« Politics
July 22, 2008
Perkins Wants To Run The Show
FRC's Tony Perkins seems to think that he has a right to be included in every political event that is focused on religion and is now dictating questions to be asked during the upcoming Obama/McCain event at Saddleback Church:"Saddleback Church has the rare opportunity to crystallize the debate over abortion and homosexuality before FRC Action's Values Voter Summit in September. The candidates should be asked: 1. What is your position on man-woman marriage? 2. Where do you stand on partial-birth abortion and the killing of nearly-born babies? 3. Would you sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law? 4. How can the federal faith-based initiative survive without hiring protections for religious charities?"
Posted by Kyle at 4:33 PM | Permalink
Third Party Candidate Says "What About Me?"
Chuck Baldwin asks supporters to contact James Dobson and urge him to "endorse Chuck Baldwin – the only candidate that is ProLife; the only candidate that will secure the borders; the only candidate that will fight for traditional marriage; the only candidate that will appoint Constitutional judges."
Posted by Kyle at 4:12 PM | Permalink
Land Joins Right’s Joyless Embrace of McCain
Richard Land and James Dobson have had a series of disagreements in recent months, especially over the issue of Fred Thompson’s presidential candidacy, of which Land was an active and vocal supporter. While Land never criticized Dobson by name for his repeated attacks on Thompson, Land was always first out of the gate to defend Thompson against Dobson’s attacks, seemingly, at least in part, in an attempt to establish himself as something of a counterpart to Dobson in the right-wing political sphere.
After Thompson’s candidacy crashed ignominiously, Land disappeared from the pundit scene for awhile, but his efforts to establish himself in the media appear to have paid off because “Fox and Friends” decided to bring him on today to explain, of all things, why James Dobson is suddenly warming up to John McCain.
After bogusly insisting that he refuses to endorse candidates (which would probably come as a surprise to Thompson), Land got down to business explaining how Barack Obama is “probably the most radically pro-abortion candidate to ever be nominated by a major party” and that Dobson, like the rest of the Religious Right, has decided that they’ll “take a third-rate fireman over a first-class arsonist”:
“I think [Dobson’s announcement] will have more impact with laypeople than it will with anybody else, because Dr. Dobson has a huge following. People trust him, they listen to him. He’s got a multi-million radio audience. He really comes into their homes and he's given them advice about their families. It will have a big impact if he chooses to endorse Sen. McCain.
“I think that Sen. Obama is probably the most radically pro-abortion candidate to ever be nominated by a major party. He voted against the Born Alive Protection Act in Illinois, which is an act that says that if a baby manages to survive its abortion, the doctor has to try to save it instead of allowing it to die of neglect or even killing it.... That's about as radically pro-abortion as you can get.
“I think Dr. Dobson is coming to the conclusion in sort of nicer terms what I hear all the time from people all across the country who are evangelicals [and that] is “Look, John McCain wasn't my first choice, John McCain wasn't my second choice, but I'll take a third-rate fireman over a first-class arsonist.” And they see Barack Obama as a first-class arsonist for the things they believe in.
“I think [McCain’s VP pick is] critically important and I think it's one reason why Dr. Dobson said that he might endorse John McCain and [that] he was perhaps leaning towards it. He wants to wait and see what that vice presidential pick is because if he picks a pro-life vice presidential running mate, that will be an enormous boost. If he picks a pro-choice running mate, it will deflate any momentum he's managed to build among evangelicals.
Posted by Kyle at 4:00 PM | Permalink
BARC's "Broken Record"
It seems like every few years, some right-wing African American activists announce that they are launching an effort to address the needs of the community via a new agenda of pro-life and pro-family values - the latest to do so is something called BARC: "The coalition is called Black Americans for Real Change (BARC) and was co-founded by William Owens, Jr. and Alveda King -- the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King. Owens says BARC is a nucleus of believers who are taking a pro-active step to creating real solutions to problems and not a continuing debate on issues like civil rights and racism."
Posted by Kyle at 2:23 PM | Permalink
July 21, 2008
Grassley Gets Bounced From Iowa Delegation
Normally, merely being a Republican Senator from any state in the nation would all but assure said Senator of getting a spot on his or her state’s delegation to the Republican National Convention in September. But not if you are Charles Grassley of Iowa and your state party has been taken over by right-wing zealots who are upset about your investigation into potential financial improprieties at several high-profile televangelist ministries:
Evangelical Christians in Iowa, dominant in the state's Republican Party, have denied Sen. Charles E. Grassley his request for a place on the state's delegation to this summer's Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.
Mr. Grassley may attend the party's Sept. 1-4 nominating convention in St. Paul, but not as a voting delegate.
With a majority of nine out of 17 members on the Iowa Republican central committee, religious conservatives made Iowa Christian Alliance President Steve Scheffler chairman of Iowa's 40-member delegation in a vote immediately after their state party convention July 12.
"The Republican Party of Iowa is moving significantly to the right on social issues," the just-ousted Iowa Republican National Committee member Steve Roberts told The Washington Times. "It hurts John McCain's chances to win this state."
Other party officials said money for the party is drying up because of past mismanagement and current religious dominance, which has turned traditional Republican politics upside down.
"It's pretty well controlled now by the Christian Alliance," Mr. Roberts said. "If somebody came to me and wanted to be a delegate to the national party convention, I used to say, 'Talk to the state party chairman or to Grassley.' Now it's very simple. You go to the Christian Alliance, and they determine who is a delegate, and you have to do exactly as they say."
In recent weeks, religious activists replaced Mr. Roberts as the national Republican committeeman and also replaced the national committeewoman with pro-life advocates who also oppose gay marriage.
Barring Mr. Grassley from voting-delegate status is seen as a blow to him as the senior Republican official in the state, who normally might have led the convention's delegation.
Mr. Grassley had said "yes" when asked by Iowa Republican Chairman Stewart Iverson if he wanted to be a voting delegate to the national convention, Mr. Iverson said.
Political observers in Iowa saw the move against Mr. Grassley as retribution for his having tangled with evangelical pastors in his state. He initiated a Senate Finance Committee investigation of six televangelists for conspicuous personal spending.
Posted by Kyle at 4:48 PM | Permalink
The Ever-Principled James Dobson
It was just five months ago that James Dobson declared unequivocally that he would not, under any circumstances, ever support John McCain for president, saying “I cannot, and I will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.” In fact, so opposed to McCain was Dobson that he went so far as to organize an effort to secure one million signatures in opposition to McCain’s nomination and then publicly reiterated his vehement opposition to his nomination just a few months later.
But wouldn’t you know it, like every other craven political calculation and empty threat he has ever made, Dobson has changed his mind and concluded that Barack Obama is such a monumental threat to this nation that he almost has no other choice but to blatantly violate his own conscience for the greater good of the Republican Party:
Conservative Christian leader James Dobson has softened his stance against Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, saying he could reverse his position and endorse the Arizona senator despite serious misgivings.
"I never thought I would hear myself saying this," Dobson said in a radio broadcast to air Monday. "... While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might."
So why is Dobson suddenly changing his tune? In short, he is absolutely terrified of Obama:
He is also supportive of the entire gay activist agenda. We're not just talking about showing respect for people and equal rights for all citizens of the United States. It’s not referring to it in those terms. He’s talking about homosexual marriage. I mean, he makes no bones about that. He's talking about hate crimes legislation which would limit religious liberty, I have no doubt about that, that ministers and others - people like us - are going to very quickly be prohibited from expressing your faith and your theology on certain views. … Just so many aspects of his views on that issue that keep me awake at night frankly … that he is so extreme, that he does threaten traditional family life and pro-moral values … This has been the most difficult moral dilemma for me. It’s why you haven’t heard me say much about it because I have struggled on this issue. And there are some concerns here that matter to me more than my own life and neither of the candidates is consistent with my views in that regard. But Senator McCain is certainly closer to them then Senator Obama, by a wide margin. And there's no doubt, at least no doubt in my mind, about whose policies will result in more babies being killed. Or who will do the greatest damage to the institution of marriage and the family. I'm convinced that Senator McCain comes closer to what I believe. So I am not endorsing Senator McCain today … But as of this moment, I have to take into account the fact that Senator John McCain has voted pro-life consistently and that's a fact. He says he favors marriage between a man and a woman, I believe that. He opposes homosexual adoption. He favors smaller government and lower taxes and he seems to understand the Muslim threat, which matters a lot to me – I am very concerned about that.
Below is the full transcript of today’s program in which Dobson and the Southern Baptist Convention's Al Mohler explain just how “alarming” Barack Obama’s political and theological views are and the dire threat he poses to “traditional family life and pro-moral values":
Dobson: Hang on to your hats today folks because we’re going to wade in where angels fear to tread because our topic is the national election here in the United States. Passions are running at a fevered pitch as we approach this time decision and the mainstream media is determined to shape, or even control, if they can, what happens in November, the outcome there. And I have never, in my lifetime, been subjected to such viciousness as I have in response to the four or five comments that I made about this subject in the last year or so. It began in September 2007 when I was a guest on the “Hannity and Colmes” television show and my great and respected friend Sean Hannity hammered me because I said that I can never vote for Rudy Giuliani for president because his position on abortion and homosexual marriage and so on, I’ve been saying those things for 35 years. But Sean said with great passion that I had to support Rudy Giuliani because he was the only person who could defeat Hillary Clinton and I said at that time “you know Sean, we still have more than a year to go and a lot of things can happen” but he really insisted that Rudy was the only person that was going to be able to stop Hillary. Well, as it turns out of course, Rudy got one delegate and Senator Clinton didn't get the nomination. So my point is that presidential elections are unpredictable and highly volatile and anyone who interjects himself or herself into the campaign is just asking for it and that will probably occur in the response to the program we're gonna do today.
Our local paper, The [Colorado] Gazette, recently put a ridiculous cartoon of me on the front page, above the fold, making the case that my influence was done for, was over. They didn't explain if that was true, why they put me on the front page of the paper and why I've been in over a thousand newspapers this summer. So that's the way it is. Nevertheless, what's at stake here this election year is unlike anything we've ever seen in American history, in my view. And the decision that we're going to be making, many decisions really, that we’re going to be making in November now hold enormous consequences for the future of our country. I have been consulting with some of the most respected evangelical leaders on the scene today and I respect these gentlemen highly and they’ve all urged me to do what we're doing today, to help our listeners who hold on to conservative Christian views to think through, maybe help others think through - we don't have all the answers - but just to consider the critical issues and perhaps get a better understanding of what Senator Barack Obama and/or what Senator John McCain believe and where they'll take us in the next four to eight years if one of them is elected - and one of them is going to be elected.
So we can do that here at Focus on the Family because this is actually a Focus on the Family Action program. It's being paid for by money that was contributed by people who did not get a tax deduction for their contribution and that allows us the flexibility to talk about where we're gonna talk about today. We're going to try to do it as wisely and cogently and honestly as possible. So I have a real privilege of inviting to the studio here with me today - we're actually not in Colorado Springs, we’re in Nashville, Tennessee - but Doctor Al Mohler is here to help us address this issue. He's one of those leaders that I was talking about that I've been consulting with. He's the president of Southern Seminary and he has his own radio program call “The Al Mohler Program” heard on 100 stations or more, it’s part of the Salem Network. He's the author of numerous books. He has Ph.D. He's married to Mary, who's sitting here today as well, and they have a terrific son and daughter. … Well I have been talking to you by phone on numerous occasions and let's get right to it because we’ve got a lot to discuss. I believe and you have shared with me that you are very concerned, as I am, about the possibility of Barack Obama being the next President of the United States. And maybe a better word for it is “alarmed” by that possibility. Is that true and explain why?
Mohler: Well it is true and we're in an unusual situation here. You know, you're looking at the 2008 presidential election and I, for one, feel that evangelical Christians are in a different position than we've been in before. We're confronted with a set of choices, both of whom represent some new ways we have to think through the issues.
Barack Obama is one of the most attractive, charismatic candidates to emerge on the political scene in a long time. We may have to go back to a John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan to find someone with a package of skills, that Barack Obama has. And it is clear that he is energizing millions of voters, that he’s attracting many many young people and I think we can see why there's also this great excitement in this country about the fact that maybe we are the kind of nation that would elect an African American president and so all that lends momentum, leading into this big question. I have to tell you I find Barack Obama to be a very attractive person, a very attractive candidate. I would want to vote for him. But a closer I look at his positions, the more alarmed I become. He is the candidate who bills himself as the candidate of change and, in an odd way, he is; just not the kind of change that I think most Americans now understand. So Doctor when I look at this, I have to say we're looking at the most liberal candidate, I think, to gain a party nomination probably in history this country, and on so many of the issues, far beyond even where a Bill Clinton was. That is what I think most Americans don't understand, and many evangelicals don't understand, particularly younger evangelicals. This is a man who has staked out his positions for the last twenty years in a way that is markedly beyond where most Americans believe he is.
Dobson: I think he's more liberal and more extreme than most Democrats in the Senate. In fact, the best example of that is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act which was voted on in the United States Senate and passed by 98 votes to nothing. That was the legislation that would have prevented physicians and hospitals from killing a baby who was aborted but somehow managed to limp into the world alive. And so it would protect them, it would prevent them from committing murder. Well in the State of Illinois earlier than that, two years earlier, Barack Obama was Chairman of the committee who dealt with that same legislation, or a piece of legislation similar to it. And he was Chairman of the committee, so he got up and spoke against the bill, arguing for the right to kill those babies. Now, 98 to nothing in the Senate, and here he stakes out a position in regard to abortion that even his liberal colleagues don't represent. This man is really far far left.
Mohler: Well, not only is he for what he would call a pro choice position he has fought every significant and meaningful restriction on abortion. He publicly criticized the US Supreme Court's decision to allow the federal government to prohibit the procedure known as “partial birth abortion.” You know he talks like so many people want to talk, like John Kerry began to talk in the 2004 campaign, about wanting to reduce abortion but he doesn't mean reducing abortion by any legal means. He has fought that it every single turn.
Dobson: He is also supportive of the entire gay activist agenda. We're not just talking about showing respect for people and equal rights for all citizens of the United States. It’s not referring to it in those terms. He’s talking about homosexual marriage. I mean, he makes no bones about that. He's talking about hate crimes legislation which would limit religious liberty, I have no doubt about that, that ministers and others - people like us - are going to very quickly be prohibited from expressing your faith and your theology on certain views. And then there comes the issue of DOMA, which I'm very concerned about. The Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act and twenty eight states now have voted on the definition of marriage and putting that definition in to their Constitutions. Twenty eight. Twenty seven have defined it as being exclusively between one man and one woman. He is opposed to that. He’s opposed to DOMA. And you know, it goes on from there -- just so many aspects of his views on that issue that caused me great … keeps me awake at night frankly.
Mohler: You know, I think hearing his own words has a particular power. In the letter that he wrote to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender Democratic Club in San Francisco, this released just a couple weeks ago he said this:
“As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”
You know Doctor, when you look at this, what he's saying here goes so far beyond where, so far as I know, any Democratic candidate has ever publicly declared himself. For instance, on the issue of DOMA, let's remember that Bill Clinton signed that act into law. He did so knowing that the American people believe that marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It was overwhelmingly passed by both houses of Congress, signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It was Bill Clinton who clumsily but nonetheless historically came up with the “Don't Ask Don't Tell” policy and established it by Executive Order early in his administration. So what you're talking about here is Barack Obama coming along and saying “all right, I am to the left, significantly to the left, of even of Bill Clinton, even perhaps even if Hillary Clinton on some of these issues.” And now he is saying openly, and this isn’t something dredged up from the 1980s this is two weeks ago roughly to the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club in San Francisco. He's on the record on this.
Dobson: What concerns me is that he wants to use the power of the federal government to oppose something that the vast majority of the American people already feel with regards to the importance of marriage. It doesn't matter that twenty seven states have gone on record – there are three more that are going to be voted on and in November: California and Arizona and Florida. It does not matter what they wish and it just it takes my breath away that a presidential candidate could come along and be so far from the mainstream. And that's kind of a theme of what I feel, and I think you agree, that he is so extreme. That he does threaten traditional family life and pro-moral values.
Mohler: Let me try to put this in what I think is a historical context. I think Barack Obama believes that he's riding a wave and I will say - having read everything I know that he' has written, listening to him a great deal, reading his books - he's an incredibly intelligent man, we know that from his educational pedigree
Dobson: I agree too, he’s charismatic. I mean, this man has talent …
Mohler: He’s also very thoughtful so he doesn't come up positions recklessly. He's not someone is going to be caught on a footnote or you know not dotting an I or crossing a T. He really does come to detailed policy positions and I think he thinks that America is headed toward full normalization of homosexuality and I think he sees those of us who believe that that would not be good for the culture as backward, as oppressive, as intolerant. And I think he just wants to see all society bend to what he thinks is that the natural, inexorable, automatic wave of the future. Now if he's right, well he’ll be elected President of the United States and America will know what they're doing. But I don't believe that America is quite ready for that. I don't think America is ready to sign on to the full normalization of homosexuality and to the elimination of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as a distinctive institution. I also, and this is the point you made so well just a moment ago, I also think most Americans don't understand what a difference a president can make. When you put someone in the office as President of the United States with full Constitutional authority, with the kind of ambition that Barack Obama clearly has to reshape the culture. You're really looking at an incredible challenge I think for evangelical Christians to understand. There is more here than meets the eye.
Dobson: And of course the media will be his mouthpiece. And they want to accomplish those same purposes so they will work with him. And there's a possibility now, and frankly scares me to death, that the Democrats may have as many as sixty votes in the Senate and be able to break a filibuster. And they also make pick up as many as seventy additional seats in the House. So what we run the risk out here is the complete absence of checks and balances, where you have one point of view in charge in the White House, the House, the Senate, and of course the Supreme Court and all of departments of government. That takes my breath away.
Mohler: You know Doctor, I was on a conversation this past week in which at this point came up. Could we face an America very quickly where the Supreme Court is the most conservative branch of the federal government? That is conceivable given how leftward it appears that have both the Senate and, under a Barack Obama administration, the presidency would go. You know I think we have to concede the fact the Barack Obama sees through a lot of what Americans are looking for. He has tapped into something here and I think evangelical Christians will make a mistake if we don't understand that there is an enormous sense in this country, an enormous desire, to see some fundamental rethinking about issues. That’s why we need to contribute to that rethinking. I don't want to see American go the direction Barack Obama wants to see it go. But I don't want to see evangelical Christians without any alternative. I think that's where we really need to engage the debate and I think that's what a lot of evangelical Christians are out there waiting to see.
Dobson: I said on the radio the other day that the media, the mainstream media, the liberal media, has what has been called a template about where we are as a nation. And part of that template, they’re all singing the same song, the same article is showing up everywhere. It is that evangelicals have changed their mind about life, they've changed their mind about marriage, they've changed their mind about many of the social issues and the moral issues and that its leaders are older and aging and that the younger generation is much more concerned about environmental issues and poverty and other things, as though those who have been around awhile don't care about those things. But that is the message. That’s been in virtually every newspaper and I show up as the centerpiece of those articles. Where is the evangelical mindset if you can summarize it in that way?
Mohler: Well, I think you've kind of set it out in terms of implying where that the real cleavage is - I think it's generational. And I have the benefit of being surrounded by younger evangelicals every single day and I will tell you there is a sense among younger evangelicals who are firm in the faith, conservative in doctrine, that the evangelical movement has gained a bad reputation as being against things rather than for them. I think the younger generation of evangelicals looks at a lot of older evangelicals and says “you just don't get it, you're not connecting with the issues, you're too happy, you're too consumerist, you’re too materialistic, you're living in an evangelical subculture” and they're not all wrong about that. That's the other reason why I think we've got to be out there engaging the issues. We’ve got something to say. And now only do we have something to say, I think we have something that is biblical, that makes sense in terms of Christian truth and it will be compelling if Christians just begin to think through the issues. But you know that's the great challenge Doctor, isn't it of the 2008 election? We're going to have to think. We’re going to have to help evangelical Christians to think because there's not going to be an automatic reflex we can just count on.
Dobson: And that's why we do in this program today. It's not to tell people how to vote. It is to ask people to think about the issues. We're gonna run out time real quick Al, but I don't know how we can not talk about national security and terrorism. I don't know how we cannot talk about the appointment of judges. I don't know how we can avoid talking about tax increases on families. And Barack Obama's theology. We could spend a whole program talking about that. Newsweek magazine this week has a huge article on his theology, which is liberation theology. I'd love to hear you talk about that.
Mohler: That's the big picture in terms of Barack Obama's worldview. It's what helps us to understand where he comes up with this policy positions. And it goes back to what you were saying about the media. The media has a template – so does everyone, let’s just call it a worldview for a moment. You know it comes down to whether you see the basic institution of marriage as oppressive or liberating, as something that's a given or something that’s just culturally constructed. Barack Obama comes from a very liberal strain of Christian theology, he's very explicit about that when he mentions the people that he reads, people like Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr. He really understands and he mentions this - it comes out in this Newsweek cover story and I hope a lot of evangelicals read it - it comes out that he really believes that Christianity can be a functional impetus towards social change in a liberal direction. Now I don't think that's what most evangelical Christians think of when they think of a basic understanding of Christianity. But it comes out of the fact. Here's a basic reading: if you believe that the civil rights movement is the model for every single social issue, then you'll paint every single social issue as one of relieving oppression. And so that's exactly why he writes this letter to the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club, that is exactly the way he looks at the abortion issue and all the rest. It's all part of a world view. I don’t think evangelical Christians share that worldview, but I don't think they understand, at least many do not understand, just how radical Barack Obama is on this. And again I'm glad to have the ideas out there, I'm glad to have that that the battle of ideas joined. I just don't want to see evangelicals asleep at the switch and just looking at the surface level issues without getting to what really lies underneath.
Dobson: Is it your impression that they are asleep at the switch?
Mohler: I think so. Look at the polling and the surveys - and who knows how they define evangelicals many times - but there's no doubt that there is incredible confusion out there. I think the Church is guilty for a lot of confusion. I think a lot of pastors aren’t really speaking about these issues. And I don't mean holding symposiums on the issues of the day - I mean just preaching the Bible and actually connecting the dots so that people can think as intelligent Christians.
Dobson: Well how we have spent most of our time talking about the beliefs and political views of Senator Barack Obama and what he says he will do if he is elected President and we should at least make a few comments about Senator McCain. I am sure that we will and should do another program with him because we have a whole lot to say there I have expressed my strong disagreement with Senator McCain on three or four occasions which continue to be reported regularly in the news as though it were said yesterday. And my disagreement has involved some issues that are now generally known, one being I've -criticized his continuing support for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That bothers me a lot. It leads to killing of babies, very tiny babies but they’re human beings. And cloning and other things. His unwillingness to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment and saying that the states could protect the institution of marriage when in fact he knows that the courts can simply override the will of the people as the state Supreme Court in the state of California has recently done. That and the fact that I'm so very concerned about Senator Obama and what he believes and stands for, as well as the need to rethink some of my views regarding Senator McCain. And that thinking has taken place and continues to do so.
This has been the most difficult moral dilemma for me. It’s why you haven’t heard me say much about it because I have struggled on this issue. And there are some concerns here that matter to me more than my own life and neither of the candidates is consistent with my views in that regard. But Senator McCain is certainly closer to them than Senator Obama, by a wide margin. And there's no doubt about at least no doubt in my mind, about whose policies will result in more babies being killed. Or who will do the greatest damage to the institution of marriage and the family. I'm convinced that Senator McCain comes closer to what I believe. So I am not endorsing Senator McCain today. I don't even know who his vice-presidential candidate will be. You know he could very well choose a pro-abortion candidate and it would not be unlike him to do that because he seems to enjoy a frustrating conservatives on occasions. But as of this moment, I have to take into account the fact that Senator John McCain has voted pro-life consistently and that's a fact. He says he favors marriage between a man and a woman, I believe that. He opposes homosexual adoption. He favors smaller government and lower taxes and he seems to understand the Muslim threat, which matters a lot to me – I am very concerned about that.
Therefore, I have considered the fact that elections always involve imperfect candidates. There are no perfect human beings and you always have to choose between two flawed individuals, that’s the way we're all made. So it comes down to this, and I never thought I would hear myself saying this, but it's where I am: that while I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might. And that that's all I can say at this time.
Posted by Kyle at 11:49 AM | Permalink
July 17, 2008
Too Little, Too Late?
The last time we wrote about the House Values Action Team it was to note that its right-wing agenda had been gutted in the House Republicans’ 2008 campaign agenda for American families. At the time, House VAT chairman Joe Pitts dismissed the obvious implication that House Republicans were trying to distance themselves from the GOP's right-wing base, saying that "when we come out with the whole big picture," the social issues the Right cares about will be front and center.
But it looks like Pitts has realized that vague assurances are not going to cut it this time around and so the VAT is back with its own agenda to let the Right know they have not been forgotten:
Hoping to get their issues back on the front page of the GOP agenda, socially conservative Republicans will introduce their wish list on Thursday to the House Republican Conference.The House Values Agenda, crafted by Values Action Team (VAT) Chairman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), has five major components: life, religious liberty, marriage, parental rights and protecting children.
Bills on each issue will be introduced later this year.
...
Much of the legislation on the values agenda has been introduced in previous Congresses, but it highlights issues — such as abortion and gay marriage — that some social conservatives have felt have been ignored by Republicans this election year. Social issues were a huge component of President Bush’s reelection campaign in 2004.
The package also includes several bills aimed at regulating indecent programming and protecting children from online predators.
Of course, even this time around the social issues the Religious Right cares about still isn't going to get much play from House Republicans:
Pitts spokesman Andrew Cole said that, for now, the agenda will be encouraged on an internal conference level rather than in a large rollout, citing the importance of keeping the conference firmly focused on energy.
So the VAT is unveiling an agenda aimed at pleasing the Right, which has been feeling jilted and neglected, on its favorite issues of abortion and gay marriage, but it doesn't plan to actually push the issues in any high-profile manner. That kind of halfhearted outreach ought to really energize the Right heading into the November election.
Posted by Kyle at 3:31 PM | Permalink
Dobson Snubs Scarborough's "One Day Crusade"
Phill Kline has been something of a right-wing cause célèbre ever since he used his position as Attorney General in Kansas to launch a one-man crusade against Planned Parenthood and subpoena "records of more than 80 women and girls who received abortions in 2003 at two clinics" in the state, ostensibly in a "search for evidence of illegal late-term abortions and child rape."
As it turned out, it was his obsession with abortion that did him in when he was up for re-election in 2006 when he lost his position to Paul Morrison. But then, in an odd twist, the Johnson County Republican Party's precinct leaders elected him to finish out the remainder of Morrison's term as Johnson Country Attorney General and now he is running for re-election, even though he hasn't been particularly keen on actually showing up for work.
And now the Kansas City Star reports that Klein is scheduled to join Rick Scarborough at one of his one-day "Crusade to Save America" events on July 28th in Overland Park - and Scarborough is insisting that this is not election-related at all:
A conservative organization based in Texas is reaching out to pastors and their churches in Johnson County before the upcoming Aug. 5 primary.The Rev. Rick Scarborough, who founded Vision America, said this week that his group would not be endorsing any candidate. But Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline, who is seeking a full four-year term, is expected to share his faith at three of four events set up for clergy and at a public rally July 28, Scarborough said.
Scarborough said Kline would appear not as a candidate but as district attorney.
“We can’t endorse a candidate and don’t, but we do hope people will vote not as Republicans or Democrats but as followers of Christ,” Scarborough said. “We try to get Christians to vote their biblical values.”
...
Kline has been “forewarned and carefully advised” that nothing will be said about his candidacy, Scarborough said.
“Legally, any elected official can come to an event and discuss his faith,” Scarborough said. Kline also is expected to provide an update to his constituents on his criminal case against Planned Parenthood’s clinic in Overland Park, where abortions are performed.
Not too long ago, James Dobson personally endorsed Kline's re-election bid and Scarborough even invited Dobson to participate in the event, but it looks like even James Dobson has enough sense to avoid being seen in public with the likes of these two right-wing zealots:
Organizers had hoped that James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, would speak at the rally, but a spokesman with the group said he would not be able to attend.
Posted by Kyle at 2:49 PM | Permalink
July 9, 2008
New Friends Bring New Troubles for McCain
Now that a large group of Religious Right activists have come forward in support of John McCain, the candidate might be tempted to sit back and relax. But as McCain learned from his experience with televangelists John Hagee and Rod Parsley, it’s not easy to be both a beloved “maverick” and a right-wing champion.
McCain was happy to campaign with Hagee and Parsley, until the media started to pick up their extreme views—thus risking McCain’s “moderate” image among many independent voters.
So what happens if and when people start hearing about McCain’s new friends? If Hagee and Parsley are too much for McCain, voters may begin to wonder, what about these right-wing activists, some of whom are even further out there?
Does McCain endorse David Barton’s partisan pseudo-history of America as a “Christian nation”? Does McCain share Phil Burress’s view that Ohio’s anti-gay marriage amendment should have invalidated the state’s domestic violence law? What are McCain’s thoughts on Tim LaHaye’s warning that “Brilliant Jewish minds have all too frequently been devoted to philosophies that have proved harmful to mankind”? Does McCain believe, like Phyllis Schlafly, that women cannot be raped by their husbands, that the U.S. government is secretly plotting to merge with Mexico and Canada, or that Mexican immigrants are “invading” the U.S. and spreading disease? (For that matter, does this mean Schlafly has successfully “worked over” McCain?)
McCain will be tempted to ditch them, as he did Parsley and Hagee, but that only managed to anger the Religious Right. Mat Staver, who organized the recent pro-McCain meeting, complained of McCain’s abandonment of the televangelists he’d courted, “He threw them under the bus.” Right-wing strategist Mark DeMoss called it a “slap in the face to evangelicals who are already somewhat suspect of Senator McCain.” But keeping his Religious Right friends along may be a slap in the face to his poll numbers.
Posted by Ezra at 6:41 PM | Permalink
A Much More Subdued Right-Wing Declaration
Details continue to emerge about the meeting last week in Colorado where a large group right-wing leaders gathered and decided to back John McCain, with David Barton telling The Brody File that more than 90% in attendance agreed to support McCain primarily because they abhor Barack Obama and, as we noted yesterday, are really concerned about the future of the Supreme Court :
There were 83 state and national leaders in the room from all over the country. They included heavyweights Phyllis Schlafly, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Phil Burress, Mat Staver and representatives from Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association.
David Barton, President of the conservative WallBuilders group was there too. I spoke with him about the meeting and he tells me roughly 75 of the 83 were on board for McCain at the end of the meeting.
…
They don't want Barack Obama picking Supreme Court judges. That's why the judges issue is very important to this group and they believe McCain will be there on judges. They plan to let their supporters know about it. The "base" may be mobilizing very soon.
Charisma Magazine also provide some inside details, such as the fact that Mike Huckabee’s daughter Sarah was reportedly in attendance and that McCain has apparently been meeting with militant anti-abortion activist Alveda King, which makes sense seeing as she’s been supporting him for months.
But the culmination of the meeting was the agreement by those in attendance to sign on to something called the “Declaration of American Values” put together by Mat Staver and David Barton. If this sounds familiar, it is probably because it is a lot like the Values Voters’ Contract With Congress that a similar group of right-wing activists unveiled heading into the 2006 election. The primary difference between the two is that the new declaration has dropped the laundry list of legislation they wanted to see passed that made up the bulk of the Values Voters’ Contract in favor of vague language about the “sanctity of human life” and the importance of securing our “national sovereignty and domestic tranquility” … almost as if they don’t anticipate that their legislative agenda has any chance of moving forward in the next Congress:
"We the people of the United States of America, at this crucial time in history, do hereby affirm the core consensus values which form the basis of America's greatness, that all men and women from every race and ethnicity are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We adhere to the rule of law embodied in the Constitution of the United States and to the principles of liberty on which America was founded. In order to maintain the blessings of liberty and justice for ourselves and our posterity, and recognizing that personal responsibility is the basis of our self-governing
Nation, we declare our allegiance:"1. To secure the sanctity of human life by affirming the dignity of and right to life for the disabled, the ill, the aged, the poor, the disadvantaged, and for the unborn from the moment of conception. Every person is made in the image of God, and it is the responsibility and duty of all individuals and communities of faith to extend the hand of loving compassion to care for those in poverty and distress.
"2. To secure our national interest in the institution of marriage and family by embracing the union of one man and one woman as the sole form of legitimate marriage and the proper basis of family.
"3. To secure the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children regarding their upbringing and education.
"4. To secure the free exercise of religion for all people, including the freedom to acknowledge God through our public
institutions and other modes of public expression and the freedom of religious conscience without coercion by penalty or force of law."5. To secure the moral dignity of each person, acknowledging that obscenity, pornography, and indecency debase our communities, harm our families, and undermine morality and respect. Therefore, we promote enactment and enforcement of laws to protect decency and traditional morality.
"6. To secure the right to own, possess and manage private property without arbitrary interference from government, while acknowledging the necessity of maintaining a proper and balanced care and stewardship of the environment and natural resources for the health and safety of our families.
"7. To secure the individual right to own, possess, and use firearms as central to the preservation of peace and liberty.
"8. To secure a system of checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches within both state and federal governments, so that no one branch -- particularly the judiciary -- usurps the authority of the other two, and to maintain the constitutional principles of federalism which divide power between the state and federal governments.
"9. To secure our national sovereignty and domestic tranquility by maintaining a strong military; establishing and maintaining secure national borders; participating in international and diplomatic affairs without ceding authority to foreign powers that diminish or interfere with our unalienable rights; and being mindful of our history as a nation of immigrants, promoting immigration policies that observe the rule of law and are just, fair, swift, and foster national unity.
"10. To secure a system of fair taxes that are not punitive against the institution of marriage or family and are not progressive in nature, and within a limited government framework, to encourage economic opportunity, free enterprise, and free market competition.
"We hereby pledge our Names, our Lives and our Sacred Honor to this Declaration of American Values."
Posted by Kyle at 4:42 PM | Permalink
Older Politics posts: