Posts on Religious Right

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.

You may remember Bill Keller, the man who has dubbed himself "the world's leading internet evangelist," whatever that means, for causing a bit of a stir during the Republican Primary when he launched an all-out attack on Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith during which he declared that "if you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!"

Seemingly having successfully used the power of the internet and prayer to destroy Romney's presidential aspirations, Keller has now turned his attention toward solving our economic crisis calling for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting for the Economy and is seeking 250,000 signatures for his petition asking President Bush and Congress to proclaim Thursday, December 18th as a National Day of Prayer:

The reason, Keller explained, none of the solutions put forth by the world's greatest economists to correct the falling economy have worked is simple: the problem is not an economic one.

"The crisis is a spiritual problem," said Keller. "The answer to our economic downfall is not an infusion of trillions of dollars, but the humble prayers of forgiveness and repentance for our sin and rebellion against God."

In this video from back in October, Keller explains that the only way to "fix the economy is for this nation to repent of its sins, ask God's forgiveness, and turn back to God and His truth ... Sadly this nation is so blinded by its sin, so far away from God, that it can't see that what is happening in the economy is the start of God pouring out his judgment on our nation for our sins and our wickedness. Every twenty-four hours we legally slaughter over 4,000 innocent babies, we've made a mockery of God's holy institution of marriage, we bow down and worship every idol and false god man has created. We live in complete and total rebellion to God and His word. My friends, we're not only due God's wrath and judgment, we are overdue God's wrath and judgment."

For what it's worth, WorldNetdaily gives us a little bit of background about Keller and his ministry:

A former businessman convicted of insider trading in 1989, Keller served two years in federal prison, was released and later earned a degree in biblical studies from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

In 1999, Keller launched LivePrayer, which claims to have responded personally to more than 60 million online requests for prayer since its inception and claims its LivePrayer devotional is received daily by over 2.4 million e-mail subscribers.

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."

Politico notes that even though Sarah Palin tops polls of Republican voters’ preferred pick for the party’s nominee in 2012, her support comes mainly from hard-core right-wing conservatives while her approval rating among moderates and centrists has plummeted.

What makes the article interesting is this statement from Richard Land, who was one of Palin’s earliest backers touting her candidacy way back in early August and constantly gushing about her during the campaign, suddenly suggesting that the Right doesn’t “have all their hopes and dreams vested” in her future:

The GOP intra-party debate over Palin has become a proxy for the larger question of her party's future, and conservative chieftains like Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land fear that attacks on Palin are at times veiled swipes at the party base.

"It would be a mistake to say that social conservatives have all their hopes and dreams vested in Sarah Palin," Land said, but he added Palin "does have the one thing you can't coach, charisma," and continues to have "star power" with conservatives.

Now Land has a long history of trying to portray himself as more of a pundit than a Religious Right hack and setting himself up as perhaps a more sensible alternative to the likes of James Dobson.  In that capacity, he often serves as a moderately reliable bellwether of the Right’s views on political issues, such as his early adoration of Fred Thompson which then quickly evaporated when it was clear that his campaign was going nowhere or his lukewarm support of John McCain’s candidacy that was kicked into overdrive by his choice of Palin as his running mate.

So it is interesting to see Land start backing away ever-so-slowly from the idea that Palin represents the future of the Religious Right movement in American politics, presumably out of concern that Palin’s future itself might be rather limited, as Ed Rollins points out:

Ed Rollins, who ran presidential bids for Republicans including Ronald Reagan and Huckabee, argued that "independents are something she can focus on later."

In the end, though, Rollins expects that Palin "will be very similar to [Dan] Quayle."

"When he started to run, [Quayle] got nowhere," Rollins said. "The potential is there [for Palin] but out of 10 weeks she had two good weeks." For the 2012 race, "she's now not starting at the top but starting at the bottom," he said, adding that Palin would have to campaign for years in Iowa and New Hampshire to mount a viable campaign.

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.

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."

On Friday, Focus on the Family posted a short interview with David Barton in which Barton explains that his mission in life is to explain American history from a “Providential perspective,” which means explaining that every aspect of life functions best when it is in accord with biblical principles:

The Bible clearly teaches that the way people view their own history affects the way they behave. God wants us to know our history and learn its lessons. At WallBuilders, we present American history, and we do so with a Providential perspective. In short, history not only shows God’s workings and plans but it also demonstrates the effectiveness of biblical principles when applied to church, education, government, economics, family, entertainment, military or any other aspect of life.

I have to say that this is a rather startling admission from Barton, who normally tries to couch his pseudo-history as part of a mission to present “America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built.”  But now we finally have it straight from the horse’s mouth that his real goal is to ensure that biblical principles guide education, government, economics, family, entertainment, military, and every other aspect of American life.

Pat Boone lays out what he and his ideological allies can expect to endure during the forthcoming Obama administration: 

In a terrible pincer movement, an assault is taking place on two fronts simultaneously – one all-out attack on the foundations, the very pillars of our society, and the other on the executive suites in the ivory towers of business and finance. The jihadists in these organized, hugely funded attacks on our morality and virtue are not Middle Eastern – they're homegrown Americans who actually believe they're promoting a better America by destroying the foundations on which this nation was built!

Recall that George Washington declared, "Religion and morality are the twin pillars of liberty" … two foundational supports.

Well, on one front, our jihadists would grant homosexual activity "marriage rights," which outweigh the will of the majority and defy the societal structuring of all human history. And they believe that destroying babies in the womb is a woman's "right" – oblivious to the divinely and constitutionally ordained rights of the unborn American citizen. What if one of those had been Obama?

On the second front, leftist political genetic engineers are moving into power, taking advantage of immoral and irresponsible greed in the economy to socialize industry and finance, and make Big Brother government everybody's boss and banker.

That all sounds rather terrifying, but rest assured that Boone is not only unafraid, he’s actually welcoming it because the slavery, tyranny, and sheer misery we are all about to endure will eventually lead this nation back to God:

But yes, I'm thankful. We the people are getting what we deserve and what we need. Like the people of Israel long ago, we've got the king we demanded, and now we'll experience the benign slavery that comes with a king. At some point down the road, we'll wake up, shake ourselves and again throw off governmental tyranny, this time self-imposed. At least, that's my prayer. The kingdom we're getting can be rejected, if we bring God and morality back into our national life. I'm thankful that His kingdom is still available to us.

There's has been a lot of in-fighting and finger-pointing in Republican circles since the election as they try to figure out what went wrong and who is to blame.  While some have been blaming the Religious Right and suggesting that the GOP needs to dump them, others have been saying that is recipe for disaster.

Now comes Richard Land to the rescue, saying that the party has to stick with its anti-gay, anti-abortion agenda ... but should kick out the "nativists" if it wants to win future elections:

"If the party's going to eject anyone, it should be nativists" who urge draconian measures against immigrants, Land said. Social conservatives should be seen as the base.

...

Young and old, "evangelicals and Mormons voted their values," Land said.

Land said abortion must remain at the core of the future GOP.

"They can't win with just pro-life votes. But without them they are doomed to electoral oblivion for a generation.

"Evangelicals made up 38 percent of (John) McCain's raw vote. Try replacing those votes with centrist policies," he said.

I suspect that rather than solving the GOP's problems, this is just going to add yet another round of finger-pointing, blame-shifting, and acrimony to the mix.

Earlier this week, Gary Bauer issued a press release disputing Mike Huckabee's allegations that getting a straight answer out of him about why he refused to support Huck's campaign was "like playing Whac-a-Mole at the arcade."  In his new book, Huckabee also called Bauer a sell-out for saying that national security issues were more important that social issues, likening it to the NRA saying "we still care about guns, but what we really want to focus on is global warming."

Huckabee writes that if Bauer really is more interested in security issues than social issues, he should start considering himself the head of a "national security group" rather than a "pro-family group" because "when an organization can't even focus on its focus, it's hopelessly lost."  It was Bauer's hypocrisy, writes Huckabee, that make him realize he'd rather be "politically homeless" than "politically clueless." 

Today, Bauer fires back, saying that if anybody is clueless, it's Huckabee:

Huckabee is wrong on a couple of counts. First, my passion and work on behalf of values issues have in no way diminished. Second, I have believed since 9-11 that the West’s battle against Islamofascism is a crucial component in the fight for our civilization. Thus it is a values issue. That Huckabee fails to understand all this gets to the heart of why I did not support him.

Huckabee said that during a private meeting we had, “it was like playing whack-a-mole at the arcade -- whatever issue I addressed, another one surfaced as the ‘problem’ that made my candidacy unacceptable.”

In fact, talking with Huckabee was like playing whack-a-mole, because he had a number of issues that posed problems. It wasn’t just that he didn’t get it on foreign policy. His record on taxes and spending, illegal immigration, his apparent backing of Al Gore's carbon cap and trade scheme, support for voting rights for Washington, D.C., and cozying up to unions like the NEA all worried me. Huckabee can call it whack-a-mole. But for me there were just too many items where he wasn’t sufficiently conservative coupled with a lack of attention and experience on foreign affairs.

Bauer concludes by calling out Huckabee for being so petty, saying that once he has "finished attacking all those who he thinks denied him the GOP nomination, I look forward to working with him to reform the GOP and revitalize the conservative movement."

I suspect that, given the obviously bad blood between the two, they probably won't be working together any time soon.

Last week Secular Coalition for America and Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers held a press conference to release a proposed "set of policy recommendations in a memo to President-elect Obama as he considers staffing and policies regarding the military" because the current regulations fail to adequately accommodate "the hundreds of thousands of atheists, agnostics, humanists and other nontheists currently serving in the U.S. Armed Forces."

We all know what this will lead to - the End Times:

Gordon James Klingenschmitt is a former naval chaplain who says, unfortunately, the Secular Coalition for America will eventually get its way. "There is a day coming in the end times when the military will be forced to be atheistic because, in order for the eventual man who is the man of sin -- the Anti-Christ -- as it is describe in the Bible, for him to come to power and to stamp out Christianity around the globe, he's going to need a good strong atheist military," he contends. "That is the first step toward Armageddon, and I'm concerned about that. And I pray that President (elect) Obama is not foolish enough to lead us down that road."

The latest "Washington Update" email from the Family Research Council serves as a near-perfect example of how the group operates.  The first section complains about reports that former Senator Tom Daschle has been tapped to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama Administration:

As Majority Leader, Daschle was a notorious opponent of every pro-life measure. He blocked the partial-birth abortion ban, voted for taxpayer-funded military abortions, and supported a measure that would have forced Americans to pay for the distribution of the morning-after pill to young school girls. Apart from his extreme political ideology, the selection of Daschle is even more troubling because the South Dakotan lacks any experience in the public health arena. To most Americans, who thought this election was about "change," these appointments must seem incredibly ironic.

The very next section then praises President Bush and current HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt for implementing last-minute changes that would "deal a crippling blow ... to the pro-abortion movement":

He may technically be a "lame duck," but President Bush is going out with guns blazing. With just two months left in office, the administration dealt a crippling blow to online gambling and is prepared to do the same to the pro-abortion movement on conscience exemptions. Despite an uproar from the usual liberal suspects, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is putting the finishing touches on a rule that would create a hedge of protection around health care providers who object to abortion or other procedures on moral grounds. The regulations, which HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt has promoted for months, would bar anyone who receives federal funds from discriminating against pro-life doctors, nurses, or other medical workers because of their beliefs. Pharmacists would also be exempt from dispensing drugs that could end an innocent life -- like the abortifacient RU-486. If approved before the President leaves office, the rules would be a giant leap forward for the entire medical community, some of whom have been pressured to compromise their convictions on the job. Of course, there is some danger that President-elect Obama would undo HHS's hard work, but it would be a long and arduous task. Like much of the radical abortion camp, he says these rules would create a hurdle in "women's health care." However, his argument is severely flawed, considering that abortion is not -- nor will it ever be -- true health care. While Obama says he wants to "reduce abortions," his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act means he's not opposed to forcing people to perform them. Thanks to Secretary Leavitt, more Americans understand that the people who oppose these rules, including President-elect Obama, are the ones imposing their beliefs-not the men and women of faith. As Leavitt said on his blog, "Our nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience. This proposed rule is a fundamental protection for medical providers to follow theirs." Please let the administration know how much you appreciate their perseverance on conscience protections. Log on to secretarysblog.hhs.gov/my_weblog and leave Secretary Leavitt a comment expressing your gratitude.

To FRC, Daschle is completely unfit for the office not only because he doesn't share their anti-choice views, but also because he "lacks any experience in the public health arena."  But they don't seem to have similar concerns about Leavitt:

Prior to his current service, Leavitt headed the Environmental Protection Agency and was elected three times as the Governor of Utah. During his eleven years as Governor, Utah was recognized six times as one of America’s best managed states. He was chosen by his peers as Chairman of the National Governors Association, Western Governors Association, and Republican Governors Association.

Prior to his public service, Secretary Leavitt was president and chief executive officer of a regional insurance firm.

Hmmm ... I don't see any "experience in the public health arena" among Leavitt's previous jobs as head of the EPA, Governor, or insurance company CEO.  So maybe it is not really the "experience" thing that is bothering FRC, but primarily the abortion thing. 

Earlier this week, Time had an article on Mike Huckabee’s new book in which the former presidential candidate lashed out at various Religious Right leaders like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and Gary Bauer. Today, Bauer has issued his own press release in response to that article, voicing his own disappointment in Huckabee’s pettiness:

"As a former candidate myself for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2000, I understand the disappointment Governor Huckabee must feel about his failure to win the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008. It is unfortunate, however, at a time when the GOP needs to close ranks and seek unity, that Governor Huckabee in his new book has aimed his fire at his fellow Republicans.

"In addition, Governor Huckabee expresses frustration that when he sought my endorsement in 2006 and 2007, I was concerned about issues of national security and military strength in addition to values issues. I plead guilty. The defense of the United States at a time we are at war with jihadists should be the concern of every American. Indeed, I did not endorse Governor Huckabee in 2008, because I reached the conclusion he did not sufficiently understand national security issues. That was a "deal breaker" for me as I believe it was for many other conservatives.

"In spite of our disagreements, I look forward to working in the future with Governor Huckabee to build a Republican party that is committed to smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, the sanctity of life and family values."

All I can say about this statement is that it is obviously based on the Time summary of the book and not on having read the book itself.  And I can say that because I am currently in the process of reading it myself and Huck makes it pretty clear that he has no use for the likes of Bauer, whom he calls “politically clueless,” as he sees himself as one of the new leaders of the Religious Right movement, along with a bevy of currently fringe right-wing figures who supported his campaign, such as Janet Porter, David Barton, and Rick Scarborough.

Sarah Posner sends a dispatch from inside the most recent Council for National Policy gathering, the secretive right-wing umbrella group that vowed to bolt the GOP if Rudy Giuliani was the nominee and whose members wept tears of joy when John McCain tapped Sarah Palin as his running mate:

While the CNP was trying to look to the future last week, it seemed hopelessly enamored of its aging leaders. When I arrived to meet Warren Smith, the conservative evangelical activist and journalist who had invited me to chat, we ambled past anti-evolutionist Ken Ham, who was holding court to a small but rapt audience in the hallway; eyed Left Behind author and CNP co-founder Tim LaHaye, who was shuffling in and out of the "CNP Networking Room;" caught a glimpse of Rick Santorum, who since being booted out of his Senate seat has led the charge against "radical Islam" from his perch at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center; and spotted the religious right's anti-feminism doyenne Phyllis Schlafly, 84, who had earlier that day delivered a speech to the CNP Youth Council on how to "find your place in the conservative movement."

…

Although the CNP's meetings are closed to the press, Smith filled me in on some details: Conservative direct-mail entrepreneur Richard Viguerie, a patriarch of the modern conservative movement, rallied the troops by pointing to prior comebacks, from Reagan to Gingrich to Bush. Viguerie, Smith told me, "is saying that we need to fight for conservative ideas and conservative values and not worry about who embraces them." Smith added that the group talked "about changing the culture, entertainment, media, TV" -- a longtime goal of the religious right's dominionism that it seeks to achieve by taking over social, cultural, and government institutions, much like religious-right figures are now plotting their new takeover of the Republican National Committee.

"What I'm hearing is that there is no loyalty to the Republican Party," said Smith, meaning no loyalty to the party as constituted but loyalty to one purged of insufficiently conservative members. "What Richard Viguerie talks about is not a third party but a third wave. Basically there needs to be a flowering of grass-roots conservative activism and local groups, local PACs. He's basically saying you've got a Republican county commissioner in Buzzard's Breath, Texas, and he's not a conservative? Run a conservative against him."

…

[A]ctivist and radio host Janet Porter, an early Huckabee backer in the 2008 campaign, told me she favored either Palin or Huckabee in 2012. Porter is straight out of the wing of the movement that is all frothing ideology, and no stone-cold strategy. That explains her ongoing fixation with the long-debunked lie that Barack Obama does not have a U.S. birth certificate, and her attempt to stop the electoral college from voting next month in the formality that will officially make him president.

Porter insists that Obama has not produced a U.S. birth certificate (he has) and that he was actually born in Kenya (he was born in Hawaii). She claims to be awaiting the results of the lawsuits filed by attorney Philip J. Berg, whose effort to halt the presidential election because of the alleged question of Obama's U.S. citizenship was rebuffed by the United States Supreme Court.

When I asked Porter about the mood around the CNP meeting, she said, "My mood is more upbeat than those who don't actually know these cases are being filed and that there's actually still a chance to maintain the freedom that we have. We're not going away. Win or lose, whether this goes through, whether it amounts to anything, we just believe that [for] something this important we need the answers. And we're going to fight for freedom, and we're going to use whatever freedom we have until it's taken away with the efforts of hate crimes, ENDA, fairness doctrine, wiping out all the pro-life legislation. Everything's on the line."

My skepticism showed, I suspect. "I think this might be a little more newsworthy than you think," she insisted and handed me a flyer about her effort that read: "Not extreme. Not fringe. Just Constitutional."

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.