Earlier this week I wrote a post about the fact Janet Porter and a gaggle of other fringe right-wing groups announced that they would be placing an ad in The Washington Times in which they demanded the resignation Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ever the recent “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” report.  

I’ve already written too much about this idiotic issue, so I’m not even going to get into it again and will simply note that the ad ran today and highlight the groups sponsoring it:

Current sponsors include: American Family Association, Religious Freedom Coalition, Let Freedom Ring, United States Justice Foundation, Faith2Action, Georgia Christian Alliance, Population Research Institute, Vision America, American Decency Association, Americans for Truth, AFA of Pennsylvania, Center for Security Policy, Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education, Eagle Forum of Alabama, Federal Intercessors, Legacy Church (Albuquerque, NM), Liberty Counsel, Move America Forward, Operation Rescue, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, Take Back Our Country and Traditional Values Coalition.

This coalition is also seeking donations so that they can run the ad in other media outlets and vowing to keep up the fight:

Coalition Chairman Janet Folger Porter (who hosts a nationally syndicated daily talk show and is the president of Faith2Action) observed: "If we don't speak out against this unconscionable attack on law-abiding citizens now, the left will use it to discredit everything we do from this point forward."

The irony here, of course, is that everyone realizes the report itself was entirely uncontroversial and that what is really discrediting the Right is their incessant hyperventilation and victimization over the report.

Note to Porter:  we don’t need a meaningless DHS report to discredit everything you do because you are perfectly capable of doing that all by yourself.

I was ready to launch into full-on ridicule mode against this recent Iowa Family Policy Center email declaring that acceptance of gay marriage in the state will lead to people dying:

After the past grueling months, and the marathon that has been the last three weeks, it’s good for us to be reminded why we are fighting so hard to save traditional marriage.  Unfortunately, due to the Supreme Court opinion, the inactivity of the governor, and the complacency of the state legislature, many young people will experiment with the homosexual “life-style.”  People will die.

But then, after watching the accompanying video in which Karl and Judy Schowengerdt discuss their son’s death from AIDS because he was too embarrassed to tell anyone he had contracted HIV and their insistence that he had been “recruited” into a cult that is always looking for “fresh meat,” I just can’t bring myself to do it because the whole thing is just so sad and misguided:

While we are reluctant to criticize anyone who lost a loved one to AIDS, it doesn’t seem as if the Schowengerdt’s see any possible connection between their son’s shame about his homosexuality and illness and their own attitudes toward gays.  

While we obviously have no way of knowing, it seems unlikely that parents who were accepting and understanding of their child would then turn around and allow themselves to be exploited by groups like the Iowa Family Policy Center and write things like this:

For years, my wife and I have watched the media and homosexual activists work together to redefine family and marriage in our society. The consistent message has been that homosexual "marriage" will hurt no one, and that those of us who support marriage only between one man and one woman will not be impacted. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our hearts go out to people caught up in homosexuality. The destruction and pain that homosexuality leaves in its wake is deep and impacts so many more than just the individuals caught up in the activity. We now know several other couples who are struggling with a son who chose to engage in homosexuality. We know the pain they endure, and understand when they reach out for help. One person's homosexuality causes stress and strain on every friend and relative who truly cares about them.

For the Iowa Supreme Court to sanction homosexual "marriage" is to encourage and underwrite the negative results that naturally come from the homosexual "lifestyle." Aside from the physical destruction inflicted on those who practice homosexuality and the incredible stress homosexuals cause their extended families, society often pays a hefty price as well. Randy lost his job when he was no longer strong enough to work. With the loss of that job, he lost his ability to insure himself. As a result, you the taxpayer paid for more than $250,000 in medical bills for this one AIDS patient.

For those still uncertain about homosexual "marriage," please understand that the more accepting we are of homosexuality as a society, the more likely it is that your family, and society in general, will suffer the pain that ultimately results. Homosexuality took the life of our son. We oppose homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" in the hope that we might help another family avoid the pain that we have endured.

One thing I have never understood about the conservative movement is its knee-jerk willingness to hail any person who happens to gain media exposure while expressing conservative views and immediately turning them into the face of the movement.  

They did it with Joe the Plumber and now they are doing it with Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who stated her opposition to marriage equality when asked about during the Miss USA pageant last week.  Since then, she’s been hailed in just about every right-wing media outlet, including World Magazine, WorldNetDaily, OneNewsNow, and Townhall, praised by the likes of Harry Jackson, Roy Moore, Day Gardner, and Gary Bauer, and recently “hired one of the country's premier Christian PR firms, A. Larry Ross Communications—which represents such evangelical powerhouses as Rick Warren” to deal with all the media requests.

As Politico reported earler this week, Prejean has become the Religious Right’s newest star:

Miss California may have lost her shot at becoming Miss USA after expressing her opposition to same-sex marriage, but she’s nevertheless emerged as a star.

After getting booed by the beauty pageant crowd and berated by one of the contest judges on Sunday, Carrie Prejean is suddenly a conservative sensation, a poster girl for the right who has bloggers, talk show hosts and Republican pols singing her praises.

…

An Alabama state legislator introduced a House resolution praising her for speaking out against gay marriage. In a press release, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins stated his “admiration and support” for her and lauded “her fortitude in the face of continued baseless personal attacks.”

“There’s a lot of people cheering you tonight that you stood on your principles, that you put the principles above winning,” Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity told Prejean when she appeared on his television program. “Not enough people do that. And I admire you a lot for it.”

...

“I would like to nominate Miss California as the new face of the marriage movement. Much better than mine!” National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher wrote on National Review’s The Corner.

The praise from Gallagher is especially interesting because, as Good as You noted, earlier this week she was Twittering that she was about to meet Prejean for lunch – a lunch which must have been quite a success because Gallagher’s fantasies about turning Prejean into the face of the anti-gay marriage movement are about to come true:

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who offered memorable opposition to same-sex marriage and a young, attractive new face for the movement against it, will appear tomorrow at a press conference hosted by the National Organization for Marriage at the National Press Club, according to a press release from the group.

She'll be launching a new ad, the second in what the group says is a $1.5 million campaign.

The ad, the release says, will address:

What happens when a young California beauty pageant contestant is asked "do you support same-sex marriage?" She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values. But Carrie's courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values. "No Offense" calls gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences.

I’m just going to flat-out steal this great post from Eric Boehlert at Media Matters on this insane Washington Times editorial, which declares President Obama to be historically unpopular:  

President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.

According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama's current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises.

As the attached chart shows, five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.

As Boehlert points out, this would be true if it were, you know, true … which it isn’t, since Obama’s approval rating is actually 65%, not 56% as the Washington Times claims.  Thus:

Compared to previous presidents at the 100 day mark, Obama is more popular than Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Only Reagan polled better, and that was right after he survived an assassination attempt in March of his first year in office. So if you set aside Reagan's rather extraordinary circumstances, Obama is more popular at the 100 day mark than any president since Lyndon Johnson.  

Here is what Gallup itself says:

As President Barack Obama concludes his first 100 days on the job, Gallup Poll Daily tracking for the week of April 20-26 finds 65% of Americans approving of how he is doing and only 29% disapproving. Obama's average weekly job ratings have varied only slightly thus far, ranging from 61% to 67%.

The new president's approval rating at the 100-day mark is notable in that nearly all major demographic categories of Americans are pleased with his job performance, as evidenced by approval ratings above the majority level. Only in terms of political and ideological categories does Obama have a significant proportion of detractors; a majority of Republicans and self-described "conservatives" disapprove of his job performance.

…

Bottom Line

Obama's weekly job approval ratings in the Gallup Poll have been running at 61% or better since he took office, and register 65% at the conclusion of his first 100 days. According to a recent Gallup review of the average first-quarter approval ratings of all elected presidents since Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, Obama's mid-60s approval level is solidly positive, although not extraordinary in historical terms.

And if you follow the “recent Gallup review” link, here is what you find:

Obama's 63% first-quarter average matches the historical average of 63% for elected presidents' first quarters since 1953. However, it is the fourth highest for a newly elected president since that time, and the highest since Jimmy Carter's 69% in 1977. The historical first-quarter average includes two presidents whose scores exceeded 70% (John Kennedy's 74% and Dwight Eisenhower's 71%).

From a broader historical perspective, Obama's 63% quarterly average is well above the historical norm for all approval ratings, regardless of presidential quarter. It ranks in the 74th percentile of all presidential quarters since 1945, and is significantly better than the 54% average rating for all presidential quarters.

So Gallup itself says that Obama’s approval rating “is well above the historical norm for all approval ratings,” but the Washington Times, citing Gallup’s poll, declares Obama to be “the second-least-popular president in 40 years.”

Allow me to second Boehlert’s amazement at this editorial and his declaration that “I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it with my own eyes” because I honestly didn’t believe it until I clicked through his post and read it with my own eyes.

The news from today’s right-wing press conference on the Hate Crimes legislation: no news at all, in case you were expecting any. GOP Representatives Louie Gohmert of Texas and Trent Franks of Arizona joined by Bishop Harry Jackson and spokespeople from other groups including the Traditional Values Coalition and Concerned Women for America for another opportunity to spread lies about the intent of hate crimes legislation. Even with explicit First Amendment protections for clergy and religious communities written into the Hate Crimes legislation, the right wing’s dishonest talking points remain the same: The Hate Crimes bill will threaten religious teachings on morality and First Amendment rights as pastor’s sermons could be considered “hate speech.” And, of course, pastors could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

We got a copy of the talking points handed out by Rep. Louie Gohmert’s people:

“The Hate Crimes bill creates a new Federal “Thought Crime.” The Hate Crimes bill will require criminal investigations of a suspect’s philosophical beliefs, politics, biases, religion, membership in organizations, activities of those organizations, and any past statements.”

And perhaps one of the most ridiculous talking points comes from the Traditional Values Coalition, who says “the ‘moral’ of this law, if it has one, is that child molesters and those who only ‘date’ dead people need to be protected but is open season on pastors and churchgoers:”

“Ensures that crimes against a transgender, drag queen or a gay man are treated more harshly than a sexual assault on a child. It will make pedophiles a protected class who can claim federal protection if they are injured by a parent as a result of molesting a child.” Read more

Who needs facts when you can just make stuff up (and when you’re getting paid to do it). For the real facts on hate crimes, People For the American Way and the African American Ministers in Action put together a helpful 2-pager on the legislation.

• Gary Bauer says DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano should be fired not only for the recent report, but also because of her unwillingness to enforce U.S. immigration laws.
• Politico reports that Ed Gillespie and Whit Ayres are launching a new group called Resurgent Republic, which is aimed at shaping the debate as the party regenerates itself for the upcoming elections.
• Janet Porter says that if hate crimes legislation is passed, then we'll be unable to criticize radical Islamic terrorists and all end up dead.
• Rep. John Fleming says that he has grave concerns "about the very sharp turn to socialism that’s happening in our government" because "where you see socialism, you see a decline in Christianity and religion in general."
• Scott Wheeler claims that Republican Jim Tedisco's loss to Democrat Scott Murphy in the special election for the 20th District in New York is proof that Americans don't like Barack Obama.
• Can Michelle Bachmann go one day without saying something moronic?  Apparently not.
• The Faith and Freedom Institute seems quite pleased with itself in announcing that it has drafted a "21st Century Declaration to Reclaim America" that will be "distributed to The White House and all U.S. Representatives and Senators." If they ever actually release the text of it or put it up on their incoherent website, we'll be sure to report back about what it says.

• The Washington Blade reports on Harry Jackson's anti-marriage rally today and includes some good video.
• Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters reports that Carrie Prejean's church says there are "moral repercussions stemming from homosexual behavior as evidenced by the fact that one third of all sexual crimes against children are committed by homosexuals even though they are representative of only one percent of the population. Pedophilia has even been called central to the gay lifestyle."
• As Steve Benen says, the right-wing is not handling the swine flu outbreak particularly well.
• Jesse Taylor concisely rewrites the "news" that Mary Ann Glendon is refusing to receive an award from Notre Dame.
• On a related note, RH Reality Check examines the Cardinal Newman Society and its role as one of the driving forces behind the outrage over President Obama's planned speech at the university.
• Pam notes that Matt Barber seems to be an advocate for mob rule -- so long as he thinks the numbers are on his side.
• Dan Gilgoff reports that some Christian conservatives are welcoming the news that Sen. Arlen Specter has switched his affiliation to the Democrats, quoting Manuel Miranda saying Specter "has done the Party a disservice and is a detriment to the Conservative cause ... [T]he first goal for Republicans must be to be rid of leaders who have done the Party more harm than good."
• Finally, Think Progress catches Sen. Jim DeMint saying that Specter's departure is a sign of the GOP strength, but CNN's Rick Sanchez was having none of it.

Like James Dobson before him, it looks like Pat Robertson has decided to lighten his load and is announcing that, effective July 1, 2010, he'll step down from his position as president of Regent University:

Dr. M. G. "Pat" Robertson, founder, chancellor and president of Regent University, announced to the Board of Trustees his plans to retire as president of the university effective July 1, 2010. Dr. Robertson founded Regent in 1978 and became its sixth president in 2000, guiding the university through its most rapid period of growth, including the expansion into online undergraduate and graduate education. He will continue to serve as the university's chancellor and member of the Board of Trustees.

The Board of Trustees has appointed a search committee that will name a new president, who is expected to join the university no later than fall 2010.

"Serving as Regent University's president has been an honor and a joy," Robertson says. "The accomplishments of our faculty, staff, students and alumni are truly remarkable and I am so delighted by the achievements of our rapidly growing school. As chancellor and a trustee, I will now focus on helping guide the university toward the next level of strategic growth and the implementation of our master plan."

We can only hope that this news does not set off another round of prognostications about how the Religious Right is dead, like Dobson's announcement did.  But given that the news is already running under headlines misleadingly blaring "Pat Robertson announces his retirement," we won't be holding our breath.

The New York Times' Adam Nagourney has a piece in today's paper claiming that the "the issue of gay marriage may be turning into more of a hindrance than a help" for the Republican Party. 

Citing a recent poll showing that 57 percent of those under the age 40 said they support marriage equality, Nagourney says it suggests to "many Republicans that the potency of the gay-marriage question is on the decline." He then quotes three Republicans, the first being Steve Schmidt, John McCain's senior strategist during his presidential campaign.

Schmidt recently came out in favor of marriage equality, so it is no surprise that he thinks the GOP should re-examine its stance on the issue. But, as Timothy Potter of the Family Research Council put it, Steve Schmidt isn’t exactly speaking for the majority of the party these days:

Steve Schmidt isn’t the head of the GOP. But I don’t doubt that there are others in the GOP establishment who think like him, and I don’t care. The GOP should do what it thinks is best for itself. I don’t think abandoning a third of your base is necessarily a good idea.

The article also contains a quote from Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty:

Asked if he thought, given recent events, that Republicans were making a political mistake in emphasizing gay issues, Mr. Pawlenty, who is 48, responded: “I think it’s an important issue for our conservative voters.” But he notably did not dwell on the subject.

Apparently, because he didn't "dwell" on the topic, that somehow suggests that the party as a whole is undergoing some sort of shift.

Finally, Nagourney quotes Rudy Giuliani of all people, saying that voters are more concerned with issues like the economy and national security and don't really care about social issues right now:

“Right now, people are not concerned about issues like gay marriage because they are concerned about the economy,” Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York, told reporters in Albany after meeting with Republican members of the state Senate, who are opposing legislation to legalize gay marriage.

Mr. Giuliani explained that he opposed gay marriage — while supporting civil unions — but that he did not think it made much sense for Republicans to be harping on the issue if the party had any serious interest in returning to power.

“The Republican party does best organizing itself around economic issues and issues of national security,” said Mr. Giuliani, 64, who ran for president last year and is now thinking about running for governor of New York.

It should be pointed out that Giuliani might not be a particularly good representation of just what the Republican Party thinks about anything, considering that he spent $60 million seeking the GOP nomination last year and dropped out after securing a whopping one delegate. His campaign tanked thanks, in part, to right-wing threats to abandon the GOP should he become the nominee because of his views on the issue of marriage and reproductive choice.

While polls may show that the GOP's anti-gay views are becoming less popular with voters, especially younger voters, there is still a long way to go before the party itself abandons its traditional stance on the issue ... and considering that the Religious Right would rather see the party destroyed than allow that to happen, it's unlikely that any such a massive shift will be happening any time soon.

To follow up on Peter's previous post about Harry Jackson's anti-marriage rally in DC today, I just wanted to highlight some other coverage of the event, like this piece from the Washington Post that estimates that "about 150 people gathered for a rally denouncing gay marriage" but the low turnout didn't bother Jackson, because those people really represented "a hundredfold and others that should and would and wanted to be here."

The Washington City Paper also covered the event and noted that seemingly only a handful of those in attendence actually live in the District and that the speakers included Cindy Jacobs:

Cindy Jacobs, “a respected prophet” and frequent 700 Club guest from the Dallas area, took the microphone to tie the day’s rally to a debate on hate crimes currently taking place on Capitol Hill. The protest is a civil-right issue, she said, claiming that the federal legislation threatened the ability to oppose gay marriage. She went on to namecheck Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. “We’re not going to give Satan any rest,” she cried. “We’re not going to give city councils any rest. We’re not going to give legislatures any rest.”

You may not know Jacobs by name, but you probably recognize her face because that is her on the video over in the left sidebar from when she appeared on the God TV election special last November and screeched (literally) that "complacency is the enemy of the will of God being done on the earth as it is in Heaven" and promised that there "would be no more business as ususal" in fighting the battle against marriage equality (scroll ahead to the four minute mark to see her segment): 

You may also recognize her from this 2007 segment on "The 700 Club" about the "purity seiges" she and others were carrying out along Interstate 35 because they saw the highway as the centerpiece of their efforts to save the entire nation, with Jacobs declaring "We expect laws to be changed in cities. We expect righteous leaders. We expect a movement, a reformation that will literally sweep the face of the earth":

Honestly, the fact that this woman was invited and given a speaking slot at this rally pretty much tells you all you need to know about how desperate the Religious Right is for allies in this fight and how just how radical Jackson and his efforts really are.