Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mccain. Show all posts

5/16/08

Tzvee's Analysis: Hamas Wants McCain Victory

The WSJ reports today, "Democratic Hold on Jewish Vote Could Slip,"

Republicans are betting that, voting records aside, they can foster doubts about how firmly an Obama administration would back Israel against its enemies. On the campaign trail, Sen. McCain routinely has said that as president, he will be the "worst nightmare" of Hamas, a militant Palestinian organization that he has attempted to link to Sen. Obama. "A spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Sen. Obama's candidacy," Sen. McCain said May 9, referring to top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef's statement of support for Sen. Obama.

Sen. Obama has repeatedly rejected the nod, telling the Atlantic magazine recently: "They are a terrorist organization, and I've repeatedly condemned them."

Tzvee's Analysis:

Hamas has the Internet. Undoubtedly they know that their endorsement of any American presidential candidate will cost him votes, Jewish votes, American votes.

Hamas virtually endorsed Obama. Obviously, they hope that will cost him votes and that McCain will win.

Why is that? Why would Hamas want McCain to win?

Because under Bush, Hamas came to power. They won the Palestinian election and now control Gaza.

They are doing all they can to help McCain win so that they can increase their power in "Bush's third term."

QED

5/13/08

Gallup: Obama Way Ahead With Jewish Voters

From the Swamp:

080507JewishGraph2_hfndk348da.gif

by Frank James

Here's an interesting finding from Gallup's pollsters -- almost as many Jewish voters say they would vote for Sen. Barack Obama for president against Sen. John McCain, the all-but-official Republican presidential nominee, as say they would vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton against McCain.

According to Gallup, 61 percent of Jewish voters surveyed said they'd vote for Obama in the general election versus 32 percent who say they'd vote for McCain.

That compares with 66 percent of Jewish voters who said they'd vote for Clinton to the 27 percent who said they'd vote for McCain

Gallup suggested the poll indicated that Obama hasn't been noticeably hurt by his past relationship with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who has spoken positively of Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam and has rebuked Israel for the plight of Palestinians...

5/10/08

AP: McCain's Wife Vows to Hide Her Tax Returns Forever


This really stinks to the highest heavens. McCain is starting to make Bush look by comparison like a great man...
Cindy McCain says she won't release her tax returns even if her husband wins the White House
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Cindy McCain says she will never make her tax returns public even if her husband wins the White House and she becomes the first lady.

"You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate," Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain, said in an interview aired on NBC's "Today" on Thursday.

Asked if she would release her tax returns if she was first lady, Cindy McCain said: "No."

The Arizona senator released his tax return last month, reporting he had a total income of $405,409 in 2007 and paid $84,460 in federal income taxes. He files his return separately from his wife, an heiress to a Phoenix-based beer distributing company whose fortune is in the $100 million range.

Sen. McCain is routinely is ranked among the richest lawmakers in Congress, but he and his wife have kept their finances separate throughout their marriage. A prenuptial agreement left much of the family's assets in Cindy McCain's name.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Cindy McCain's refusal to release her tax returns gives the appearance of a double standard on the part of her husband.

"What is John McCain trying to hide?" Dean said in a statement. "Throughout this campaign, he has acted like his own calls for openness and accountability apply to everyone but himself. Now he thinks he can bring that same double standard to the White House."

In response, Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz said, "Howard Dean continues to lower the bar in this election."

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton filed joint tax returns with their spouses and publicly released those returns.

5/8/08

Senile McCain Smears Obama as Choice of Hamas

Sure it is not nice to say "senile" when speaking of McCain. But hey I am just a voice writing in a blog.

McCain is speaking as a public figure running for President as the Republican nominee. I saw McCain on Jon Stewart last night.

It was not funny. McCain appeared to me to be either senile or drunk.
Obama accuses McCain of 'losing his bearings' with comment

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that Republican John McCain tried to smear him and was "losing his bearings" for suggesting that Hamas preferred Obama for president.

"This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing, because John McCain always says, 'Well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics.' And then to engage in that kind of smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his," Obama told CNN in an interview Thursday.

The Illinois senator added: "For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate."

McCain has raised questions about a Hamas adviser, Ahmed Yousef, saying in an interview: "We like Obama and hope that he will win the election." The United States has labeled the Palestinian organization a terrorist group.

"It's indicative of how some of our enemies view America," McCain said Wednesday on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." "And I guarantee you, they're not going to endorse me."

Mark Salter, a senior adviser to McCain, said Obama was trying to divert attention from a legitimate question by referring to McCain's age. The expected Republican presidential nominee turns 72 in August, and would be the oldest person sworn in as president if elected.

"He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not-particularly-clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue," Salter said. "It is more than fair to raise this quote about Senator Obama, because it speaks to the policy implications of his judgment."

4/29/08

McCain Health Plan: Eat Right and Walk a Lot

I'm sure I heard this on NPR on the way home tonight. I just can't find it online anywhere.

McCain says that most importantly, we should all just walk a half an hour a day and eat the right foods.

I could not stop laughing.

4/14/08

How Fox Special! New Low Reached as (Zionist) Lieberman Ponders If Obama Might be (Marxist) Elitist

Oy vey. Joe Lieberman has fallen from his stature as a prominent politician to his new persona as personal assistant in charge of correction to John McCain and now as a comic-book-like Fox guest.

How far the mighty cedar has fallen! Read the post from the Think Progress blog:

Lieberman: It’s ‘a good question’ to ask if Obama is ‘a Marxist.’»

obamalieberman.jpgIn his New York Times column today, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol claimed that Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) now-infamous “bitter” remarks sound like Karl Marx’s “famous statement about religion.” On the Brian and the Judge radio show today, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano asked Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) if Obama is “a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case?”

“I must say that’s a good question,” replied Lieberman, before stepping back to say that he would “hesitate to say he’s a Marxist”:

NAPITALIANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

Listen courtesy of the folks over at the Think Progress blog and be sure to read all the comments there. They are a riot.

Example: Dr. Hussein Matt Says:
I can’t keep track of all his affiliations: Muslim, liberal, far left-liberal, elitist, Anti-American, Socialist, Marxist, Anti-Christian, half-frican, smoker, terrible bowler, drug addict, etc., etc., etc.,


4/9/08

Times: Rockefeller Slams McCain, then Says He's Sorry

Oops, I'm sorry! Yeah, right!
West Virginia Senator Apologizes for Comments on McCain
By KATE PHILLIPS

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV personally apologized to Senator John McCain of Arizona on Tuesday after remarking in an interview that Mr. McCain’s years as a Navy fighter pilot would not have given him an understanding of everyday issues faced by Americans.

In an interview in his home state, West Virginia, on Monday, Mr. Rockefeller, a Democrat, told The Charleston Gazette that Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, could not relate to the everyday concerns of people on issues like health care.

According to the article, Mr. Rockefeller said: “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”...
It's getting a bit muddy out there in politics-land.

4/8/08

CBS News: McCain Campaign Confuses Barack Obama with Tiger Woods

One of those half-black super stars: Tiger Woods, Barack Obama. Who can tell the difference? (They all look alike.)

And Al Qaeda maybe that's Shiite, maybe Sunni. Who can tell the difference? (They all look alike.)

For sure the McCain campaign and the candidate himself have no clue.
McCain: Never Surrender
By Amie Parnes

Several hundred veterans stood in the cold drizzle Tuesday morning for a man they called their hero.

“You can have your Tiger Woods,” David Bellavia, a former Army Staff Sergeant told the crowd of pro-Iraq veterans. “We’ve got Senator McCain.”

John McCain, (R-Ariz.) the presumptive nominee, did not disappoint while making a pit stop at the Vets for Freedom rally outside the Capitol. Before appearing on the Senate Armed Services panel, McCain, called David Petraeus "one of [America's] greatest generals...."
The McCain campaign is acting like a bunch of clueless racist idiots.

3/22/08

Times' Deborah Solomon Questions for Megaminister Rev. Hagee

I like this guy Hagee for substantive reasons - his deep love of Israel. He is for us for real.

Solomon moves him one step closer to the mainstream. Yes, okay, there are lots more steps to go. But it's one step in the right direction.

As a prominent evangelical pastor based in San Antonio, you were recently catapulted into national controversy when you endorsed Senator John McCain for president. Is it true that McCain actively sought your endorsement? It’s true that McCain’s campaign sought my endorsement.

How did you feel when critics called you a Catholic-basher and said McCain should reject your endorsement? My statements regarding the Catholic Church have been grossly mischaracterized. I never called the Catholic Church “the anti-Christ” or a “false cult system.” I was referring to those Christians who ignore the Gospels.

What about your observation in a recent book that “most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews”? What I was trying to express was the fact that Christian anti-Semitism — both Catholic and Protestant — contributed to an environment in which Nazi racial anti-Semitism could flourish.

But why bring all of that up now? ’Cause most of the world don’t know it. Christians don’t know it at all.

Two years ago, you founded Christians United for Israel , an influential lobbying group that has won accolades from many Jewish leaders. I’m trying to do something beneficial for the state of Israel and the Jewish people. It’s the right thing to do. If you take the Jewish contribution away from Christianity, there would be no Christianity.

That’s a touching sentiment, but some are concerned that the Zionism of American evangelicals stems from self-interest. Isn’t your involvement in Israel based on a desire to speed the second coming of Jesus? Our support of Israel has nothing to do with any kind of “end times” Bible scenario.

You’re not just sitting around waiting for the Rapture? No. My support of Israel is based on a recognition of the enormous debt we gentiles owe to the Jews. I have given millions of dollars to build hospitals and orphanages in Israel and to bring 25,000 Russian immigrants to Israel, because every Jewish person who comes to Israel makes it a stronger nation.

You’re often described as the pastor of a megachurch. Yes.

What makes it a megachurch instead of just a big church? I think they call you a megachurch when you go over 5,000. I have over 19,000 active members at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio.

You are also the president of Global Evangelism Television, which broadcasts your Sunday sermons around the country. I am on five days a week. My show can be seen throughout the world on several networks, including God TV, TBN and Daystar.

What do you make of Barack Obama’s oratorical skills? He is going to be difficult to beat, because the man is a master of communication. If he were in the ministry, he would make it in the major leagues overnight.

Let’s talk about your much-quoted comment that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for a gay rights parade in New Orleans . We’re not going down there. That’s so far off-base it would take us 33 pages to go through that, and it’s not worth going through.

I am not eager to rehash it either, although I wish that evangelicals were not so hard on gays. Our church is not hard against the gay people. Our church teaches what the Bible teaches, that it is not a righteous lifestyle. But of course we must love even sinners.

Do you have any gay friends? I don’t want to say that I have any friends, because when you say, “Who are they?” I don’t want them jumping off the balcony.

Do you have an Easter prayer to share with us? May the joy of Easter fill your heart and home.

3/9/08

McCain, Hagee and the Jews

The Forward's Jennifer Siegel writes about how an Evangelical’s Endorsement Spurs Debate.

Not really. She reaches pretty far out on a limb for this one. 99% of our leaders and laypeople know that this is none of our business. Jennifer does find one feller, Rabbi Irwin Kula, president of CLAL (that is to say, a leader with no defined constituency or political mission) who thinks that Hagee is like Farrakahn. But we know this comparison is bogus. Kula seems to have missed David Brog's book, Standing With Israel, which makes lucid the case for Christian support for Israel. He also seems to have missed Hagee's own and current book, In Defense of Israel: The Bible's Mandate for Supporting the Jewish State. Hagee has been our friend for 27 years, each year doing more to support the Jewish State in order to fulfill as he sees it, Isaiah 62:1, "For Zion's sake I will not be silent."

I can't say that nobody agrees with Kula on his comparison. I just hope that is the case. In any case, I believe even those Jewish leaders who are critical or suspicious of Hagee will agree with Foxman that, "It's not our agenda" to be critical of him vis a vis the McCain kerfuffle (a favorite word of the Forward).

For more on Hagee, Brog and company, and on Abe Foxman on the subject of Hagee, see my cover story in the Jewish Standard from August, 2006 in which I review Brog's book.
  1. Are they your friends?
  2. ‘Christians are hearing the message’: An interview with David Brog
  3. ‘It’s not our agenda’: An interview with Abraham Foxman

3/3/08

Bye Bye Hillary. Your Nineties Negativism Will Not Be Missed.

What can I say? It has been 40 years since I felt the authentic charisma of a progressive political leader.

Barack Obama is such a man. He inspires others to build and create a new and special universe.

Clinton supporters - continue to tear down the opposition. Keep doing what you have been trained to do. Destroy, attack, dissemble, distort, find fault, antagonize, oppose, belittle, and fail.

We will not cheer when Hillary withdraws and concedes on Wednesday. It's not about crushing the other. It's about building and creating a new value in our world.

We can, we will, we must. Our mission is to lead upwards, not to tear down. Our aim is to inspire our people to new heights, not to plumb new depths of sarcasm and disrespect.

We respect Hillary and McCain and others. They say they want to represent us and do good for us. But we decide that they fall short. No crime. No shame. They just do not rise to the occasion.

Best of luck to you Hillary. We will not miss your smiling belligerence. That's not what American politics is all about.

2/13/08

Zogby on Obama Momentum

Amazing - Barack Obama is the frontrunner. Or maybe not! Whatever. He brings vision to the land and restrains himself from the negativism of the past decade.

Vote Barack.

Is Obama's momentum unstoppable?
By John Zogby
Pollster and independent political analyst

Has Barack Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination?

It is certainly tempting to make this conclusion based on his amazing string of victories on Saturday and Tuesday evening.

But the short answer to the question has to be no.

Senator Obama has now more states than his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, including the last six (plus the Virgin Islands and the national capital, Washington DC) and he now leads among delegates pledged to vote for him at the Democratic National Convention.

In addition to his momentum of victories, he has made significant inroads into constituencies that were the core of his opponent's support.

Thus, in Virginia and Maryland, exit polls revealed that he tied with Senator Clinton among white voters, and actually defeated her among women, lower-income voters, rural voters, those over 65 years of age, Catholics, and Hispanics.

Swing groups

Those numbers are very important because they show the meaning of momentum, which is so vital to understanding the primary process, and because they take away one of the main arguments that has been used against Mr Obama: that he is the African-American candidate who has more limited appeal than Mrs Clinton with mainstream voters.

Mr Obama's victories are becoming numerous and sizeable.

In addition to expanding his political base among African Americans and young voters, he also has consistently demonstrated a greater appeal than Mrs Clinton among independents and moderates, swing groups that will give shape to the general election in November.

There is also an almost cult-like quality to Obama's following

This in itself is a powerful argument for Obama's nomination, because the Democratic nominee will likely face Republican Senator John McCain, who is very popular among centrist voters.

Above all, Obama generates an intense and growing level of emotion among young voters.

They are voting in record numbers in the primaries and can make the difference between victory and defeat for him in November.

'Clinton fatigue'

On the other side, Senator Clinton's campaign has been going through a rough patch.

She is having difficulty raising money, she has accepted the resignations of both her campaign manager (a Hispanic woman and long-time aide whose departure has not gone down well among Hispanics) and deputy campaign manager.

Her staff are already pointing fingers of blame at each other - never a good sign when so much positive energy is needed.

Perhaps more than anything else, there is a growing feeling of "Clinton Fatigue" among insiders and ordinary voters.

After all, a voter in November 2008 has to be at least 42 years old to have voted in a general election in which a Bush or a Clinton did not emerge as the victor.

And finally, there are almost 800 "super-delegates" - elected officials or Democratic party leaders - who also get a vote at the convention.

A key question: why aren't these establishment types already backing Senator Clinton?

Why are they waiting until the last minute?

To me, that speaks volumes.

'Formidable'

On the other hand, this deal is not closed.

At this time of writing, the two candidates are nearly tied among pledged delegates, and even if Obama wins all of the remaining states with 55% of the vote, he still falls short of the 2,025 total delegates he needs to secure the nomination.

Meanwhile, Clinton would continue to rack up almost the same number of delegates based on proportional voting.

Clinton is formidable.

She is after all a Clinton - she and her husband are popular, dogged, able campaigners.

She has been a successful senator and has core support among older women and Hispanics, both of whom can propel her to victory in Texas and Ohio and get her campaign rolling again.

There is also an almost cult-like quality to Obama's following.

He generates a lot of heat and excitement - but can he sustain it?

Will the press continue to love him tomorrow?

And if negative (or at least not glowing) stories begin to appear in rapid succession, will his supporters still be so enthusiastic?

So the nomination battle is far from over.

But - at least for now - Obama has truly taken his campaign much further than his opponents ever believed possible.

John Zogby is the President and CEO of Zogby International, an independent polling company in the US.

2/5/08

Wall Street Journal Reports on Childish Right Wing Antics

The level of political discourse in our country has been dragged down by Right Wing Nuts for years now.

It has hit another new low this week with the utterly infantile antics on the radio and on Fox News attacking and defending McCain and Dole.

Babies bawling. Enough already. The Wall Street Journal Reports on these Childish Right Wing Antics. Why do they spill ink over this?

A Rush to Defend Bob Dole

Alex Frangos reports from Newark, N.J., on the presidential race.

Sen. John McCain demanded rival Mitt Romney apologize to fellow Republican Bob Dole over comments Romney made this morning on Fox News.

Dole recently sent a letter to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh defending McCain’s conservatism. Limbaugh and a number of other conservative commentators have angrily criticized McCain since he entered the race. Asked to respond to the letter, Romney said, Dole is “probably the last person I would have wanted to have write a letter for me.”

McCain was indignant that Romney wouldn’t want a supportive letter from the former Senate majority leader, failed presidential candidate and Viagra pitchman. “It’s sad to see that comment about an American war hero who served our party so well,” McCain said on his chartered plane before taking off from Newark, N.J., to California. “Gov. Romney should apologize to Bob Dole,” he said. (Statement)

1/8/08

Tzvee's Anonymous Analyst Reports Why Huckabee Won in Iowa

Our anonymous analyst out there in Iowa has been hard at work delving into why Mr. Huckabee won the primary and Mssrs. Romney et. al. did not win it..... Here is his trenchant insight which we were happy to obtain.

Tzvee,

Huckabee won among Republicans in Iowa for several reasons:

(1) Fred Thompson, who early on had been endorsed by pro-life groups, campaigned like he didn't really care whether or not he wins the Republican nomination. His entry into the race was highly heralded and deeply disappointing to conservative "values voters" who then turned to Huckabee.

(2) Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (I think that is his name) dropped out of the race very early, and those who had supported him went for Huckabee.

Duncan Hunter from CA never really had a "presence" in this state, so "values voters" who might have gone for him also went for Huckabee.

(3) I don't think that the religion thing (Mormonism) was nearly as big a deal as the media makes it out to be. Numbers of people in the "evangelical" church that I pastor support Romney. In fact, several worked for him, being members of his paid staff! Besides, what people forget is that Iowa is NOT a Baptist state like Arkansas or South Carolina. It is a Methodist state, big-time. So, if there was a religious gravitation toward Huckabee, and it seems that there was, it wasn't anti-Mormon so much as it was pro-evangelical. One more proof of this. . . Bob Jones III (of the fundamentalist Bob Jones University in SC) openly endorses Romney. . .

(4) Early into the campaign, Huckabee received support and Romney received criticism from two talk show hosts on the big news station here in Des Moines (WHO radio). Check out this website for an explanation. . .

(5) Honestly, I think that Romney's good looks and super successful business ventures, worked against him. Crazy, I know. Down-to-earth, common, Iowa folk distrusted him. He came across as too polished to be believed, at least that's what I think. I've noticed that he is not wearing expensive suits as he campaigns in New Hampshire. Unfortunately for him, he didn't pack away his suits until the final two days of the Iowa campaign. Too late for him. Iowans like their politicians to campaign in sweaters and to work in suits. Strange, I know. Huckabee, on the other hand, is folksy, self-deprecating, and winsome. He felt more believable. Especially since he seems to have more of a populist message.

(6) Iowan Republicans do not trust politicians who come from Massachusetts. Romney was successful, evidently, in that state, and he no doubt had to make various compromises as all politicians do in order to get the job done. As a result, since he was the front-runner for so long, people dug up all kinds of Romney "flip-flops," and these made staunch conservatives uneasy with him. Huckabee soared in the end, so he was not the target of a sustained "flip-flop" investigation. However, Huckabee has plenty of his own, evidently, but they were not uncovered until too late for Romney.

(7) I think that "values voters" who voted for their favorite candidate tended to vote for Huckabee. I also think that those who voted for the candidate that they thought would best go up against Mrs. Clinton, Mr.

Obama, or Mr. Edwards voted for Romney or McCain. Thompson just didn't get the traction that people thought he would get. He entered the race too late.

--Your anonymous reporter in Iowa!

Thanks for checking in, anonymous. We were hoping that you would.

Kristol Broken Up by Obama, Loves Huckabee

It's downhell from here for the new Times wingnut Bill Kristol; no I don't know why they hired him.... Bill, he is a crazy....
Op-Ed Columnist
President Mike Huckabee?
By WILLIAM KRISTOL

MANCHESTER, N.H. Thank you, Senator Obama. You’ve defeated Senator Clinton in Iowa. It looks as if you’re about to beat her in New Hampshire. There will be no Clinton Restoration. A nation turns its grateful eyes to you.
...

Still, as the conservative writer Michael Medved put it, “For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P., there are obvious, powerful points of identification.” And they speak to younger voters who are not yet committed to the G.O.P. In Iowa, Huckabee did something like what Obama did on the Democratic side, albeit on a smaller scale. He drew new voters to the caucuses. And he defeated Mitt Romney by almost two to one, and John McCain by better than four to one, among voters under 45.
...

His campaigning in New Hampshire has been impressive. At a Friday night event at New England College in Henniker, he played bass with a local rock band, Mama Kicks. One secular New Hampshire Republican’s reaction: “Gee, he’s not some kind of crazy Christian. He’s an ordinary American.”
...

An earlier version of this column attributed a quote by Michael Medved to Michelle Malkin.
WHOOPS.......

12/7/07

The Times to Romney et. al.: America Defined by the Separation of Church From State

The Times says it eloquently as always....
December 7, 2007
Editorial
The Crisis of Faith

Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office.

Mr. Romney spoke with an evident passion about the hunger for religious freedom that defined the birth of the nation. He said several times that his faith informs his life, but he would not impose it on the Oval Office.

Still, there was no escaping the reality of the moment. Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth — that the nation’s founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy. He cited the Declaration of Independence’s reference to “the creator” endowing all men with unalienable rights and the founders’ proclaiming not just their belief in God, but their belief that God’s hand guided the American revolutionaries.

Mr. Romney dragged out the old chestnuts about “In God We Trust” on the nation’s currency, and the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance — conveniently omitting that those weren’t the founders’ handiwork, but were adopted in the 1950s at the height of McCarthyism. He managed to find a few quotes from John Adams to support his argument about America’s Christian foundation, but overlooked George Washington’s letter of reassurance to the Jews in Newport, R.I., that they would be full members of the new nation.

He didn’t mention Thomas Jefferson, who said he wanted to be remembered for writing the Declaration of Independence, founding the University of Virginia and drafting the first American law — a Virginia statute — guaranteeing religious freedom. In his book, “American Gospel,” Jon Meacham quotes James Madison as saying that law was “meant to comprehend, with the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”

The founders were indeed religious men, as Mr. Romney said. But they understood the difference between celebrating religious faith as a virtue, and imposing a particular doctrine, or even religion in general, on everyone. As Mr. Meacham put it, they knew that “many if not most believed, yet none must.”

The other myth permeating the debate over religion is that it is a dispute between those who believe religion has a place in public life and those who advocate, as Mr. Romney put it, “the elimination of religion from the public square.” That same nonsense is trotted out every time a court rules that the Ten Commandments may not be displayed in a government building.

We believe democracy cannot exist without separation of church and state, not that public displays of faith are anathema. We believe, as did the founding fathers, that no specific religion should be elevated above all others by the government.

The authors of the Constitution knew that requiring specific declarations of religious belief (like Mr. Romney saying he believes Jesus was the son of God) is a step toward imposing that belief on all Americans. That is why they wrote in Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

And yet, religious testing has gained strength in the last few elections. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, has made it the cornerstone of his campaign. John McCain, another Republican who struggles to win over the religious right, calls America “a Christian nation.”

CNN, shockingly, required the candidates at the recent Republican debate to answer a videotaped question from a voter holding a Christian edition of the Bible, who said: “How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?”

The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.

5/20/07

Frank Rich on the Waning Political Power of Religious Right

Frank Rich is relentless in his critique of Bush and the Right. We enjoy his columns in the NY Times. He may be wrong this week as he counts the Religious Right out of the picture. They are a stubborn and resilient bunch of characters:
May 20, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

The Reverend Falwell’s Heavenly Timing

HARD as it is to believe now, Jerry Falwell came in second only to Ronald Reagan in a 1983 Good Housekeeping poll anointing “the most admired man in America.” By September 2001, even the Bush administration was looking for a way to ditch the preacher who had joined Pat Robertson on TV to pin the 9/11 attacks on feminists, abortionists, gays and, implicitly, Teletubbies. As David Kuo, a former Bush official for faith-based initiatives, tells the story in his book “Tempting Faith,” the Reverend Falwell was given a ticket to the Washington National Cathedral memorial service that week only on the strict condition that he stay away from reporters and cameras. Mr. Falwell obeyed, though once inside he cracked jokes (“Whoa, does she look frumpy,” he said of Barbara Bush) and chortled nonstop.

This is the great spiritual leader whom John McCain and Mitt Romney raced to praise when he died on Tuesday, just as the G.O.P. presidential contenders were converging for a debate in South Carolina. The McCain camp’s elegiac press releaseagents of intolerance.” Mr. Falwell was always on the wrong, intolerant side of history. He fought against the civil rights movement and ridiculed Desmond Tutu’s battle against apartheid years before calling AIDS the “wrath of a just God against homosexuals” and, in 1999, fingering the Antichrist as an unidentified contemporary Jew. beat out his rival’s by a hair. But everyone including Senator McCain knows he got it right back in 2000, when he labeled Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson “

Though Mr. Falwell had long been an embarrassment and laughingstock to many, including a new generation of Christian leaders typified by Mr. Kuo, the timing of his death could not have had grander symbolic import. It happened at the precise moment that the Falwell-Robertson brand of religious politics is being given its walking papers by a large chunk of the political party the Christian right once helped to grow. Hours after Mr. Falwell died, Rudy Giuliani, a candidate he explicitly rejected, won the Republican debate by acclamation. When the marginal candidate Ron Paul handed “America’s mayor” an opening to wrap himself grandiloquently in 9/11 once more, not even the most conservative of Deep South audiences could resist cheering him. If Rudy can dress up as Jack Bauer, who cares about his penchant for drag?

The current exemplars of Mr. Falwell’s gay-baiting, anti-Roe style of politics, James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, see the writing on the wall. Electability matters more to Republicans these days than Mr. Giuliani’s unambiguous support for abortion rights and gay civil rights (no matter how clumsily he’s tried to fudge it). Last week Mr. Dobson was in full crybaby mode, threatening not to vote if Rudy is on the G.O.P. ticket. Mr. Perkins complained to The Wall Street Journal that the secular side of the Republican Party was serving its religious-right auxiliary with “divorce papers.”

Yes, and it is doing so with an abruptness and rudeness reminiscent of Mr. Giuliani’s public dumping of the second of his three wives, Donna Hanover. This month, even the conservative editorial page of The Journal chastised Republicans of the Perkins-Dobson ilk for being too bellicose about abortion, saying that a focus on the issue “will make the party seem irrelevant” and cost it the White House in 2008. At the start of Tuesday’s debate, the Fox News moderator Brit Hume coldly put Mr. Falwell’s death off limits by announcing that “we will not be seeking any more reaction from the candidates on that matter.” It was a pre-emptive move to shield Fox’s favored party from soiling its image any further by association with the Moral Majority has-been and his strident causes. In the ensuing 90 minutes, the Fox News questioners skipped past the once-burning subject of same-sex marriage as well.

What a difference a midterm election has made. The Karl Rove theory that Republicans cannot survive without pandering to religious-right pooh-bahs is yet another piece of Bush dogma lying in ruins, done in by two synergistic forces. The first is the raw political math. Polls consistently show that most Americans don’t want abortion outlawed, do want legal recognition for gay couples, do want stem-cell research and never want to see government intrude on a Terri Schiavo again. On Election Day 2006, voters in red states defeated both an abortion ban (South Dakota) and, for the first time, a same-sex marriage ban (Arizona).

But equally crucial is how much the “family values” establishment has tarnished itself in the Bush era. Some of that self-destruction followed the time-honored Jimmy Swaggart-Jim Bakker paradigm of hypocrisy: the revelations that Ted Haggard, the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, was finding God in the arms of a male prostitute, and that the vice president’s daughter and her partner were violating stated Bush White House doctrine by raising a child with two mommies. But a greater factor in the decline and sullying of the Falwell-flavored religious right is its collusion in the worldly corruption ushered in by this particular presidency and Mr. Rove’s now defunct Republican majority.

The felonious Jack Abramoff scandals have ensnared a remarkably large who’s who of righteous politicos, led by Mr. Robertson’s former consigliere at the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, who was so eager (as he put it in an e-mail) to start “humping in corporate accounts.” Among the preachers who abetted (unwittingly, they all say) the bogus grass-roots “anti-gambling” campaigns staged by Mr. Abramoff to smite rivals of his own Indian casino clients were Mr. Dobson, the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association and the Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. Tom DeLay, a leader of the Schiavo putsch in Congress, was taken out by his association with Mr. Abramoff, too. Mr. DeLay’s onetime chief of staff, Edwin Buckham (an evangelical minister, yet), pocketed more than $1 million, largely from Abramoff clients, that was funneled through a so-called U.S. Family Network, ostensibly dedicated to promoting “moral fitness.”

The sleazy links between Washington scandal and religious-right hacks didn’t end when Mr. Abramoff went to jail and Mr. DeLay went into oblivion. The first Justice Department official to plead the Fifth in this year’s bottomless United States attorneys scandal — Monica Goodling, a former top Alberto Gonzales aide — is a product of Pat Robertson’s Regent University School of Law, formerly known as CBN University School of Law, after the Christian Broadcasting Network. As The Boston Globe discovered, Regent’s Web site boasts that some 150 of its grads were hired by the Bush administration, and not, it seems, because of merit. In Ms. Goodling’s graduating class, 60 percent failed the bar exam on their first try. U.S. News & World Report ranks the school in the fourth — a k a bottom — tier.

Having been given immunity, Ms. Goodling is scheduled to testify before House inquisitors this week. We know already from The National Journal that she was so moral that she put blue drapes over the exposed breasts in the statuary in the Great Hall of the Justice Department (since removed). The Times found that she had asked civil-service job applicants, “Have you ever cheated on your wife?” Yet her strict morality did not extend to protecting the nonpartisan sanctity of the American legal system. An inexperienced lawyer just past 30, Ms. Goodling exercised her power to vet some 400 Justice Department political appointees by favoring Republican and Rovian loyalty over actual qualifications. Though the Monica at the center of the last presidential scandal did enable a husband’s cheating on his wife, at least she wasn’t tasked with any governmental responsibility more weighty than divvying up pizza.

Mr. Giuliani’s rivals for the Republican nomination just can’t leave behind the received wisdom that you still have to appease the Robertson-Dobson-Perkins axis of piety that produces the likes of a Monica Goodling. They seem oblivious to the new evangelical leaders who care more about serving the ill, the poor and the environment than grandstanding in the fading culture wars. They seem oblivious to the reality that their association with the old religious-right taskmasters diminishes them, however well it may play to some Iowa caucus voters. Mr. Romney, a former social liberal whose wife gave money to Planned Parenthood, is crudely trying to rewrite his record by showering cash on anti-abortion-rights groups; he spoke at Regent U. even as a Pat Robertson Web site mocked his religion, Mormonism, as a cult. Mr. McCain, busily trying to disown past positions unpopular with the declining base, is trapped in a squeeze play of his own making: he’s failing to persuade the hard right that he’s one of them even as he makes Mr. Giuliani look like a straight-talker by comparison.

“America’s mayor” has so much checkered history in his closet — by which I mean Bernard Kerik, among other ticking time bombs, not the gay couple he bunked with before 9/11 — that he is hardly a certain winner of his party’s nomination, let alone the presidency. But whatever his ultimate fate, the enthusiasm and poll numbers Mr. Giuliani arouses among Republicans to date are a death knell for the political orthodoxy of the Rove era. The agents of intolerance are well on their way to being forgotten, even in those cases when they, unlike Jerry Falwell, are not yet gone.

2/20/07

McCain: Rumsfeld One of the Worst

News First Class in Israel cites the AP on a change of heart by Mr. McCain...

רמספלד ייזכר כאחד הגרועים בתולדות ארה"ב"
כך לדברי הסנאטור ג'ון מקיין (רפובליקן) שטוען כי ארצות הברית שילמה מחיר יקר בעירק
מאת: הדר פרבר
שר ההגנה האמריקני לשעבר, דונלד רמספלד, ייזכר כאחד הגרועים שבתולדות ארצות הברית. כך אומר הסנאטור הרפובליקני ג'ון מקיין (אריזונה), המתמודד על מועמדות המפלגה הרפבוליקנית לנשיאות ארצות הברית (ב').

"אנחנו משלמים מחיר כבד על הניהול הכושל של רמספלד את המלחמה הזאת", אמר מקיין, והבהיר כי הבחירה בביטוי "ניהול כושל" היא "הדרך הכי פחות חריפה להגדיר זאת". את הדברים אמר מול קהל של כ-800 גימלאים בדרום קרוליינה. "המחיר הזה כבד ביותר, ואני מיצר על כך מאוד" אמר, כשהוא מתייחס למלחמה בעירק.