Actor Stephen Baldwin, brother of Emmy winner and “30 Rock” star Alec Baldwin, filed for bankruptcy in New York on Tuesday, according to a court document that says he is millions in debt.
The 43-year-old actor filed for Chapter 11 protection claiming he owes more than $2.3 million and owns a New York property valued at only $1.1 million. His wife, Kennya Baldwin, also is named in the document. …
Frank Rich has another kick-butt column in today’s NYT, this time dissecting the “essence of Palinism” (”emotional, not ideological”), and the meltdown of the flailing (and amnesiac) GOP that sees Sarah Palin as its last Great White Hope.
“While the administration favors reducing the need for abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies, Kelley has made clear that she seeks instead to reduce access to abortion. That is an extremely disturbing development, especially coming this week in the wake of George Tiller’s assassination.”
— Sarah Posner
Much more after the press release:
Antiabortion Advocate Appointed to Senior Position at HHS
WASHINGTON, D.C. — June 4, 2009 — Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, issued the following statement today about the announcement that Alexia Kelley had been appointed to be Director of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services:
The antichoice organization Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) has announced that Alexia Kelley, its co-founder and former executive director, has been appointed to be Director of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Kelley’s appointment would be a defeat for reason and logic and calls into question whether President Obama’s administration is serious about reducing the need for abortion. And, while it may not gain many headlines, the impact and significance of this appointment should not go unnoticed.
In short, the consensus among more than a few very influential, high-profile Christian Right insiders is this:
“We screwed up. We’ve lost the culture wars, and it’s our own fault. Not because we were wrong — we are never wrong! — but because we thought we could jam our 14th-century morality down everybody else’s throat through the Republican Party, and we screwed up by compromising our ‘values’ in order to function as an extension of the Republican Party. With nowhere else to turn, maybe we ought to give up on political lobbying — without disengaging politically altogether, mind you — and go back to concentrating on ’service, prayer and education’ just like — gasp! — real Christians.”
Is the Christian right finished as a political entity? Or, more to the point, are principled Christians finished with politics? …
The older generation, represented by such icons as James Dobson, who recently retired as head of Focus on the Family, has compromised too much, according to a growing phalanx of disillusioned Christians. Pragmatically speaking, the Christian coalition of cultural crusaders didn’t work.
For proof, one need look no further than Dobson himself, who was captured on tape recently saying that the big cultural battles have all been lost.
Shortly thereafter, in late March, Christian radio host Steve Deace of WHO Radio in Iowa aggressively interviewed Tom Minnery, head of the political arm of Focus on the Family … whom Deace described as “the Karl Rove of the religious right”…
It wasn’t exactly a Limbaugh-Obama matchup, but it was confrontational, and corners of America’s heartland and Bible Belt have been buzzing ever since.
Deace’s point was that established Christian activist groups too often settle for lesser evils in exchange for electing Republicans. He cited as examples Dobson’s support of Mitt Romney and John McCain, neither of whom is pro-life or pro-family enough from Deace’s perspective.
Compromise may be the grease of politics, but it has no place in Christian orthodoxy, according to Deace. …
[E. Ray Moore, founder of the South Carolina-based Exodus Mandate, an initiative to encourage Christian education and home schooling, who considers himself a member of the Christian right] thinks the movement is imploding.
“It’s hard to admit defeat, but this one was self-inflicted … In the modern era of the Christian right, we have traded these proven methods for a mess of pottage … and often in a shrill and nagging manner, which makes our God look weak in the eyes of the world.”
Amen to that, says [columnist Cal Thomas, a former vice president for the Moral Majority]…
Meg Whitman, the guiding force behind eBay for a decade, is running for California governor, according to sources close to the Internet giant’s former CEO.
Whitman, who rocketed onto the national political stage in 2008 as a high-profile backer of Republican presidential contenders Mitt Romney and John McCain—
—plans to make a formal announcement soon that she is seeking to become the GOP’s nominee to replace termed-out Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2011.
On Dec. 31, Whitman resigned from eBay’s board of directors as well as two other corporate boards. One close associate called the moves “a clear signal” that she is running for governor and does not want “her corporate activities to interfere.”
The source asked not to be named because Whitman, 52, wants to make a formal announcement in four to six weeks. But he added that Whitman, who has been openly considering a run for months, made her final decision after consulting with her family over the holidays.
Despite her wealth and ties to the eBay brand, Whitman is almost certain to face State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner of Los Gatos, a tech-multimillionare Republican who has been preparing a run for governor for more than a year.
Lemme tell you about Steve Poizner. Steve Poizner has been running for, or making noises about running for, anything for more years than I care to remember, sinking $5 million of his own money into a failed run against Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (my assemblyguy, a good guy, and an actual Democrat) in 2004 (during which his slate mailers made it very, very difficult to tell Poizner was a Republican — gee, I wonder why?).
Maybe Poizner doesn’t realize it, but those of us who don’t like him believe he’s never done anything politically in this state that wasn’t a mere stepping stone to the governorship.
I don’t like Poizner. I don’t like anything about him, and I wish he’d retire and just have a grand old time living off the brazillions he made from the sale of SnapTrak to Qualcomm. Preferably back in his home state of Texas, so I wouldn’t have to hear his name again.
And you know what? If all the Democratic and Green contenders vanished off the face of the earth, and it came down to being forced to choose between Poizner and Whitman, I’d choose Poizner.
That’s how I feel about Meg Whitman.
Anyway…
Former GOP Congressman Tom Campbell who lives in San Jose, also has formed an exploratory campaign. And should she beat them, she’s likely to face a well-known Democrat; among those who have expressed interest in the Democratic nomination are Attorney General Jerry Brown, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and perhaps even U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Hella hard to say how Newsom or Brown would do. Feinstein, that old corporate DINO, would probably beat any Republican. (I can’t see myself voting for Feinstein for so much as town jester, but if push came to shove…)
Whitman spokesman Henry Gomez said she resigned from the corporate boards of eBay, Procter & Gamble and DreamWorks Animation “for personal reasons. She wanted to clear her calendar of obligations in the new year. In terms of her political ambitions, I cannot comment.” …
More at the link… including the note that “Forbes estimated her 2007 net worth at $1.4 billion.” Why can’t these brazillionaires just shut up, go away, and enjoy the spoils of screwing their customers? (Not that all billionaires are evil; in Whitman’s case, you can ask longtime eBay sellers how they feel about eBay’s business practices. While you’re at it, you should ask the Australian government, too.)
Also of interest is mention of Whitman registering as a Repug only in 2007, and her “spotty voting record,” which her spokesman indicates was a result of her being too busy making money and raising a family to vote.
Reminds me of how Sonny Bono never registered to vote until he was 53 years old — and did so only because he had to at least be registered in order to run for mayor of Palm Springs. (And if you don’t know the idiotic reason he ran at all, read this — but be prepared for a concussion when your hand involuntarily smacks itself against your forehead.)
It also pisses me off that a woman, any woman, would use the excuse of raising a family for anything, especially voting, which commands all of about ten minutes of one’s time every two years. If you want to devote your life to raising kids, more power to you — but don’t you dare add fuel to the idea that women can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, and all we’re good for is staying home to cook and pop out babies.
Of course, Whitman ran eBay while she was raising her kids, but that’s not going to mean much for the Neanderthals jonesing for any excuse to say, “See? Women just aren’t suited for politics. They were designed to stay home and have babies.”
Christ on a trailer hitch. Could Meg Whitman do, or be, anything more antithetical to progressivism?
Role Of Religion In Presidential Campaign Heads 2008 ‘Top Ten’ List Of Church-State Stories
The role of religion in the presidential campaign tops the 2008 “Top Ten” list of top church-state stories, according to the editors of Church & State.
The monthly magazine, published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is the nation’s only news periodical devoted exclusively to the intersection of religion and government.
Said Church & State publisher Barry W. Lynn, “It was a wild and crazy year. To tell you the truth, I’m glad it’s coming to a close. I’m hopeful 2009 will be a lot better.”
After studying the past 12 months of news, the editors selected the following 10 stories as the most important and most interesting church-state developments for the year.
1. The Role of Religion in the Presidential Campaign: Not since 1960 when John F. Kennedy the first Roman Catholic president was elected, has religion played such a large role in a presidential campaign. News media representatives grilled candidates on what sins they had committed and what their favorite Bible verses were. Barack Obama fought false rumors that he is secretly a Muslim, and Mitt Romney’s Mormonism became a controversial topic. Candidates were held accountable for the incendiary comments of their pastors and their clergy supporters, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and TV preacher John Hagee. Many observers thought the whole thing was an unholy mess, especially in a nation that separates religion and government.
2. The Resurgence of the Religious Right: While pundits and progressives have proclaimed the demise of the Religious Right, the fundamentalist political movement remained extraordinarily powerful. Republican John McCain found it necessary to name evangelical Sarah Palin as his running mate to mollify the GOP’s restive religious base, and Religious Right forces rammed through bans on same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona. Moderate evangelical Richard Cizik was forced out as government affairs representative at the National Association of Evangelicals after coming under fire from Religious Right forces.
3. The Battle Over Gay Marriage: Bans on same-sex marriage were approved in California, Florida and Arizona with conservative religious forces leading the drive. California’s approval of Proposition 8, with massive funding from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was particularly contentious. The Mormons, joined by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and evangelical Protestant congregations, were successful in passing a constitutional amendment that takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry and reflects church doctrine in civil law. The issue now moves back to the state Supreme Court.
4. The Ascendancy of Rick Warren: Once known primarily as a mega-church pastor and best-selling author (The Purpose Driven Life), the Rev. Rick Warren has rapidly moved into position as the nation’s most prominent preacher, despite right-wing views on reproductive freedom, gay rights and church-state separation. Warren, a Southern Baptist who heads Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., is viewed by progressives as Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt with an ace PR team. After hosting a presidential debate stacked toward John McCain and being asked to give the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, many think Warren seems destined to be the new Billy Graham.
5. Religious Right Influence at Justice Department: Religious Right influence at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was exposed this year. According to an internal DOJ investigation reported in the media in July, senior aides in the department used religious and political criteria to hire staff members for non-political positions. Monica Goodling, a top adviser to the attorney general, checked to see if job applicants were “pro-God in public life” and held right-wing views on abortion, homosexuality and other issues. (Goodling is a graduate of TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Regent University.) DOJ also posted a legally dubious memorandum this year insisting that the federal government may give grants to “faith-based” social service agencies that discriminate in hiring, even if Congress has explicitly banned such bias.
6. Battles Over Creationism in Public Schools: New battles have erupted over the teaching of evolution in public schools. Blocked by the courts from teaching fundamentalist religious concepts directly in biology classes, Religious Right forces are trying a backdoor strategy. They are demanding that schools teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, a euphemism for creationist ideas. Over the heated objections of educators, scientists and civil liberties activists, the Louisiana legislature approved an “academic freedom” law encouraging such instruction in the state’s schools. Now the Texas State Board of Education is debating a similar proposal as part of its 10-year review of science standards.
7. Church Politicking Plot: The Religious Right’s dream of building a fundamentalist church-based political machine took a big step forward in 2008 when more than 30 pastors used their pulpits to endorse Republican political candidates. They acted at the behest of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a wealthy Religious Right legal outfit that wants to challenge the federal tax law ban on partisan politicking by tax-exempt groups. The ADF, which was founded by TV preachers and other religious broadcasters, hopes the Internal Revenue Service will revoke participating churches’ tax exemptions leading to a court showdown.
8. Defeat of Jeb Bush Referenda: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush saw his school voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2006. Undeterred, the now former governor’s allies on an obscure tax commission engineered two measures onto the November 2008 ballot that would have repealed the state constitution’s ban on public funding of religion as well as diluted its provision for a strong system of public schools. To Bush’s dismay, the state Supreme Court on Sept. 3 struck the referenda from the ballot, derailing the scheme.
9. Blocking of ‘Christian’ License Plate: The South Carolina legislature unanimously approved a special “Christian” license plate featuring a bright yellow cross, a stained-glass church window and the words “I Believe.” Backed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, four local clergy and two minority faith groups challenged the government favoritism toward one faith. On Dec. 11, a federal district court blocked issuance of the plates. The judge’s action may forestall similar sectarian plates under consideration in other states.
10. The Christmas Wars: It has become an annual holiday tradition Religious Right groups and their allies in the right-wing media launch a yearly crusade to stop the alleged secularization of Christmas and to pressure government to include Christian symbols in the holiday mix. They rail against stores’ use of the term “Happy Holidays” and insist that advertisements say “Merry Christmas” instead. This year, much of the attention focused on a Washington State battle where an atheist Winter Solstice sign was positioned near a Christian Nativity scene in the state capital. Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly and an array of Religious Right scolds lambasted Gov. Christine Gregoire for allowing the anti-religious sentiment. Ironically, credit for the atheist display actually should go to the Alliance Defense Fund, a Religious Right legal group that sued Gregoire last year, insisting that the Capitol is an open forum where a Nativity scene (and all other forms of speech) must be allowed.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. Americans Unitied for Separation of Church and State Links: Homepage; Americans United (Press Center); Americans United (Action Center)
I won’t say where we were, because I don’t want a swarm of bigots descending on the spot, but I will say we were in front of a church, on a busy street that’s a surface thoroughfare for the residents of two suburban cities. At the height of the lunch hour, auto traffic averaged about 25 vehicles per minute, so you can figure how many drivers and their passengers saw us over the course of three hours.
After the first 100 or so cars honked and hollered in support when they saw our NO ON 8 signs, I stopped counting the good guys — but I can say there was a steady stream of good guys. In three hours, there were only five or six jerks who shouted anti-gay sentiments at us (all when they were “safely” speeding past). Among the more memorable: A pickup containing two young white men; the driver not only shouted “Faggots!” at us (funny stuff, as two of the three of us were obviously women), but made a tongue-in-cheek gesture — literally, I mean; he simulated a very realistic-looking blow job… which made us wonder why he was so good at this particular pantomime. (If you can’t picture it, watch Boogie Nights; when Heather Graham is sitting in a classroom, a very nasty classmate makes the same gesture to upset her.)
The one who made me laugh was an older white woman in an SUV, who refused to make eye contact with us, but intoned “Read your Bible” as she sped by. I wanted to tell her I had, which is why I’m an atheist-leaning agnostic, or, more to the point, what she could do with her Bible. But I was out there as a representative of my community, so, along with my colleagues, I just smiled and waved.
Incidentally, it really is true that you can tell people’s politics by the vehicles they drive — or ride. Everyone who drives a hybrid car or Mini-Cooper, or who rides a bicycle, supports equality and upholding the Constitution; almost everyone who drives an American pickup or SUV, not so much. Really expensive cars are a toss-up; I was kind of surprised at the strong support we received from a number of high-end Mercedes drivers, and from one woman driving a classic Jaguar XJS V12. (I know the very model, because it’s my guilty-pleasure dream car.)
There was barely any foot traffic; we spoke to perhaps a dozen people walking into the polling place — and every one, without exception, was in full support of us, as was the vast majority of drivers leaving the church parking lot after voting.
I was especially pleased to see the diversity of No On 8 voters, both in their cars and on foot; the smiles and thumbs-up and honking came from everyone from young white women who looked barely old enough to vote, to middle-aged soccer moms hauling a carful of kids somewhere, to older Asian couples (mixed couples, I mean — male and female), to young Latino men in company trucks (it’s a fairly heavily Latino, and Catholic, area), to a severely disabled young man in an electric wheelchair, who had difficulty speaking, but who, as he left the polling place, gave us a big smile and said forcefully, “No On 8, No On 8, No On 8!“
And there were no anti-equality demonstrators anywhere to be seen. I’ll be curious to touch base with the No On 8 folks after the dust settles, and hear if anyone else ran into any anti-gay groups at the polls. My impression so far, however, is that the anti-gay faction really isn’t as organized as we are — and certainly not as organized as they’d like you to think. (I won’t say much about the behind-the-scenes stuff here, except — as I said to one of my colleagues — I doubt the invasion of Normandy was as well-organized as the No On 8 campaign.)
And, Obama supporters? Every one of you, to a person, was in full support of us. I thank you for that. More than you can ever imagine, I thank you.
Oh, and then I came home to a robo call from the anti-gay camp, with a recording of Obama saying… well, you know what he said. I tell you, folks, there’s nothing I want more than for John McCain to go down in flames today, and for Barack Obama to surprise the hell out of me by turning this country around, and making me, my wife, and my community safe in this rabidly homophobic nation of ours. I really, truly, want nothing less than that — and if this guy does what’s right, and goes to bat for LGBTs, I will be more than happy to say I was wrong, and eat crow for the pleasure of every Obama supporter in the country.
So, come on, Barack: Prove to me that you were just conning the stupid people with your anti-equality talk. Make me eat crow. Please. There is nothing I’d like better.
Capitol Alert set out to get all the potential candidates for governor of California in 2010 to declare their positions on the 2008 statewide ballot measures.
Not surprisingly, some politicians were more accommodating than others.
All told, we surveyed eleven political figures whose names are floating as potential 2010 candidates (three Republicans and eight Democrats). …
The SacBee rundown shows where the 2010 candidates stand on all 2008 California ballot initiatives, but there are only two that impact the right to personal freedom and liberty in the Golden State. Here’s where they stand on Propositions 4 and 8:
The Republicans
Rep. Tom Campbell, former congressman
Proposition 4 No
Proposition 8 No
Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, senior adviser to Sen. John McCain
Proposition 8 Yes
The Democrats
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. senator
Proposition 4 No
Proposition 8 No
John Garamendi, lieutenant governor
Proposition 4 No
Proposition 8 No
Bill Lockyer, state treasurer
Proposition 4 No
Proposition 8 No
Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco
Proposition 4 No
Proposition 8 No
Jack O’Connell, state superintendent of public instruction
Proposition 4 No
Proposition 8 No
Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles
Proposition 4 No
Proposition 8 No
Steve Westly, former state controller
Proposition 4 No
Proposition 8 No
Looks like McCain drone Meg Whitman is the only one choosing to end up on the wrong side of history.
Really, I should consider adding sound to the Newswire, so you could hear the involuntary sound of disgust I just made upon reading this story — there is no phonetic equivalent.
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — A [John McCain] campaign worker who claimed she was the victim of a politically-motivated attack in which she was beaten, kicked and cut, now admits that she made the whole story up.
According to Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard, Ashley Todd, 20, told investigators today that she “was not robbed and there was no 6′4″ black male attacker.”
Todd initially told police that she was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield Wednesday night and that the suspect began beating her after seeing a John McCain bumper sticker on her car.
Todd claimed that the mugger even cut a backwards letter “B” in her check.
But today investigators say Todd confessed that the attack never happened.
At a news conference this afternoon, officials said they believe that Todd’s injuries were self-inflicted. …
“She indicated that she has prior mental problems—”
“—and that she does not remember how the backward letter B got on her face,” Richard told reporters today.
Todd told police that while she did not remember how the backward “B” got on her face, she may have done it herself since she was the only one in the car.
According to police, Todd said she thought of Barack Obama when she saw the “B” in her rearview mirror. …
Backward “B”… Yeah, well, I guess it would come out backward if you did it in the freaking mirror.
Meanwhile, Jay Bookman over at the AJC has already written what I was thinking when I first heard about the Wrong Wing’s initial reaction to the story:
McCain volunteer Ashley Todd has now confessed that she made up the story about being attacked by a large black man who carved the letter “B” into her cheek.
The young lady has issues, and I hope she gets the help she needs. End of story.
But let’s talk in a little more depth about the eagerness and even glee with which some in the right-wing blogosphere jumped on that story and immediately claimed it as proof of their worst nightmares coming true. So much of that story was unbelievable from the very beginning, yet certain people wanted to believe it so badly that they ignored all the warning signs and launched into full battle cry.
Andy McCarthy at the National Review’s Corner responded with a post so embarrassing he has now taken it down so nobody can see it.
Dan Riehl at riehlworldview.com posted under the headline “Thugs for change,” claiming that “Obama’s run his campaign just like a street thug out of Chicago. Now we get to see what some of his worst supporters are like.”
Noel Sheppard at newsbusters.org chastized AP for daring to be skeptical of the initial report. Most of all, he wanted to know why the AP didn’t report that the alleged perp was black. How dare they exclude a detail that had no bearing whatsoever on the alleged crime!!
Josh Painter at redstate.com blamed the attack on Barack Obama, suggesting an “Obama thugocracy” was coming…
But perhaps the most interesting response came from John Moody, executive vice president at Fox News…
… Moore’s claim that Obama supporters might have revisited their position if the story were true is more intriguing, and more revealing as well. Moore claims that under those circumstances, people might suddenly feel they know less about Obama and thus change their vote. But what is the logical trail between those two thoughts? Such an attack would tell people absolutely nothing about Obama.
The real explanation lies in the answer that Moore rejects: racism. …
[For many people], an attack of the sort described by Ashley Todd would heighten those internal, emotional obstacles to voting for Obama. That’s precisely why some on the right — with notable exceptions such as Michelle Malkin, a person I do not ordinarily respect much — were so quick to try to make it a huge deal. …
More at the link, which I encourage you to click.
Meanwhile, there hasn’t been one, single, solitary update in the press about Jose Nunez — the Proposition 8 supporter who claimed to have been punched out by the mysterious SuperHomo, who was somehow able to run away with 75 “Yes on 8″ signs, send Nunez to the hospital for sixteen stitches, and vanish without a trace — since the day the alleged “attack” allegedly occurred.
Blue Texan from Firedoglake asks: “Does this mean that Sarah Palin believes that without God’s intervention the McCain-Palin ticket will lose? Awesome!”
Trevor Potter, a former chair of the U.S. Federal Election Commission who is gay, is serving as the top lawyer for the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
As the campaign’s general counsel, Potter has been identified by newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post as one of the nation’s most highly regarded experts on U.S. election laws. Potter has been credited with helping draft the McCain-Feingold Act, a bipartisan federal measure that reformed federal campaign finance laws.
But few mainline news outlets have reported on Potter’s other role as a high-level, openly gay adviser to McCain. …
Potter declined a request for an interview for this story, saying he would prefer not to talk about himself in his role as attorney for the McCain campaign.
I’ll just bet he’d prefer not to talk about it; i.e., account for it.
HRC spokesperson Brad Luna said Potter served on the HRC board from 2002 to 2006 and was a regular financial contributor to HRC.
Which is one of the biggest issues we have with the HRC: morphing from grassroots liberal activism into a big-moneyed cocktail-party circuit hijacked by Republicans at the very top. But that’s another gripe for another day.
“Of all the Republicans you want to deal with, he is a straight shooter,” said Hilary Rosen, another Democratic Party activist and former HRC board member.
And I’d want to deal with Republicans… why, again?
“He is a decent, wise friend of our community,” she said. “Trevor knows where McCain stands on gay issues. He isn’t going to change him. But that doesn’t make Trevor any less decent of a person.”
Well, bully for you, Hilary, but in our book, he could solve global warming, end world hunger, and bring peace to the Middle East tomorrow morning, and he’d still be a chicken working for Colonel Sanders.
More at the link — which is a testament to Potter’s unimpeachable prowess as a lawyer.
But none of that makes up for him sleeping with the enemy.
Church-State Watchdog Group Asks IRS to Investigate Rock Christian Fellowship for Tax Law Violations
WASHINGTON — October 22 — A New Mexico church violated federal tax law by posting a sign encouraging voters to support Republican candidates over Democratic ones, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told the Internal Revenue Service.
Rock Christian Fellowship in Espanola has posted two large photos on its building. One depicts an aborted fetus and has underneath it three last names of Democratic candidates: Obama, Udall and Lujan. (Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate for president, Tom Udall is a candidate for U.S. Senate and Ben Ray Lujan is a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.)
The other photo is of a healthy baby and has below it three last names of Republican candidates: McCain, Pearce and East. (John McCain is the GOP candidate for president, while Steve Pearce is a candidate for Senate and Dan East is a candidate for the U.S. House.)
The photo of the healthy baby is headlined “Life.” Below the display are the words “YOU WILL DECIDE.”
“Churches are permitted to speak out on issues, but this stunt goes far beyond that,” remarked the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “This church is telling people how to vote. That’s not its job and it is a violation of federal tax law to boot.”
In a letter to the IRS sent today, Americans United says the display clearly sends the message that one set of candidates favors death and the other favors life and that voters are expected to choose the slate that favors life.
In the letter, AU notes that the pastor of the church, Michael Naranjo, has admitted that this is his goal. He told the Santa Fe New Mexican that his purpose is “educating on who stands pro-life and who is pro-death.”
Naranjo is also aware that his actions may be a violation of the law. He told the newspaper, “I’d rather lose my 501(c)(3) than lose my soul.”
AU points out that the IRS has stated that tax-exempt groups “must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention.” Rock Christian Fellowship’s display fails that test, AU says.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Mention to someone that you’re thinking about voting for former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader and they’ll respond, “So, you’re voting for McCain!” Or they’ll say, “You’re wasting your vote.” And if you’re black and not planning on voting for Obama, you may be labeled a “hater” or an “Uncle Tom.” I know. I’ve been called those names. Poet Amiri Baraka, never one to be shy, has labeled all those not supporting Obama as “rascals.”
It doesn’t matter that McKinney is herself African American or that Rosa Clemente, her running mate on the Green Party ticket, is a hip-hop activist and an Afro-Puerto Rican. What matters, for most, is that Obama represents the first realistic chance for a black American to win the White House, and that he is better than McCain.
But should those be the overriding considerations?
While Obama is cosmetically attractive, he is still a status quo politician. What’s more, he has gone out of his way to disparage members of the African American community as a way to ingratiate himself with white voters. And he sometimes defends the same rightwing positions as his Republican counterpart, as when Obama supported Bush on the FISA bill and agreed with Scalia on the D.C. gun ban. …
McKinney, who served as a Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives for twelve years, left the Democratic Party last year to join the Greens. In Congress, she had one of the most progressive records. And as a Presidential candidate, she offers up a coherent agenda. …
Whether the subject was the Iraq War, or Afghanistan, or Katrina, or veterans’ rights, or Blackwater, or civil liberties, or the environment, or universal health care, or equal pay for equal work, or free college education, or the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, McKinney hit the progressive high notes. (But she was a little off key when she indulged the “9/11 truth” people.) …
McKinney’s platform resembles that of Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Representative who ran as the most progressive candidate in the Democratic primaries. …
But having a shiny progressive platform does not guarantee progressive votes. I recall a rule of organizing in the 1988 Jesse Jackson campaign: “Define your own win.” Reason being: If it’s about who has the most money, resources, access, etc., those going against the flow or those who are resource poor will always be sold short. Especially when the powerful set the rules and call the game.
Running was Shirley Chisholm’s win in 1972.
Jackson’s win was successfully advancing a progressive, multiracial, multi-issue agenda.
So what’s McKinney’s win?
She says the Greens want to pick up “5 percent of the national vote” in the coming election with the hope it “confers major party status” on them.
“Then we will have an official third party in this country,” McKinney said in Chicago, “and public policy that truly reflects our values.” …
This election season the Greens have abandoned the discredited “safe state strategy,” says Brent McMillan, political director of the party. Mc-Kinney and Clemente are on the ballot in thirty states, according to the Green Party. …
Given these difficulties, the question once again arises: “Why bother?” To which Clemente replies, “People have to make some clear choices about which side are they on.” The goal, she says, is “building the new imperative.” …
But let me put a word in for being contrary, for refusing to go with flow, and for rejecting the choices we are given when we have that opportunity. Sometimes it is necessary to stand up and say, “I’m not with that.” Defying the corrupt two-party corporate system may be one of those times.
The choice is yours. And mine. And for me, it’s not an easy one.
Sapph’s take: It wasn’t an easy choice for me, by any means. But whereas some ask, “What would Jesus do?” I ask: “What would Thomas Paine do?”
That Paine wasn’t hanged for bucking the status quo gives me hope that I won’t be, either. I’ll stick with putting my “faith” in Paine — and in McKinney-Clemente.
Progressive voters leaning towards Ralph Nader or other third party candidates could make the difference between Barack Obama winning or losing the presidency.
Being marginal myself, I am very aware of how decisive third-party voters can be. I won the Democratic nomination to the California senate by less than one-percent in 1992. In the final two weeks, I mailed out an appeal to Green Party voters in my district, urging them to switch parties in order to vote for me. The mailer included cards to re-register from Green to Democrat for the primary, and another card to register again as a Green once the primary was over. Those hundreds of votes made the difference.
Late in 2000, I found myself enmeshed in torrid conversations between the Gore and Nader campaigns. The process wasn’t good. The Democrats were trying to push Nader off the ballot anywhere they could, thus refusing to recognize his core interest in establishing a new party. The Nader people refused to acknowledge that there was any difference between Gore and Bush, and denied that their votes could affect the outcome. My “Gore-Nader” proposal – that Nader endorse Gore in Florida and other close states, and become our most important progressive advocate in Washington after a Gore victory – went nowhere because Nader would have none of it.
So much was at stake in 2000 that, to this day, the wounds then inflicted have not healed. One side [in the tens of millions] believes that Iraq and the Alito Court would have been avoided and the first environmental presidency would have been launched. The other side [a few thousand] denies that the Nader vote caused Gore to lose Florida.
Rather than scrape those scabs one more time, my proposal is that progressives thinking of voting third party this time consider the historic chance to elect Barack Obama president. Such an open gesture would be enormously important to the people who most fervently favor Obama – young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and labor for example – and go a long way to heal and unify the progressive movement this time around.
Many of those Obama supporters share the criticisms of Obama made by the third party advocates – that he needs more pressure on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, domestic spying, trade. But there is no sympathy, no comprehension, only something between irritation and rage, towards the third-party view that it doesn’t matter if John McCain wins and Barack Obama loses.
It is hard for many to grasp that an infintesimal fraction of voters could deny progressive hope and revive the failing fortunes of the neo-conservatives and the right-wing evangelicals. It is possible that Obama, fueled by the Wall Street economic scandal, will pull away, in which case everyone can vote their first preference. …
In the end, the only question in November is the basic question of which side you are on, a question that goes back decades and centuries and which this generation has the historic opportunity to answer.
Sapph’s take: I love ya, Tom, but you’re talking to the wrong audience. There’s no safer blue state for Obama than California, and my vote does not make a difference on anything but my state’s ballot measures. As I’ve said several times already, if there were any chance my vote would mean the difference between not-so-sucky Obama-Biden and hell-on-earth-whackjob-combo McCain-Palin, Obama would have my vote. But my vote will not affect the outcome of the 2008 presidential race, and so I am free — finally, gloriously free — to vote my head, my conscience, my clarity.
I would, however, urge swing-state third-party voters to heed your call. Where every vote counts, you are dead-on correct.
Anti War activist and challenger for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Congressional Seat (CD 8, California), Cindy Sheehan has indicated her intention to launch a National political party after the U.S. Election of Nov. 4 …
While discussing a potential third party unity movement, Sheehan indicated that her own candidacy against House Speaker Pelosi has seen a broad coalition of support from Greens, independents, disillusioned Democrats such as herself (Sheehan left the Democratic Party in May of 2007 in response to the Democratic Party led House support for a funding bill to continue Iraq War funding), and Republicans, many of whom made up the traditional base of the GOP represented by Ron Paul.
Sheehan revealed that name of the new party would be The First Party. She reasoned “We don’t want to do third-party politics which has a stigma in the United States” The First Party, with a populist-progressive agenda, will be the first party that “cares about the people, will work for the people, and will actually be a viable party.”
“I have spoken to Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney and the Nader Campaign” and as disillusionment with the two party system increases,”this is the time to build on that energy.” …
…some public opinions of her ability to lead have changed, and could indicate a tipping point for the Sheehan Campaign. She notes that responses have been favourable pointing to an email she recently received,”Two weeks ago I thought you should be shot, but now I’m awake, I’m not going to be a slave anymore, and I support what you do.” …
Sapph’s take: I want to hear more. Somebody ask Cindy if we can talk on the phone for an hour. I want to see where this is going.
Pastor’s Pulpit Endorsement of Presidential Candidate Violates Federal Tax Law, Says Church-State Watchdog Group
WASHINGTON — October 3 — Americans United for Separation of Church and State has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate an Oklahoma church whose pastor called for the election of Republican presidential candidate John McCain from the pulpit last Sunday.
The Rev. Dan Fisher, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Yukon, Oklahoma, trumpeted his endorsement in a press release issued by his church. The church release says, “After comparing and contrasting the candidates’ views with the Bible, Pastor Fisher unabashedly proclaimed that he believes Christians cannot, in good faith, vote for Barack Obama and must cast their votes in favor of John McCain.”
The October 1 press release was disseminated by e-mail to news outlets in the state.
The Oklahoma pulpit endorsement was conducted in conjunction with an organized Religious Right campaign to violate federal tax law.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal group in Scottsdale, Ariz., urged pastors to defy federal tax law by endorsing or opposing candidates during a so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” on Sept. 28. Under the IRS Code, churches and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups may not intervene in elections.
Americans United says church intervention in partisan politics is illegal. The church-state watchdog group filed a complaint with the IRS on October 2 about the Oklahoma church’s action.
Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “Trinity Baptist is a church, not a political action committee. Pastor Fisher has deliberately violated federal tax law, and his church ought to face appropriate penalties.
“The Religious Right desperately wants to mold fundamentalist congregations into a partisan juggernaut that controls all elections and ultimately the government itself,” Lynn continued. “That’s a frightening prospect in a pluralistic nation that safeguards freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths and none.”
This is the seventh church that Americans United has reported to the IRS for endorsing candidates as part of the ADF scheme.
Federal tax law states that non-profit groups holding 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status may not intervene in partisan politics by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. The IRS has stated that it is cracking down on violations of the law.
Americans United sponsors Project Fair Play, a program that educates religious leaders about federal tax law governing political activity. As part of the program, flagrant electioneering violations by religious groups are reported to the IRS.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
PFAW’s Kolbert: We need a conversation about the Court and the Constitution, not more sleaze from the smearmongers of the Right
WASHINGTON - October 1 - The Judicial Confirmation Network, a group of right-wing activists that mobilized support for the Bush administration’s efforts to impose its political agenda on the federal judiciary, has launched a mud-slinging ad campaign that is ostensibly about the Supreme Court but does nothing to address the issues at stake for all Americans in the future of the judiciary.
People For the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert, who successfully argued the landmark Planned Parenthood v. Casey before the U.S. Supreme Court, released the following statement:
The Supreme Court is on the ballot this fall, and the stakes could not be higher for Americans. Judges nominated by President Bush are already undermining Americans’ rights and legal protections and making it harder for individuals to seek justice in the Courts. Senator McCain has bragged about supporting those Bush judges and curried favor with the far right by pledging more of the same.
The Judicial Confirmation Network’s sleazy mud-throwing ad sheds no light on the issues at stake with the future of the federal judiciary. It’s just a cynical hatchet job.
People For the American Way’s Action Fund has recently launched a series of radio ads in key states focusing on the Supreme Court decision that overturned a lower court victory for Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who successfully challenged pay discrimination by her employer, and made it nearly impossible for women to get justice in federal court for pay discrimination.
Note: People For the American Way’s affiliated Foundation has produced a series of reports on the damage caused by Bush-nominated judges to Americans’ constitutional rights and legal protections. The most recent report is The Human Toll: How Individual Americans Have Fared at the Hands of Bush Judges. People For the American Way Foundation’s preview of the coming Supreme Court term, More Rights at Stake, is available here.
Exclusive Nation Investigation Links Campaign Manager Rick Davis to Questionable Russian Oligarchs; McCain in Nomination Speech: “Russian oligarchs, who, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power…[are] reassembling the old Russian Empire.”
WASHINGTON — October 1 — In an investigation just posted at TheNation.com (and running in Thursday’s Nation Magazine) reporters Ari Berman and Mark Ames detail extensive business connections between John McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis and Russian Business Interests, specifically Russian business interests in Montenegro connected to Putin. The article also details the connections between his campaign manager’s lobbying firm, Davis-Manafort, and Ukraine and Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, advancing some prior reporting on the topic.
In his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, McCain lashed out at Putin and the Russian oligarchs, who, “rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power… [are] reassembling the old Russian Empire.”
Both Berman and Ames are available for interviews; below are several key passages from the piece.
Excerpts, “McCain’s Kremin Ties”:
Despite McCain’s tough talk, behind the scenes his top advisers have cultivated deep ties with Russia’s oligarchy — indeed, they have promoted the Kremlin’s geopolitical and economic interests, as well as some of its most unsavory business figures, through greedy cynicism and geopolitical stupor. The most notable example is the tale of how McCain and his campaign manager, Rick Davis, advanced what became a key victory for the Kremlin: gaining control over the small but strategically important country of Montenegro.
According to two former senior US diplomats who served in the Balkans, Davis and his lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, received several million dollars to help run Montenegro’s independence referendum campaign of 2006. The terms of the agreement were never disclosed to the public, but top Montenegrin officials told the US diplomats that Davis’s work was underwritten by powerful Russian business interests connected to the Kremlin and operating in Montenegro.
. . .
Though Davis has claimed no connection to his partner Manafort’s controversial activities in Ukraine, he nevertheless hired at least three specialists recommended by Manafort, from the same team Manafort used for Yanukovich’s victory, to work on Montenegro’s independence referendum. They included Russian political operative Andrei Ryabchuk, an elections specialist who had previously worked on pro-Putin campaigns in Russia. Ryabchuk told The Nation that he was “recruited by Manafort’s people” out of Moscow to the Ukraine operation and then on to Montenegro.
Davis’s team was vetted by Montenegro’s Russian ambassador Rocen, who was returning from Moscow to oversee the independence campaign. Why was Davis hired? The top McCain aide was as much a political symbol as a campaign consultant. “I think the Montenegrins hired Rick to have political cover — it was important to show they had support from the United States,” said an American democracy expert who’s worked in Montenegro. Though disclosure is required by Montenegrin law, Davis Manafort’s contract with the ruling Montenegrin party was never publicly released. In addition, Djukanovic’s party never listed payments to Davis Manafort on its election filings, lending credence to private claims by top Montenegrin officials that Russian business interests paid for Davis’s work through hired third parties, an oft-used though illegal tactic in Eastern Europe to disguise money trails.
. . .
A few months after the vote, McCain and a contingent of GOP senators visited Montenegro. The day before they arrived, Djukanovic had flown to Putin’s dacha on the Black Sea. “Your government made it possible for large-scale Russian investments,” Putin told the Montenegrin leader. Djukanovic then returned to Montenegro and warmly received McCain, who also met with the Montenegrin president, speaker of Parliament and opposition leader Predrag Bulatovic. Bulatovic told McCain about how Russian capital was taking over the country and of his concern that “this investment can have a negative impact on the democratic process.” McCain listened but kept criticism of Russia to himself. Meanwhile, Davis was still in the country, helping Djukanovic’s Russia-allied party win the upcoming parliamentary elections. (At the time, Djukanovic was under investigation by Italian prosecutors for cigarette smuggling and “Mafia-type activities.”)
‘I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me’
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, sorry, couldn’t help that. Let’s do go on.
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Blade in an exclusive written interview this week that he appreciates the Log Cabin Republicans’ decision to endorse him, and he hopes “gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me.” …
BWAHAHAH—! Damn. Sorry.
McCain reiterated his long-held position that he would leave it up to military leaders to decide whether the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law should be retained or repealed. …
Yeah, and he said he’d leave marriage to the states, too — until he realized he needed to suck James Dobson’s Bible bookmark a lot harder to win over the evangelamentals.
Washington Blade: What personal experiences or friendships in your life have shaped how you view gay issues?
John McCain: I have known former Congressman Jim Kolbe for 25 years.
That punk?! Mr. Forced-Out-of-the-Closet, who won’t even co-sponsor the UAFA because he’s got the connections to keep his Panamanian lover in the U.S. as long as he wants? That Jim Kolbe?
Don’t make me laugh — Jim Kolbe isn’t gay — he’s just a homosexual. And he’d still be a Larry Craig-style homosexual if he hadn’t been outed by Kurt Wolfe.
… When he came out in 1996…
Was forced out.
…there was no question that I would stand by him. He’s a friend and a patriot and has been an admirable public servant, and a good example of why someone’s sexuality should not be relevant in public life.
I have also known former Tempe Mayor [Neil] Giuliano for many years.
A Log Cabinette. A Jew for Hitler.
He headed Mayors for McCain in our 2000 campaign. …
Like I said, a Jew for Hitler.
Blade: Do you have any role models who are openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender?
McCain: I had the humbling experience of speaking at Mark Bingham’s funeral after the attacks on Sept. 11. Mark had supported me during the 2000 campaign.
That’s sad to hear.
Unfortunately, I barely knew him, but our country learned about him after 9-11. He was one of the heroes on 9-11 who tried to retake control of United Flight 93. His efforts along with the other brave patriots could have saved hundreds of lives. I honor and respect Mark. …
What, a queer has to die saving his country before you can “honor and respect” him? You sure don’t “honor and respect” those of us still alive and living with your party’s vile attacks on us every day of the week.
Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice, cabinet member or other appointed position just because the person is openly gay?
McCain: I have always hired the most qualified and competent people — regardless of their political party, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice or cabinet member who had a history of anti-gay rulings?
McCain: I will nominate judges who interpret the Constitution, not judges who legislate from the bench. Legislators pass laws; judges interpret them. Unfortunately, too many judges have become confused [about] their role. …
Just the answer I expected: a non-answer.
Translation: “I’m gonna pack SCOTUS with all the Scalias and Thomases I can dig up, and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it, so kiss your ‘rights’ goodbye, pansies.”
Then he pats himself on the back for supporting PEPFAR, and then he avoids the question of whether he’d have a LGBT liaison in the White House:
I have already publicly stated that there will be no White House Office of Political Affairs in my administration — professional politics should be at the party committees, where it has a rightful place, not in the White House. I intend to be a President for all Americans. …
Except gay ones.
He also won’t give a straight answer on ENDA or DADT (you expected him to?).
Blade: Would a McCain administration be willing to meet with and work with gay leaders to discuss matters of interest to the gay community?
McCain: I have met with leaders of Log Cabin Republicans in my campaigns. I am always willing to listen to all viewpoints and that will continue if I become President.
Dog whistle: “I’m only willing to meet with fag— er, Uncle Tom— er, Republican homos. The rest of you can bite me.”
Next, he says he appreciates the endorsement of the Log Cabinettes, and then delivers the punch line:
I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me. The stakes are high in this election. I will have an inclusive administration and I will be a president for all Americans.
My Aunt Fanny you will.
Next, he goes back to paying lip service to “states’ rights” and marriage equality, driving his homophobia home for the benefit of the religious extremists:
However, at the same time, my own view is that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. That’s what I supported in Arizona. I realize this is a controversial issue and we must conduct this debate in a way that respects the dignity of every person.
There’s no “debate” on equal rights — you’re either for equality, or you’re against it. It’s clear where you stand, McCain.
And you wouldn’t recognize the “dignity of every person” if it bit you in the ass. (Tell me, have you stopped using the word “gooks”? And do you still stand by “I will hate them as long as I live”?)
He then points out that he voted against the FMA, because “this should be a state matter, and not one for the federal government — as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state’s standard.”
Next, the Blade corners him on his opposition to LGBT adoption:
Blade: Regarding adoption by same-sex couples, you have been quoted as saying you don’t believe it’s appropriate. Can you elaborate?
McCain: I hope my comments are not misinterpreted. I respect the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian people who are doing their best to raise the children they have adopted. As someone who adopted a child, Cindy and I know better than most couples the amazing satisfaction that comes from providing love to an unwanted child. I believe a child is best raised by a mother and father because of the unique contributions that they make together to the development of a child. …
Taking your talking points from Maggie Gallagher then, are you?
As I did in my home state of Arizona, I support the effort in California to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, the people of California will ultimately decide this issue, and I’ll of course respect the decision of the voters.
Homophobic little jerk.
Lots more of the same, and then:
Blade: Del Martin died on Aug. 27. She and Phyllis Lyon, her partner of 55 years, got married in the first legal gay union in California in June —affording Phyllis many of the basic protections and rights granted to married couples, such as hospital visitation and estate planning issues. Do you envision a time when all GLBT citizens will have similar basic rights? During your administration?
McCain: I respect that Del and Phyllis spent a lifetime together. As I stated earlier, however, I believe that issues regarding marriage and family laws are best decided by the states and not the federal government.
Never mind that Del and Phyllis were far more successful at marriage than you could ever hope to be, McCain. Jealous much?
Next, he tries (and fails) to justify voting against the Matthew Shepard Act, and finally dodges a Boy Scouts question.
Now, all you homos and ‘phobes voting for McCain, raise your hands — I want to know who you are so I can avoid getting the stink of you on me.
Sam Stein, with an assist from embedded videos, recounts “a truly combative meeting” between the crotchety coot running for the most powerful office in the world and the editorial board of the Des Moines Register:
McCain got near anger when it was suggested that the Straight Talk Express had taken a detour, challenging the questioner to provide examples. Asked specifically about the kindergarten sex-ed ad, McCain defended it wholeheartedly.
“I have always had 100 percent absolute truth and that’s been my life of putting my country first.”
Huh?
“And I’ll match that record against anyone’s. And I’m proud of it.”
Echoes of: “One thing’s for sure: Inspector Clay’s dead. Murdered. And somebody’s responsible.”
“And an assertion that I have ever done otherwise I take strong exception to.”
OK — I’m laughing too hard to say anything else.
“And you will have to provide better proof than a bill that Sen. Obama supported that clearly calls for the teaching of sex education of young children.”
So, Johnny-Boy’s deteriorated to quoting the talking points from right-wing emmail smears? Well, like the Prop 8 crusaders, when you haven’t got anything…
But wait — there’s more. After getting pissy when confronted by the truth about the prospective VP’s lack of qualifications, Little Alice falls even further down the rabbit hole:
McCain gave another sharp answer when the editorial board noted that — having served in the military, then in Congress, and now being over the age of 65 — McCain has always been covered by a taxpayer-financed health care plan.
“I was out of the military for a while before I went to Congress,” McCain said. “But that is an interesting statement. And I have never been an astronaut, but I think I know the challenges of space,” he said. “And I have never done a lot of things in my life that I think I am familiar with. I have always been a free enterprise person who thinks families make the best choices for themselves.”
“I have never been an astronaut, but I think I know the challenges of space.”
And I have never been a neurosurgeon, but I think I know the challenges of slicing open the human brain — it’s dark and messy in there, and if I tried it, I’m sure I’d kill the patient.
“And I have never done a lot of things in my life that I think I am familiar with.”
Good golly, where do we start with that one?
“I have always been a free enterprise person who thinks families make the best choices for themselves.”
That’d be a nice thought if you could extend it to LGBT families. But never mind that — what the HELL does not being an astronaut, and not being familiar with things you haven’t done, and free enterprise, have to do with family choices?
I’d laugh again, but I’m too horrified by the spectre of this addled nut (and the low-intelligence moose-killer) running the country.
How come when gay people challenge the law by filing suit against the state, and the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the result is “overturning the will of the people” by “activist judges” who “legislate from the bench” …
…yet when the same people who level such charges challenge the law by breaking the law, and provoking the government to enforce the law as an excuse to file suit against the state, they’re making “a bold defense of the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses”?
Maybe somebody at the Alliance Defense Fund can explain the difference to me, what with them bein’ such real smart, book-learned lawyer types and all.
While we wait for an answer (don’t hold your breath), let’s review yesterday’s attempt to overturn the will of the people through legislation from the bench…
Americans United Urges IRS To Take Action Against Six Churches That Joined Pulpit-Politicking Scheme
Church-State Watchdog Group Criticizes Religious Right Lawyers For Luring Congregations Into Intentional Violation Of Federal Tax Law
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today filed complaints with the Internal Revenue Service about six churches whose pastors endorsed candidates from the pulpit during a mass defiance of federal tax law last Sunday.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal group in Scottsdale, Ariz., urged pastors to defy federal tax law by endorsing or opposing candidates during a so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” Sept. 28. Under the IRS Code, churches and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups may not intervene in elections.
“These pastors flagrantly violated the law and now must deal with the consequences,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.
Continued Lynn, “This is one of the most appalling Religious Right gambits I’ve ever seen. Church leaders are supposed to tend to Americans’ spiritual needs, not behave like partisan political hacks. I urge the IRS to act swiftly in these cases.”
Lynn also scored the ministers who took part in the ADF gambit.
“A pastor who knowingly violates federal tax law is setting a poor example for his or her congregation,” Lynn said. “Every pastor who took part in this stunt ought to be ashamed.”
The ADF overture has been roundly criticized. Many pastors refused to take part, arguing that America’s pulpits should not be politicized. In addition, three former IRS officials have filed a complaint asserting that the ADF has violated ethics standards governing tax attorneys by urging clients to violate the law.
The six churches reported to the IRS by Americans United today are:
Bethlehem Baptist Church, Bethlehem, Ga.: According to press accounts, Pastor Jody Hice “urged his congregation to vote for Sen. John McCain and to not vote for Sen. Barack Obama.”
Fairview Baptist Church, Fairview, Okla.: The Associated Press reported that Pastor Paul Blair “says he told his congregation that as a Christian and as an American citizen, he would be voting for John McCain.”
Warroad Community Church, Warroad, Minn.: Pastor Gus Booth told his congregation, “We need to vote for the most righteous of candidates. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that out. The most righteous is John McCain.”
Calvary Chapel, Philadelphia, Pa.: The Rev. Francis Pultro told the congregation, “As Christians it’s clear we should vote for John McCain. He is the only candidate I believe a Christian can vote for.”
First Southern Baptist Church, Buena Park, Calif.: The Rev. Wiley Drake said, “I am angry because the government and the IRS and some Christians have taken away the rights of pastors. I have a right to endorse anybody I doggone well please. And if they don’t like that, too bad… According to my Bible and in my opinion, there is no way in the world a Christian can vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Obama is not standing up for anything that is tradition in America.”
New Life Church, West Bend, Wisc.: Speaking from the pulpit, Pastor Luke Emrich said, “I’m telling you straight up I would choose life. I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.”
Said AU’s Lynn, “When five of the six pastors choose to endorse John McCain, it’s hard not to see the ADF scheme as partisan in character.”
In complaint letters filed with the IRS, Americans United urged swift investigations of the churches and appropriate penalties.
[“Pulpit Freedom Sunday”] was organized by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which sees the IRS rules as an infringement on the First Amendment freedoms of religion and speech.
The rules are neither. Hice and other ministers have every right to preach politics from their pulpits. Nothing government does can or will stop them. However, they simply cannot endorse candidates AND maintain their tax-exempt status. That status is a special benefit conferred by government, and government has every right to set conditions on receipt of that benefit.
Furthermore, the IRS rules in question apply not just to churches but to a wide array of tax-exempt non-profit groups that perform religious, educational or charitable functions. Donations to such groups are tax-deductible; donations to political groups and candidates are not.
It is perfectly reasonable and fair for the IRS to enact rules to protect that distinction.
Is this a real “pulpit freedom” issue? Some want to compare it to Martin Luther King and conscientious objectors and any who appeal to a “higher law.” But King and the objectors know that they are vulnerable to arrest or penalties, and have often paid them by sitting in jails. The Pulpit Freedom advocates appeal to no “higher law;” they simply want the freedom to break existing laws. They may serve some purpose by forcing more definition from IRS and church leadership, but most immediate purposes are to be straight-out political and to have the citizenry at large pay, indirectly, to subsidize their messages.
A charade is being played … and a grandstand play. …
This is a fest for a few who are a little too full of political zeal. …
Of course, pastors can express political opinions. But they can’t use their institutions as political machines and expect them to be treated as tax-exempt.
I always find it odd that so many conservative Christians don’t see the conflict between conservative politics and Biblical message. …
In the Gospels, we never find Christ trying to manipulate the state power of the Romans or influence its leaders, but instead He spoke to the hearts of the people, telling them that it was up to them to seek a change of heart and find their way to God. …
The strength of our faith comes from a choice we make after searching our hearts and seeking to draw closer to Christ. Wagging our fingers at the behavior of others and trying to pass laws to prevent them from behaving a certain way is Old Testament legalism, and Christ condemned the Pharisees pretty harshly for similar behavior.
Finally, it looks like the ADF is going to have a hard time arguing that pulpit politicking is okey-dokey with the American people; a Los Angeles Times poll which asks, “Should pastors be allowed to deliver political sermons and endorse presidential candidates?” is currently showing 81.4% say NO.
“Things got very intense around here in the ’90s — the culture war was very hot here,” Bess said. “The evangelicals were trying to take over the valley. They took over the school board, the community hospital board, even the local electric utility. And Sarah Palin was in the direct center of all these culture battles, along with the churches she belonged to.” …
Pat O’Hara, a journalist who served on the Wasilla school board for twelve years, remembers how the religious right made her feel like a stranger in her own community. …
It wasn’t until the 1990s that local churches like the Wasilla Assembly of God, which Palin grew up attending, became aggressively political. A few years before Palin became mayor, a group of preachers confronted the school board with questions about social issues that had never before surfaced in local politics, according to O’Hara, who wrote first for the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman and then for the Anchorage Daily News. “They started asking me, ‘Would you allow a homosexual to teach in schools?’ and ‘Do you favor abortion?’” she said. “At the time, I didn’t know what was coming. I said, ‘This is not a school board issue. We have overcrowding. We have funding problems.’” The last time O’Hara ran, conservative pastors mounted an effort to defeat her, saying she favored hiring homosexuals, but they failed. Nevertheless, in 1996, feeling increasingly alienated in a place she’d lived for twenty-five years, she quit the school board and moved to more liberal Anchorage.
“The whole community changed,” she said. “It became extremely rigid and intolerant, and you can see that in every election since.” Palin, said O’Hara, “represents the worst of those values. She feels that because she’s a member of the right church, she’s chosen by God to inflict her values on everyone.”
With her vice presidential nomination, Sarah Palin has become the ultimate religious-right success story. Ever since the Christian Coalition was formed using the infrastructure of Pat Robertson’s 1988 presidential run, the movement has focused on building power from the ground up, turning conservative churches into little political machines. …
She has not always governed as a zealot; in fact, she’s a bit of a cipher, with scant record of speeches or writings on social issues or foreign policy. Nevertheless, several people who’ve dealt with her say that those concerned about church-state separation should be chilled by the idea of a Palin presidency. …
Palin’s nomination, and the energy she has injected into the GOP, show that, once again, reports of the death of the Christian right have been greatly exaggerated. …
Palin — who opposes gay rights, believes abortion should be banned even in cases of rape and incest, and supports the teaching of creationism — wasn’t known as a leader in Alaska’s religious right, but she clearly had ties to it, and to some of the more extreme fundamentalists in the United States. …
[Curt Menard, mayor of Mat-Su Borough (which includes Wasilla)] and his wife, Republican State Senate candidate Linda Menard — the former director of the Miss Wasilla pageant — have known Palin since she was in third grade. … They clearly adore Palin, and when Curt Menard describes her connections to the religious right, he doesn’t intend to be critical.
Echoing Pat O’Hara’s account, he recalled that the area had been solidly Democratic until the rise of politicized right-wing religion. …
When Palin ran for governor in 2006, Christian conservatives mobilized to help elect her — the Alaska Family Council, a group that formed that year and is loosely affiliated with Focus on the Family, distributed a voter guide showing Palin’s alignment with its ideology. …
Like McCain, Palin appears to believe that the United States is a Christian nation. As governor, she signed a resolution declaring October 21-27 Christian Heritage Week in Alaska, in order to remind Alaskans of “the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage.” Written in the mode of some right-wing revisionist historians, it describes the nation’s founders — including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson — as “Christians of caliber and integrity who did not hesitate to express their faith.”
The conviction that America is a Christian nation could be especially worrisome when coupled with the kind of apocalyptic beliefs espoused by the Wasilla Assembly of God, since the combination suggests a profoundly messianic foreign policy. …
Much more at the link to send a “ninety-mile-an-hour Alaska north wind” down your spine.
Responding to news reports about then-Wasilla [Alaska] Mayor Sarah Palin asking a librarian how she would feel about banning books, a San Francisco man has donated two children’s books dealing with homosexuality to the Wasilla Library.
Mike Petrelis, a 49-year-old who files Freedom of Information requests for a living, said he was aghast to read reports of Palin’s 1996 inquiry about banning certain books at Wasilla’s library.
The news — old news in the Mat-Su Valley, but new in the Lower 48 — prompted Petrelis to send to Wasilla “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “Daddy’s Roommate,” both children’s books that explain gay lifestyle.
“I said, ‘I’m going to send copies of both books just to make sure they’re on the shelves,’” Petrelis said.
The story of Palin’s book removal question caught national attention after reporters arrived in town to probe Palin following Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s surprise Aug. 29 announcement. …
At first glance, it looks like support for California’s anti-marriage initiative, Proposition 8, is up three points since last month — but don’t panic: Remember that we’re tracking two different polls (the Field Poll and the PPIC Statewide Survey) — and the one-percent difference you see between the August and September PPIC surveys is statistically insignificant; the PPIC margin of error is between two and three percent in either direction. (See “About the Survey” at the end of this article.)
Of course, “Don’t panic” doesn’t mean “Be complacent.” There’s a lot of work to be done if we’re to defeat anti-gay bigotry at the polls, and we need everyone on deck.
Today (September PPIC Survey): 55% oppose (good); 41% support (bad)
Obama Holds 10-Point Lead in California, But Debates Loom Large
Electorate Engaged, Worried About Economy
Palin Energizes GOP But Fails To Change the Race
SAN FRANCISCO — September 24, 2008 — California’s likely voters prefer the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden to Republican contenders John McCain and Sarah Palin by 10 points, but they’ll be watching closely to see how the candidates perform in a series of televised debates before marking their ballots. Eight in 10 say the debates, which begin Friday, will be very important (38%) or somewhat important (41%) in deciding who gets their votes, according to a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from The James Irvine Foundation.
What do they want to hear the candidates debate? The economy leads the list.
Despite a month of high-profile activity that included the party conventions and selection of vice presidential candidates, the Democratic contenders’ lead (50% to 40%) over the Republicans among California’s likely voters is nearly identical to what it was in August (48% to 39%). Widely viewed as a move to win over women voters, McCain’s addition of Palin to the GOP ticket has shifted few votes to the Republicans. Female likely voters, who supported the Democratic ticket by 21 points last month (53% to 32%), support it by 20 points today (56% to 36%). Democrats and Republicans support their respective party’s tickets in overwhelming numbers, while independents back Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin, 53 percent to 35 percent. Latino likely voters favor Obama-Biden (57% to 30%), but their support for the Democratic ticket has dropped substantially since August (71% to 16%).
As the campaign enters its final weeks, a majority of California’s likely voters (65%) say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting. They are happier with their choices than they were a month ago (64% today, 48% in August), with Republicans registering the sharpest increase in satisfaction (67% today, 35% in August). Democrats’ satisfaction is also higher (74% today, 68% in August).
“The selection of Governor Palin dramatically increased the enthusiasm of California Republicans for their ticket, but it does not look like it will change many votes,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. “Californians are loyal to their parties in this race, but they still hope to learn more from the debates. They are worried about the economy, upset with leaders at all levels of government, and want to hear the presidential candidates’ plans to change the course.”
VOTERS RANK ECONOMY AS TOP ISSUE FOR DEBATES
With Wall Street in turmoil, likely voters across political and demographic groups most frequently name the economy as the issue they most want to hear the candidates debate. Four in 10 (40%) mention the economy, followed by the war in Iraq (12%), immigration (7%), and health care (6%).
When asked which candidate would do a better job handling key issues …
• Likely voters prefer Obama to McCain on the economy (53% to 37%), health care (57% to 29%), and energy policy (51% to 38%).
• They prefer McCain to Obama on foreign policy (51% to 43%).
• They are more divided on who would better handle the war in Iraq (49% Obama, 44% McCain) and immigration (42% Obama, 40% McCain).
Views on these issues are divided along partisan lines, with most voters believing their party’s candidate is the one for the job. Among independent likely voters …
• A majority prefer Obama to McCain on health care (59% to 25%), the economy (50% to 39%), and energy policy (55% to 35%).
• They prefer McCain on foreign policy (53% to 36%).
• They are divided over who they would prefer to handle the war in Iraq (48% Obama, 46% McCain) and immigration (40% Obama, 39% McCain).
Regardless of their partisan leanings, Californians view the presidential election as crucial for the course of the nation. Most likely voters (79%) say that in making progress on important issues, it really matters who wins. With stakes this high in voters’ minds, it’s no surprise that nine in 10 are following news of the campaign very closely (52%) or somewhat closely (39%).
STATE BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE LOSING, RESTRICTIONS ON TEEN ABORTION WINNING
When it comes to the state ballot, a majority of likely voters oppose Proposition 8 (55% no, 41% yes), the constitutional amendment that would eliminate same-sex marriage in California. The overall percentages have held steady since August (54% no, 40% yes), but there have been shifts among voter groups. More Democrats plan to vote no on the measure (71% today, 66% in August), and more independents plan to vote yes (42% today, 36% in August). Eight in 10 likely voters say the outcome of this measure is very important (54%) or somewhat important (26%) to them, with those who plan to vote yes (62%) more likely than those voting against it (51%) to say the results are very important.
Almost half of likely voters back Proposition 4 (48% yes, 41% no), the constitutional amendment that would require a parent to be notified at least 48 hours before a minor child has an abortion. They were more closely divided in August (47% yes, 44% no). Voters defeated similar measures in 2005 and 2006.
Proposition 11, which would take the authority to draw legislative district lines from elected officials and give it to a commission of registered voters, has failed to rally a majority in favor or against it. Likely voters are as divided (38% yes, 33% no, 29% undecided) as they were in August (39% yes, 36% no, 25% undecided). Support for the measure has increased among Democrats by 5 points and dropped among independents by 10 points. However, divisions on this measure do not indicate support for the current redistricting process: About seven in 10 likely voters (69%) think it needs to be changed.
IN WAKE OF BUDGET STANDOFF, SUPPORT GROWS TO LOWER TWO-THIRDS THRESHOLD
At the time of this survey, the state budget standoff had entered its fourth month, and Californians’ frustration with the process was reflected in their changing views about structural reform. Three in four (76%) say major changes are needed in the budget process – an increase of 11 points since May, when the governor released his revised budget. Nearly half (49%) think it would be a good idea to lower the threshold for passing the budget from two-thirds to a 55 percent majority of the state legislature. This proposal, which was defeated at the polls in 2004, is opposed by only 37 percent of the state’s residents. A year ago, nearly half (46%) thought this change was a bad idea, and only 44 percent thought it was a good idea.
A majority (62%) say it would be a good idea to strictly limit the amount of state spending increases allowed each year, while less than a third (31%) consider it a bad idea.
APPROVAL RATINGS FOR STATE LEGISLATURE, BUSH SINK TO NEW LOWS
Against the backdrop of a worsening economy and the longest budget impasse in state history, Californians are feeling grim about the future and dissatisfied with many of their state and national leaders.
A record-high 44 percent of adults say that jobs and the economy are the top issues facing the state. This is true across all party and demographic groups, although Democrats (47%) and independents (44%) are more likely than Republicans (36%) to hold this view.
Nearly seven in 10 Californians (68%) expect bad times financially in the year ahead. About half say the current housing situation in California will hurt their finances a great deal (31%) or somewhat (21%). The perception that the state is going in the wrong direction is widely held (68%). While this negative view has changed little since last month, it has grown by 18 points in the last year.
Californians are pessimistic about their elected leaders’ ability to handle the challenges:
• State legislature gets record low rating: Only one in five Californians (21%) approve of the job the legislature is doing, a decline of 5 points since last month.
• Constituents give their own legislators low marks: Only one in three residents (34%) approve of the job their own state senator and assembly member are doing, an 8-point drop since March and a 7-point drop from a year ago.
• Governor fares slightly better: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 38 percent approval rating has held steady from last month but is still 12 points lower than a year ago.
• President Bush’s approval drops to new low: Among Californians, the president’s approval rating is 23 percent, a slightly more negative assessment than he received in a recent CBS News/New York Times national poll (27% approval).
• Congress’ job approval rating slips: Congress’ 29 percent approval rating is about the same as last month, but 4 points lower than in March.
• Congressional representatives rated higher: The state’s residents give higher approval ratings to their own Congressional representative (49%) and to Senator Dianne Feinstein (48%), Senator Barbara Boxer (44%), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (40%).
MORE KEY FINDINGS:
How Californians would have balanced the budget – Page 20
As they have since January, a plurality of residents (43%) favor a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, while fewer (36%) favor balancing the budget mainly through cuts and fewer still (7%) prefer tax hikes alone or borrowing money and running a deficit (5%). But they are deeply divided along party lines in their preferences.
Residents conflicted over the initiative process – Page 21
As they get ready to vote on a state ballot that includes 12 propositions — 10 of them citizens’ initiatives — Californians say the process is flawed and that there are too many initiatives on the ballot and that they’re too complicated. However, 38 percent say initiatives should be the guiding force in determining policy, while 32 percent choose the legislature and 20 percent prefer the governor.
Many say a third political party is needed – Page 22
Despite their views that there are important differences between the two major parties, a slim majority of Californians (52%) say that the nation needs a third political party. Republicans are much less likely than they were four years ago to say that the two major parties are doing an adequate job.
ABOUT THE SURVEY
This survey is the 31st in the Californians and Their Government series and is supported with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. It seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussion on state and national issues and the November general election. This is the 90th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 192,000 Californians. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 California adult residents interviewed from September 9–16, 2008. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and for the 1,157 likely voters is +/- 3%. For more information on methodology, see page 25.
Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998.
PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.
Tweet This Post! 
