim and demanded the GOP pull the commercial.

The 60-second ad is produced and paid for by the Republican National Committee, led by Gov. Jim Gilmore. It features a conversation between a man and a woman during which the woman suggests that Warner considers social and religious conservatives as "wanting to radically change American life, and said our views were threatening."

...

The commercial is based on remarks attributed to Warner seven years ago, shortly before Virginia Republicans met in Richmond to nominate Iran-contra figure Oliver L. North for the U.S. Senate.

North went on to lose to incumbent Democrat Charles S. Robb. At the time, Warner was chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia.

...

Referring to the expected nomination of North, a favorite of the Republican Party's conservative activists, Warner, according to a state GOP-supplied transcript, reportedly told the National Jewish Democrat Council on May 25, 1994:

"Next weekend, you're going to see a coalition that has just about completely taken over the Republican Party in this state.

"And if they have their way, will take over state government, made up of the Christian Coalition, made up of right-to-lifers; but it's not just the right-to-lifers, it's made up of the NRA; but it's not just that, it's made up of the home schoolers; but not just that, it's made up of a whole coalition of people that have all sorts of different views that I think most of us in this room would find threatening to them and what it means to be an American.

Today, James Dobson dedicated his radio program to reading out, word for word, Focus on the Family’s October newsletter [PDF] in which he explains why he is now supporting the McCain-Palin ticket, though he continues to insist that he is not offering an endorsement:

It’s probably obvious which of the two major party candidates’ views are most palatable to those of us who embrace a pro-life, pro-family worldview. While I will not endorse either candidate this year, I can say that I am now supportive of Senator John McCain and his bid for the presidency.… In recent weeks, I have received some measure of criticism from those who feel that my “change of heart” toward John McCain is unwarranted. I understand those views and concede that the Senator continues to embrace positions that concern me. I don’t apologize, however, for reevaluating our options in this election year.

Dobson then lays out the four developments that caused him to change his mind: the Saddleback Forum; the GOP platform, Obama’s “liberal views,” and McCain’s decision to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate: 

Here is a woman who is a deeply committed Christian, and who is pro-life not only with regard to her policies, but in her personal life. She and her husband welcomed their latest child, Trig, into the world even though he was diagnosed with Down syndrome while still in the womb. Approximately 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted, but Governor Palin carried her precious child to term and now loves and cares for him despite the challenges associated with a special needs child. Similarly, her teenage daughter, Bristol, who became pregnant out of wedlock, could have bowed to cultural pressure to seek an abortion. Instead, she and the father plan to get married and raise their child together. Governor Palin has been married for 20 years, and by all accounts, she is a portrait of Christian motherhood and womanhood.

Of serious concern to Dobson is the possibility that Democrats in the next Congress will unleash a “wave of anti-family, pro-homosexual legislation,” such as ENDA, which are direct threats to Christians: 

Large portions of the agenda promoted by homosexual activists will also be enacted. The implications for a federal hate crimes law are clear. People speaking against homosexuality have already been prosecuted under hate crimes laws both in the United States and abroad. If a federal hate crimes law passes, there will be little to prevent the government from endeavoring to control and curtail religious speech, especially from the pulpit. It is entirely possible that a pastor could be charged with inducing a federal hate crime simply by preaching from one of the many biblical passages that address homosexuality.

Dobson is likewise motivated by the importance of determining the future of the Supreme Court:

The importance of [electing a pro-family, pro-life President] cannot be overstated. Between 2009 and 2012, there will likely be two or more opportunities for the President to nominate new justices to the Supreme Court. Some court watchers say there could be as many as four resignations. That alone should give us serious pause as we consider for whom to cast our votes. In the months ahead, the Supreme Court will likely hand down rulings that will impact America for generations to come. We need a President who will nominate conservative, strict-constructionist judges to the Court. If that doesn’t happen, the highest court in the land could become stacked—even more than it already is—with justices who will endeavor to legislate from the bench and impose a liberal agenda on the nation. It will likely affect the definition of marriage, religious freedom, and the protection (or lack thereof) of life in the womb.

As I noted last year when Dobson was threatening to bolt the GOP if Rudy Giuliani secured the nomination, petulant threats from him are becoming an election year tradition … and just like with every other threat he’s issued to the party, when crunch time comes, Dobson eventually falls back in line.

In her recent interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin was asked about her preparations for her upcoming debate, which led to this exchange:

Couric: I know you're heading to Sedona to work on your debate. What is your coach advising you? I know everyone has debate coaches.

Palin: I don't have a debate coach.

That must comes as a surprise to Brett O'Donnell:

Amid the heavy scrutiny in a close campaign, Gov. Palin is under considerable pressure to make Thursday's debate a "game changer," advisers said. The campaign is sending in Sen. McCain's debate coach, Brett O'Donnell, to help with her preparation, advisers said. Though he always was expected to help out after Sen. McCain's debate Friday in Oxford, Miss., Mr. O'Donnell now needs to "undo" much of her previous debate prep, which has resulted in occasional "rote" responses, one adviser said.

And because the McCain campaign can't seem to do anything without involving the Religious Right these days, it comes as no surprise that O'Donnell just so happens to be the former Director of Debate, and is currently a Guest Lecturer, at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.