Politics

In a column mulling the role of Evangelicals in the 2008 election, Bishop Harry Jackson claims that in recent years, they “voted their values” based on “gay marriage and pro-life concerns” – an assumption contradicted by the Center for American Values poll – but that now the Evangelical movement is undergoing a “political makeover.” One might guess that Jackson was referring to the dispute between the National Association of Evangelicals and religious-right activists (including Jackson) led by James Dobson over whether talking about climate change and torture distracts from the core mission of Christians. Instead, Jackson – who is a frequent Religious Right spokesman – sees that debate as part of a liberal conspiracy to undermine “the historic passion that the ‘moral majority’ has had for the issues of protection of life and guarding the traditional family”:

During this transformation from caterpillar to butterfly, a host of enemies are attempting to prevent an evangelical resurrection. A sophisticated, pincer strategy is being waged against them by two groups--–liberal Christians and the liberal press. Both groups fear that the sleeping giant will awaken with an attitude.

Of course, this concern by the Dobson group that outreach on alternate issues would distract from gay marriage, abortion, and abstinence education was not voiced during and after the last election, as the Religious Right’s definition of core issues of so-called “values voters” rapidly expanded to encompass most of the Republican Party platform, from the War on Terror to tax cuts and Social Security to a fear of “socialized medicine.”

So it is that the religious-right activists most closely aligned with partisan campaigns have made discrediting the National Association of Evangelicals a priority. One more example comes from Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a group founded in the early 1980s to counter criticism of Reagan Administration policies in Central America by the National Council of Churches and to create an ideological “renewal” in mainline protestant churches by painting the NCC as Communist sympathizers. Tooley invokes the IRD’s defining campaign against the National Council of Churches in describing the National Association of Evangelicals:

Conservative movement stalwart Phyllis Schlafly, scourge of the ERA and founder of the Eagle Forum, has made clear her dissatisfaction with the ideological performance of Republican presidential candidates. But Schafly apparently falls into the school of thought that the fierce competition among candidates for right-wing favor gives activists the opportunity to “get involved and try to change the candidates’ perspectives now,” as Richard Land put it. And so she told supporters in New Hampshire, the early primary state, “You have the opportunity here to work these guys over. … We’re trying to pin them down.”

And so the Eagle Forum published a list of questions for its supporters to ask candidates on the trail, ranging from Schlafly’s theory of “supremacist judges” to the John Birch-esque “North American Union.” She says her plan is working, according to “Swift Vet” co-author and fellow “North American Union” enthusiast Jerome Corsi:

Sen. John McCain's new attention to, and possibly new position on, illegal immigration is being credited to a grassroots program implemented by Phyllis Schlafly, who is training Eagle Forum leaders how to question presidential candidates on key national issues. …

In the 109th Congress, McCain co-sponsored with Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, S.2611, a "comprehensive immigration reform" bill supported by the Bush administration that included provisions calling for "guest workers" and a "pathway to citizenship."

But after facing intensive questioning in Iowa about immigration issues, McCain is widely reported to be considering a change in his position, requiring illegal immigrants to return home before applying for citizenship, suggesting a compromise measure similar to that proposed by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. …

"What McCain probably has not realized," Schlafly told WND, "is that Eagle Forum has made sure that the grassroots are well informed about immigration and other issues. It may be a surprise to presidential candidates like McCain, but the Eagle Forum grassroots are not going to accept the typical politicians' platitudes."

WND asked Schlafly if she thought the questioning from Eagle Forum leaders was the reason McCain appears to have shifted his immigration position. "Yes," she responded, "because I doubt McCain has been asked these specific questions. The specific questions force the candidates to face up to the issues in a practical and meaningful way."

As of this writing, the Eagle Forum questionnaire is missing one prominent cause the group has adopted: its prediction of America’s impending Nazification.

“I talk to a lot of evangelicals and the only person who takes Pat Robertson seriously is Tim Russert.” So claimed Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, in a speech at a church in Westchester County, New York last week. Such pointed disavowals of Robertson by other religious-right leaders have occasionally followed the televangelists more absurd and incendiary comments – such as when he declared that Ariel Sharon’s debilitating stroke was God’s punishment for “dividing God’s land” and called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez – so you might think that Cromartie was responding to recent allegations that Robertson threatened a bodybuilder involved in lawsuit over Robertson’s “Age-Defying Shake,” or perhaps to Robertson’s warning today about Muslim politicians “taking over” the U.S. But Cromartie was trying to make the point that the televangelist, sometimes referred to as a GOP “kingmaker,” is increasingly marginalized.

But it’s hard to believe that. According to its web site, Robertson’s “700 Club” is available “in 95 percent of the television markets across the United States, the program is carried on ABC Family Channel cable network, FamilyNet, Trinity Broadcasting Network, and numerous U.S. television stations and is seen daily by approximately one million viewers.” His Christian Broadcasting Network garnered $166 million in donations from March 2005 to March 2006, and he is the second most well known religious figure in America.

If one needs more evidence of Robertson’s continued influence, especially on U.S. politics, just look at the Republican presidential candidates lining up to curry his favor. Sam Brownback and now John McCain have taken to the CBN airwaves to convince Robertson’s viewers of their conservative credentials. And both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are scheduled to speak at Robertson’s Regent University.

As John Green of the Pew Forum said, figures like Robertson “are moving off the stage, but they're by no means inconsequential. … They still have good reputations, particularly with evangelicals who are politically active. There are candidates who want to be seen with these people." As long as that’s true, it’s too early to declare Pat Robertson a political has-been.

For five months, we have been keeping an eye on Sen. Sam Brownback’s opposition to Janet Neff, nominated by President Bush to serve on the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan, solely because she attended a lesbian commitment ceremony in 2002.  

In that time, Brownback has engaged in a series of stalling tactics and issued constantly-shifting demands in an attempt to prevent her confirmation: first placing a hold on her nomination, then demanding that she recuse herself from specific cases, then calling for a second hearing, then saying he just wanted an opportunity to debate and vote on her nomination on the Senate floor, then warning again that he wanted her to face a second hearing.

Because of Brownback’s stalling, Neff and a dozen other nominees failed to receive a Senate vote during the last session of Congress and their nominations were returned to the White House. 

Well, President Bush has now renominated Neff and Brownback is back to pledging that he won’t place a hold on her nomination this time around:

Brownback spokesman Brian Hart said the senator would not place another hold on Neff. Brownback intends to ask Senate leadership for a floor debate on her nomination and an up-or-down vote, he said.

Whether or nor Brownback upholds this pledge remains to be seen, but considering that the Right is unimpressed by the current crop of GOP presidential hopefuls and that his primary concern right now is how to gather support his long-shot presidential bid, there is an obvious temptation for him to try and carve out a niche as the Right’s standard-bearer, which is exactly what he appears to be doing: 

U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback introduced himself to state voters Monday as a "full-scale conservative" and made no apologies for his hardline stances against taxes, abortion and gay marriage.

Keep in mind that the only thing the Right seems to like more than fighting over judges is criticizing anything having to do with gays – and a battle over Neff could satisfy both of these urges. 

Perhaps in renominating Neff, President Bush has just handed Brownback an opportunity to rally the right-wing supporters that his campaign so desperately needs.   

Amid the ever-widening scandal surrounding the purge of several U.S. attorneys, now involving everything from subpoenas to bipartisan calls for Attorney General Gonzales’s resignation, one interesting bit of information has so-far gone unnoticed:  the fact that several of the fired attorneys had previously been involved in supporting White House and Justice Department efforts to secure passage and renewal of the Patriot Act.  

As Legal Times reported back in August 2004:

The Justice Department launched an unprecedented nationwide campaign in 2003 to boost support for the USA Patriot Act and beat back opponents. Recently obtained internal DOJ documents reveal just how organized and aggressive that push has been.

…

"Your role is educational only. You must not encourage citizens or public officials to make congressional contacts or to attempt to influence any vote concerning the USA Patriot Act," one DOJ memo states.

To avoid ethical pitfalls, Main Justice instructed the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys, who are exempt from the Anti-Lobbying Act, to contact Congress members personally, not through staff.

Apparently, not every Attorney was eager to participate: 

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

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

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

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

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

ASKED OF REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY:

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

Satisfied – 40%

More choices – 57%

DK/NA – 2%

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

In addition to getting to hear multiple jokes about Al Gore’s purported energy consumption, listen to Ben Shapiro allege that “the Left” will eventually claim that there is a right to child molestation or Rep. Jeb Hensarling repeatedly refer to the “Democrat” majority in Congress, and maybe spy Michelle Malkin blogging away at the “Bloggers Corner,” there is lots to see and experience at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

For instance, if you are lucky, you get to sit next to college-age women who applaud wildly when the speaker on stage vows to kill efforts to publicly finance elections before turning to their friends and asking “who is that?” (It’s Sen. Mitch McConnell.)  Or you get to watch White House spokesperson Tony Snow deliver a rousing, patriotic speech claiming that the GOP’s devastating election losses in November was due to conservatives ”reminding” corrupt elected officials that government service is a privilege and crowing to the right-wing crowd about all the great things President Bush has done, like passage of Medicare prescription drug coverage – something which CPAC’s host, the American Conservative Union, and pretty much everyone else on the Right hates.   And then you get to watch the capacity crowd jump to its feet to give Snow a standing ovation.  

When you are leaving, you might get to stand in line next to grown man sporting an “I Told Hillary Where to Stick It” sticker on his suit and if you happen to step outside, you might catch a glimpse of G. Gordon Liddy and his driver climbing into a truck displaying “XFBI” vanity license plates.  

Later, you get to watch Sen. Arlen Specter attempt to convince a sparse but hostile crowd that he shares a great many of their right-wing positions and has been good on the issue of judges, and then witness him receive his only real ovations when he mocks Sen. Ted Kennedy’s weight and mentions how much he misses Sen. Rick Santorum.   

But most importantly, you get to see GOP presidential hopefuls pulling out all the stops in hopes of winning the CPAC straw poll:  

The straw poll at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference beginning here Thursday has never played a pivotal role in a Republican presidential primary. But the Mitt Romney campaign nonetheless is paying for three vans, scores of registration fees and at least a half-dozen hotel rooms to pack collegiate supporters into the event.

The turnout drive — 10 months before the first primary — is the latest sign of both the early start and bulging budgets of the 2008 presidential campaign. But the conference may be especially important to Mr. Romney, who is trying to reassure social conservatives that his views have shifted to the right from some of the liberal positions he took as the governor of Massachusetts.

The Romney camp’s efforts were certainly noticeable at the event, with students in Romney t-shirts seemingly standing at every corner handing out invitations to a “Romney Reception With Special Guest Grover Norquist” and all around making their presence felt.  Supporters of Sen. Sam Brownback were also out in full force, along with a few Tom Tancredo supporters sporting cowboy hats and TheVanguard.org stickers, as well as a lone women with a hand written “Write in Condi Rice” sign.

But for all of Romney’s planning, he couldn’t prevent the appearance of someone dressed in a dolphin costume going by the name “Flip Romney”:

“Flip” was all over the place, generating lots of attention while he slammed Romney’s record and handed out flyers with the heading “Pro-Life Students Against Flip-Floppers from Massachusetts” that, in actuality, came from the Rightmarch.com PAC.

And that is just Day 1, before Sen. Jim Inhofe has even had a chance to presumably tell those in attendance that Global Warming is a crock, or Mychal Massie has had an opportunity explain his “Conservative Solutions for Urban America” and maybe call diversity “Hitlerian,” or Ann Coulter wows the capacity crowd with her witticisms such as “we need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed.”