The Associated Press reports Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, questions Mormons' belief.
In an article to be published in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Huckabee asks:
Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?
According to the AP, Huckabee asked the question after saying he believes Mormonism is a religion but doesn't know much about it.
We will have to wait until the weekend to see if the Times Magazine provides some legitimate context for the headline grabbing quote. In the meantime, even though it's hard not to jump to the conclusion that Huckabee is questioning Mormons beliefs, we should give Huckabee the benefit of the doubt, or at least an opportunity to explain.
It is possible that Huckabee managed to fall into a clever political/religious trap. It is also possible that he was trying to set such a trap. It seems highly unlikely that Huckabee would engage in such a dirty trick as the Huckaboom continues to gain momentum.
I'm sure the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can adequately defend Mormon beliefs while we wait.
Delaware Democratic senator Joe Biden, who has been in office since 1972 and is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, boasts of his experience:
"Being president is not the same thing as running for president," he says in the spot.
He then goes on to say that the squabbling about "experience" and "change," which has consumed the campaigns of the leading Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards -- is about meaningless political slogans.
[. . .]
"You don't have to guess what I'll do as president," he says in the ad. "Just look at what I've done."
A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll finds people think the U.S. is making progress in Iraq, 52 percent to 41 percent. In September 2006, the AP-Ipsos poll fond 56 percent said the U.S. was losing ground.
In another sign of a gradually more positive view 42 percent now think history will judge the war to be a success. In September, only 34 percent said it would be considered successful.
Recent Gallup polling found that even though Americans remain negative about the status of the war right now, the vast majority believe Iraq will be better off in the long run -- 71% say the country will be better off as a result of the U.S. invasion, while 24% say it will be worse off. These results are similar to those measured last year.
There remains a huge partisan divide on what to do about Iraq: The vast majority of Republicans say the troops should stay until the job is done or until the United States wins, while Democrats say the troops should be removed immediately or as soon as possible.
Huckabee Was For Trade With Cuba Before He Was Against It.
Now that he is running for president and is no longer governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee has decided to change his mind about the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba:
As governor of Arkansas five years ago, Mike Huckabee joined a bipartisan chorus of politicians who concluded that the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba was bad for businesses. Now that he's a top-tier candidate for president, Huckabee has decided he favors the embargo -- so much so that he vowed Monday to outdo even President Bush in strangling the regime of Cuban President Fidel Castro and punishing those who do business there.
Huckabee admits his Kerry -like flip-flop on Cuba is all about political expediency:
"Rather than seeing it as some huge change, I would call it, rather, the simple reality that I'm running for president of the United States, not for reelection as governor of Arkansas," he said. "I've got to look at this as an issue that touches the whole country."
Watch the following video where he explains his change of mind on the Hannity & Colmes show.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Huckabee's 2002 letter reportedly argued that the embargo "continues to harm our own agricultural and business interests here at home and has certainly not helped the people of Cuba." Now in a successful effort to obtain an endorsement from Marco Rubio, Florida's Cuban American state House speaker, Huckabee takes the opposite view vowing to veto any effort to end the sanctions:
Huckabee pledged to adhere to provisions of a 1996 law that would permit U.S. citizens to sue in American courts for property taken from them during the 1959 Cuban revolution.
Those lawsuits could threaten European businesses with holdings on the island. Bush and President Clinton have routinely avoided conflict on the issue by suspending those provisions of the 1996 law.
"I really wasn't that aware of a lot of the issues that exist between Cuba and the United States," Huckabee said Monday, adding that his flexibility on policy should be viewed as a good thing.
How could Huckabee be unaware these issues?
Unfortunately, Huckabee's Cuban Flip-flop, has all the political expediency of Huckabee's new immigration plan, designed to counter the criticism that Huckabee has supported in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants.
Even though Chris Dodd served as a Democratic Congressman from Connecticut from 1975 until 1981, a U.S. Senator from 1981 until the present, served as general chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1995 to 1997, and announced his bid for the White House on the Don Imus radio show back in January, he has decided to introduce himself.
Much more than a day late and a dollar short.
I was taken aback by Dodd's claim to be the only veteran among the Democratic presidential. It's true, if you don't consider Mike Gravel a candidate. Dodd served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1969 until 1975.
To combat Mike Huckabee's surge in recent polls, Mitt Romney is airing a "contrast" ad in Iowa on illegal immigration.
The ad begins by highlighting the similarities shared by Romney and Huckabee on the life and marriage issues:
"Two former governors . . . two good family men . . . both pro-life . . . both support a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage," says the ad's narrator.
The ad then argues that the real difference between Romney and Huckabee is on illegal immigration.
It specifically targets Huckabee for having supported in-state tuition benefits as well as taxpayer-funded scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants.
In an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson, Romney compared the Huckabee "surge" to previous surges and predicted like the McCain surge, the Giuliani surge, and the Fred Thompson surge, the Huckabee surge would eventually deflate:
And in the past, what's happened is, when the surge occurs, people look more closely at the record of the vision of the person running . . . and inevitably the surge kinda deflates. I think you will see the same thing here; I sure hope so.
Romney's contrast ad hit the airwaves shortly after Huckabee launched his own immigration ad, which calls for "no amnesty," building a border fence, and "doing it now."
The ad and Huckabee's new immigration plan are designed to counter the criticism that Huckabee has supported in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants.
Even if immigration is a hotter issue than Iraq, it's going to take more than Romney's the new contrast ad to deflate the Huckabee surge.
Former President Clinton tried to clarify his recent unbelievable claim that he was against the Iraq war "from the beginning." On the CBS program "The Early Show" he changed his story. He now wants you to believe he always said United Nations weapons inspectors should have been given more time to complete their work in Iraq prior an invasion:
Had the inspectors been given that time, Mr. Clinton told Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith Monday, "There would have been no war."
But Mr. Clinton remarked to Smith Monday that he's said "a hundred times" that the weapons inspectors needed more time on the ground. "Nobody ever said it before because everybody who knows what was going on and knows me knows that I was trying to get even a new U.N. resolution passed," the former president said. "I was involved with an effort behind the scenes to talk to some people around the world to try to see if we could get another resolution passed to give (the inspectors) some more time."
"I supported threatening Saddam so we could do the inspections, but I believe -- I even believe the Senate resolution, if you read it, said that the force was authorized if the diplomatic efforts -- i.e. -- the inspections -- failed."
"The mistake we made was not letting the inspections finish. If they had, there would have been no war. And i was always against doing it without the inspections."
"Now, after Saddam was deposed, the united nations' position was we should all do what we can to make it work, and everybody was hoping it would. And still, I think we should still hope it works. We should hope those people have a government that's representative and that they can work out their oil deals and their conflicts and go on to a better life."
"But I believe it was a serious error to go in there before the inspectors finished. And as you (Smith) pointed out, most of my speeches weren't getting covered by the press, and we didn't copy them or anything back then. But we do have several records, including one six days before the invasion where I said I don't think they should do this until the inspections finished. That was the deal."
"And if we had done it, there would have been no war."
First of all there is a big difference between Clinton's claim to have been against the war "from the beginning," and his new story that thought we invaded too soon. This Washington Post report undermines Mr. Clinton's absurd statements:
Hillary Mann Leverett, at the time the White House director of Persian Gulf affairs, said that Rice and Elliott Abrams, then National Security Council senior director for Near East and North African affairs, met with Clinton several times in the months before the March 2003 invasion to answer any questions he might have. She said she was "shocked" and "astonished" by Clinton's remarks this week, made to voters in Iowa, because she has distinct memories of Abrams "coming back from those meetings literally glowing and boasting that 'we have Clinton's support.' "
Leverett, a former career foreign service officer who said she is not involved in any presidential campaign, said the incident affected her because of her own doubts about the wisdom of an attack. "To hear President Clinton was supportive really silenced whatever questions I had," she recalled. Leverett, who worked in the same office as Abrams at the time, said Rice and Abrams "made it a high priority" to get Clinton's support, meeting with him at least twice. Abrams was tasked to answer Clinton's questions and "took the responsibility very seriously," Leverett said. "Elliott was then very focused on making sure that we followed up on Clinton's questions to keep Clinton happy and on board."
As to the former president's claim that he has said this nonsense "a hundred times," if that were true, should there not be dozens of references to a statement repeated so many times? Where are those references?
A review of previous remarks by Mr. Clinton reveal that, among other things, he said in May 2003, "I supported the president (Bush) when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." I posted additional references of Mr. Clinton saying he supported the war last month.
We also shouldn't forget how Saddam relentlessly frustrated United Nations' inspection efforts:
"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them." --Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning" --Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98
"The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes." --AP, 12/16/98
"The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes." --Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98
"Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq." --Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98
"This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain." --Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98
"Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction." -- Newsday, 12/17/98
"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago." --Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02
At a meeting in Charleston, S.C., the Libertarian National Committee on Sunday unanimously approved a resolution praising the Lake Jackson congressman for igniting "a renewed passion for liberty across America."
[. . .]
But Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said it would not happen.
"Ron has no intention to run third party whatsoever," he said.
Paul was the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1988. He received only 430,000 votes. Maybe the blimp will improve his performance as a Republican candidate.
Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefitted 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.
[. . .]
Clinton is not the biggest earmarker in Congress; senior congressional leaders and members of the appropriations committees can and do write many more such provisions into the huge spending bills they draft. But Clinton does significantly more earmarking than most others with her relatively low level of seniority.
Among the presidential candidates Hillary is in a class by herself:
Her record stands in contrast with others in the Senate seeking the presidency, particularly John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). McCain, who has long opposed earmarks, does not write them. Obama has used the device, but now declines to earmark funds for private companies; he uses earmarks only to secure funds for government projects such as road building and hospital construction. Other senators seeking the presidency provide earmarks to home-state constituents and collect donations from recipients of the federal largesse. But The Times review found that Clinton does it on a different scale.
This is another example of Democratic hypocrisy and why the voters desire for change will hurt Hillary's candidacy:
Democrats made earmark reform a priority when they took over Congress in January. The Senate passed rules making it easier to identify the authors of the once-secretive practice.
Clinton supported those basic reforms, but she and other Democratic senators running for president balked at a proposal by Obama that would have required members to disclose their proposed earmark requests, not just those that were enacted into law.
Hillary can't have it both ways. She can't support earmark reform and continue to be one of the biggest porkers.
Oprah Winfrey campaigned for Barack Obama on Saturday, telling the audience at a packed arena in Des Moines, Iowa, that she is "so tired" of the status quo in Washington:
"You know I've never done this before and it feels like I'm out of my pew," Winfrey told the crowd. "I'm nervous."
Without mentioning Obama's chief rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), by name, Winfrey made a vigorous case against her. Winfrey said she is concerned that "if we continued to do the same things over and over and over again, I know that you get the same results."
You can watch the entire speech in the following videos.
Conventional wisdom says that endorsements don't matter. Oprah's support of Obama just might demonstrate that conventional wisdom isn't always right. Oprah's "so tired" of the status quo theme is a play on Iowa polls finding that Iowa Democrats are tilting toward change over experience and leadership.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani was engaged in a brawl with host, Tim Russert. The show started off with a relatively friendly discussion about recent polls and Rudy's campaign strategy:
MR. RUSSERT: Let’s go right to it. Mason-Dixon, MSNBC have done some polling. First the Democrats, just to share with our viewers and give you a sense of that race. Here’s Iowa: Hillary Clinton, 27; Obama is 25; Edwards, 21--three-way dead race. New Hampshire, Clinton ahead by just three. South Carolina, Clinton over Obama by three. And the Nevada caucus, which is September 19th—November—excuse me, January 19th, Clinton, 34; Obama, 26.
Now the Republicans. Here they are, Iowa: Huckabee, 32; Romney, 20; Thompson, 11; McCain, 7; Giuliani, 5. Fifth place, is that a problem?
MR. GIULIANI: I wish you had shown Florida. It would—it would have—it would have looked better, where we have an 18-point lead. There are, there are some polls we’re behind, some where we’re ahead. I think there are 21, 22, 23 primaries and caucuses going up to February 5th. I think we’re ahead in 16, 18 of them. I don’t expect to win all of them. We’re going to work real hard in every single one of them, maybe surprise some people in Iowa, maybe in New Hampshire, work real hard there. South Carolina, Michigan, Nevada. Then we get to Florida, where I think the latest poll was 16 to 18-point lead, and we’ve had a lead there of that magnitude pretty much throughout. Every once in a while it slipped back to like seven or eight.
MR. RUSSERT: But in fifth place in Iowa, would it be better for you if Huckabee beat Romney in Iowa? Wouldn’t that be helpful?
MR. GIULIANI: The best thing is if you win. That’s the very best thing.
MR. RUSSERT: But that...
MR. GIULIANI: Who knows. Who knows. I—you’ve been through so many of these, Tim. You know that no candidate has won all the primaries in a, in a hotly contested one. This is one in which that’s not very conceivable, given all the good candidates there are. So if we can win a couple at the beginning, you know; win Florida for sure. We go into February 5th, then, ahead in New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey, Connecticut. We’re actually ahead right now, I believe, in Missouri. Kit Bond’s endorsement probably helped there more than me. But the reality is we’ve got, we’ve got a lead probably in, like, 15 of the 20 on February 5th, Florida, and we’re competitive. But we’ve got a long way to go in some of them. So we’re going to see. We’re going to work real hard.
MR. RUSSERT: Here’s New Hampshire: Romney’s ahead of—as you can see, 25; Giuliani, 17; McCain, 16. South Carolina: Huckabee is ahead 20; Giuliani, 17; Romney, 15. And Nevada, we’ll show you Nevada: Giuliani is ahead 25, 20, 17.
MR. GIULIANI: Now do Florida. Do Florida.
MR. RUSSERT: We, we haven’t done Florida. But we’ll, we’ll get there eventually.
MR. GIULIANI: No, but you look, you look at South Carolina, that’s, that’s a good place to be for someone who has, you know, campaigned all over the country. We haven’t concentrated on any one state. We’ve kind of had a proportionate campaign all over. Some of the candidates have concentrated on a state. We got a real good organization in South Carolina. That’s a very competitive place to be.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you lose...
MR. GIULIANI: New Hampshire.
MR. RUSSERT: ...Iowa, if you lose Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina, you’re still in?
MR. GIULIANI: I’m, I’m, I’m in, all right? The idea is you want to win the first one. If you lose the first one, you want to win the second one. If you lose the second one, you want to win the third one. And you want to be there for, you know, Florida, at the end of the month, big state. And you want to be there, certainly, for February 5th when we’re going to have more primaries on one day than we’ve ever had in our history. And some real big states, you know, New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to some important issues first.
MR. GIULIANI: Oh, and Michigan is in there, too. We shouldn’t miss Michigan is in there in January.
You can watch the discussion in the following video:
Rudy has a point. The race for the presidential campaign is wide open and theoretically Rudy can wait until Florida for his first win. But the dynamics and the polls will change as voters start to pick their favorites in the caucuses and primaries. The winners always get a big boost from the ensuing press coverage. Forida may be too long to wait.
"The Ron Paul blimp" will launch Monday from Elizabeth City, North Carolina — on a trek up the east coast — with a destination of New Hampshire — site of the January 8 first-in-the-nation primaries:
The blimp will feature banners asking "Who is Ron Paul?" and urging people to "Google Ron Paul." The other side will feature a logo promoting what's called the "Ron Paul love revolution."
CNN covers the story in this video report:
The Paul campaign is not sponsoring the blimp, a fact which raise interesting legal issues. Supporters have formed a non-profit company in order to avoid many of the restrictive campaign finance rules. Under this scheme people pay for advertising on the blimp — instead of making a contribution to the candidate.
According to Kenneth P. Vogel, the Ron Paul Blimp Ruse, "tests the reach of campaign finance rules by employing an innovative funding structure that could expose a new way to pour largely unregulated money into politics:
If the model is successful, hypothetically it could allow a media consultant to produce slick attack ads and — without ever disclosing how much was raised or spent — solicit millions from “sponsors” to air the ads in key states.
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum discusses Huckabee, Oprah versus Bill Clinton, and Romney's "Faith in America" Speech on FoxNews' "The Big Story with Gibson and Nauert:
I disagree with Santorum on Bill versus Oprah. Oprah is a bigger draw for women than Bill. Bill appeals to the Democratic base, male and female. Oprah appeals to women. Her audience is mostly white women. Whether Oprah will help Obama in the Presidential campaign remains to be seen. Bill should help Hillary with the Democratic base, if he is more careful about what he says.
At the recent Iowa Brown and Black Forum in Des Moines, Democratic congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, gets attention by asking himself a question.
I've been told it's okay to talk to talk to yourself, but when you start answering yourself . . . .
A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll finds one-third of Americans want to deny services, including public schooling and emergency room healthcare, to illegal aliens. A majority -- 60% -- favors a path to citizenship for illegals who have not committed crimes.
The poll also found that illegal immigration is less a concern than the Iraq war, the economy, protecting the country from terrorist attacks and health care.
The poll also makes clear that respondents make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants:
Asked if illegal immigrants had made a positive or negative contribution to their community, 36% said negative, whereas 21% said positive and 29% said the effect was not discernible.
When the same question was asked about legal immigrants, 12% said their contribution was negative, compared with 46% who said positive and 31% who saw no discernible effect.
Only 22% said that illegal aliens should be able to get limited driver's licenses. That finding explains why many leading Democrats opposed licenses for illegals when it was proposed by New York Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer. It also helps explain why Hillary's failure to give a straight answer about Spitzer's unpopular plan has cost her the lead in Iowa.
Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo is airing another television ad with ominous warnings about illegal immigration, this one saying that vicious Central American gangs in the U.S. are killing mothers, raping children and selling drugs:
The ad, which is running in Iowa reminds us of Tancredo's "Tough on Terror" ad, which linked lax border security to future terrorist attacks.
"What we state [in the ads] is something that is completely factual," he said. "Certainly, I think we should all be fearful of the massive problems caused by illegal immigration."
The "Swift Boat Kids for Truth" are out with a new attack ad. This one takes on Hillary's infamous remark during the 1992 presidential campaign when she tried to say she liked her job. Or, as she put it
I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession.
Hillary was blasted for disparaging domestic life and the cookie.
You can watch the Swift Boat Kids taking on Edwards and Obama here.
The Romney campaign has made a video available of "Romney's Faith in America" speech. You can watch below, come to your own conclusion about it and see if you agree with me that Romney Blew It.
It was mercifully short, it was decent and there was no point in Romney giving it.
As Romney said in advance, it wasn't a JFK-esque speech. So why give it? In essence all he said is that there should be no religious test for president, and we should follow the separation of church and state as designed by the founders:
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
Republican Mitt Romney, confronting voters' skepticism about his Mormon faith, declared Thursday that as president he would "serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause," and said calls for him to explain and justify his religious beliefs go against the profound wishes of the nation's founders.
So if you aren't going to talk about your religion, why give a speech about your religion.
Romney would have better off not giving any speech related to his faith. All he accomplished was to reinforce the fact that that he is Mormon.
You can read the entire speech in the extended post at California Yankee.
Romney's speech should have been JFK-esque. In Kennedy's famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, he said:
I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me.
Kennedy also asked whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Catholic.
Romney delivers his "Faith in America" speech from College Station, TX at 10:30 a.m. ET.
As Romney himself said earlier in the week, the speech will not be a JFK-esque address. Instead, Romney will talk about the role of religion in society and it's importance in American culture. In fact, according to excerpts his campaign released this morning, Romney will essentially downplay his own religion but play up the inclusion of religion in public life.
You can watch Romney's speech here, live:
We can chat about the speech here:
Here are some excerpts from the speech:
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam's words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
…
"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."
…
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
…
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"
…
"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements."
…
"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self -same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency."
...
"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed."
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."
According to the new Des Moines Register poll of likely Republican caucus participants, Antiwar Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is the "most negative" GOP presidential contender.
We don't agree with him on every issue. We disagree with him strongly on campaign finance reform. What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination. Simply put, McCain can be trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water.
Competence, courage, and conviction are enormously important for our next President to possess. No one has a better understanding of U.S. interests and dangers right now than does McCain. He was right on the mistakes made by the Bush administration in prosecuting the Islamic terrorist war in Iraq and he is being proved right on the way forward both there and worldwide.
McCain is pro-life. Always has been. He fights against special-interest and pork-barrel spending, and high spending in general, which ticks off liberals and many in the GOP who have wallowed at the public trough. Yet he also has the proven ability, unique among the contenders, to work across the political divide that has led our government into petty bickering when important problems need to be solved.
The value of newspaper endorsements is debatable, and the Union Leader hasn't backed the winner. Nevertheless, the endorsement can't hurt McCain's resurgent campaign.
Support for Romney and Huckabee in the current survey is the highest yet recorded in a Rasmussen Reports New Hampshire survey. For Giuliani, the 15% reflects his lowest level of support in the six New Hampshire primary election polls.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of McCain’s supporters are certain they will vote for him on January 8. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Giuliani’s supporters are that certain along with 49% of those for Huckabee and 48% of Romney voters.
At Captain's Quarters, Ed Morrissey thinks conservatives might forgive McCain-Feingold long enough to support McCain. Ed might be right, but then there is McCain's failure to support the Bush tax cuts and his support for immigration reform proposals many saw as amnesty.
Obama, an Illinois senator, leads for the first time in the Register's poll as the choice of 28 percent of likely caucusgoers, up from 22 percent in October. Clinton, a New York senator, was the preferred candidate of 25 percent, down from 29 percent in the previous poll.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who led in the Register's May poll, held steady with 23 percent, in third place, but part of the three-way battle.
Obama is beating Hillary among women and younger voters:
In the new poll, Obama leads with support from 31 percent of women likely attend the caucuses, compared to 26 percent for Clinton. In October, Clinton was the preferred candidate of 34 percent of women caucusgoers, compared to 21 percent for Obama.
Women represent roughly six in 10 Democratic caucusgoers, according to the new poll.
Obama also dominates among younger caucusgoers, with support from 48 percent from those younger than 35. Clinton was the choice of 19 percent in that group and Edwards of 17 percent.
The under-35 bloc represents 14 percent of Democratic caucusgoers, up from 9 percent in the October poll.
On the Republican side the new poll finds Huckabee leads Romney, 29% to 24%:
Huckabee wins the support of 29 percent of Iowans who say they definitely or probably will attend the Republican Party's caucuses on Jan. 3. That's a gain of 17 percentage points since the last Iowa Poll was taken in early October, when Huckabee trailed both Romney and Fred Thompson.
Other poll findings indicate that the former Arkansas governor is making the most of a low-budget campaign by tapping into the support of Iowa's social conservatives.
Romney, who has invested more time and money campaigning in the state than any other GOP candidate, remains in the thick of the Iowa race with the backing of 24 percent of likely caucusgoers. But that's a drop of 5 points since October for the former Massachusetts governor.
Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, the frontrunner in national polls, holds third place in Iowa at 13 percent, despite waging a limited campaign in the state.
Thompson, a former U.S. senator from Tennessee who waited until September to formally enter the race for the Republican nomination, has slipped to fourth place in the Iowa Poll, at 9 percent.
U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas are tied for fifth place at 7 percent each. Four other candidates trail them. The new Iowa Poll, conducted over four days last week, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
The new poll also found that Giuliani is seen as the most electable and Thompson is tied with Huckabee as the candidate who is most like Ronald Reagan.
Strategists for Mitt Romney's Republican presidential campaign were actually pleased that fast-rising Mike Huckabee moved ahead of Romney in the Rasmussen poll in Iowa, eliminating surprise if Huckabee finishes first there in the Jan. 3 caucuses.
The latest Rasmussen Reports Iowa poll found Huckabee ahead with 28%, Romney with 25%, and everyone else "far behind."
Old pro Democrats who had been in awe of Sen. Hillary Clinton's perfect campaign believe she made her first serious blunder last Monday by indicating to CBS' Katie Couric that her election as president is inevitable.
When Couric inquired ''how disappointed will you be'' if she does not win, Clinton replied: ''Well, it will be me.'' ''Clearly,'' the CBS anchor persisted, ''you have considered'' the ''possibility of losing''? ''No, I haven't,'' said the senator. ''So you never even consider the possibility?'' ''I don't. I don't.''
I don't agree. I don't see anything blunderous in Hillary's refusal to acknowledge the possibility she will fail in her quest for the presidency.
Watch the video, and tell us what you think.
I do agree with Novak that Bill Clinton's claim he had opposed the Iraq war ''from the beginning'' was stunning. I called Bill's incredulous assertion a political blunder of monumental proportions. Even USA Today liked that phrase.
Not satisfied with upsetting Florida Democratic voters, Saturday the Democratic National Committee voted to strip Michigan of all of its 156 delegates to the party’s 2008 nominating convention in Denver.
The Democratic Party leaders are punishing Florida and Michigan Democrats for scheduling presidential primaries earlier than the national party leaders think they should. Democratic Party rules allow only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to hold 2008 primary contests before February 5.
I was surprised that the Democratic presidential candidates have sided with the Democratic National Committee, agreeing with the decision to disenfranchise the voters. Whatever happened to the Democrats' every vote counts mantra?
Fred Thompson tells CNN that his video showing fellow Republican candidates taking positions they now nuance is not negative and that he does not regret using it during the CNN/YouTube Republican debate.
On a brief fundraising swing through Arizona, Thompson said it makes sense to have sworn officers working "in cooperation with the federal authorities."
"I've been places where they're working hand-in-glove," the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" star said. "That's the ideal way to do it."
Thompson told reporters he's not concerned that putting local police in the position of trying to determine who is in this country illegally might lead to racial profiling "any more with that kind of cooperation than otherwise."
During the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate Thompson got in his licks by chiding former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani about what he said has been that city's "sanctuary" policies. CNN/YouTube question number 3 was posed was directed to Thompson:
Good evening. There are thousands of people in Canada and Mexico waiting to come to America legally. They want to become American citizens. They want to be part of the American dream. Yet, there are those in the Senate that want to grant amnesty for those that come here illegally.
Will you pledge tonight, if elected president, to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those that have come here illegally?
Thank you.
Cooper: Senator Thompson?
(Applause)
Thompson: Yes, I pledge that. A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation. And it's unfair...
(Applause)
We have -- we have thousands of people standing in line at embassies around the world to become United States American citizens, to come here to get a green card, to come here and to assimilate and be a part of our culture. They are part of what has made our country great. Some of our better citizens. We all know them and love them.
Now, it's our country together -- their's and ours, now together. It's our home. And we now get to decide who comes into our home.
And to place somebody above them or in front of them in line is the wrong thing to do.
We've got to strengthen the border. We've got to enforce the border. We've got to punish employers -- employers who will not obey the law. And we've got to eliminate sanctuary cities and say to sanctuary cities, if you continue this, we're going to cut off federal funding for you, you're not going to do it with federal money.
(Applause)
Now, there are parts of what both of these gentlemen have just said that I would like to associate myself with.
First of all, of course, Governor Romney supported the Bush immigration plan until a short time ago. Now he's taken another position, surprisingly.
(Laughter)
As far as Mayor Giuliani is concerned, I am a little surprised the mayor says, you know, everybody's responsible for everybody that they hire, but we'll have to address that a little bit further later. I think we've all had people probably that we have hired that in retrospect probably is a bad decision.
(Laughter)
He did have a sanctuary city. In 1996, I helped pass a bill outlawing sanctuary cities. The mayor went to court to overturn it. So, if it wasn't a sanctuary city, I'd call that a frivolous lawsuit.
(Applause)
Giuliani was allowed to respond:
Giuliani: New York City was not a sanctuary city. New York City did three exceptions. The three exceptions were to allow children to go to school, to allow those illegal immigrants who were the victims of crime to report the person who assaulted them, beat them up, mugged them.
And third, to allow emergency care in the hospitals, which we were required to do by federal law. We had a policy of reporting every single illegal immigrant other than those three who commit any kind of crime or were suspected of crime, and we reported thousands of them to immigration service. Few of them were deported.
McCain was asked to address the same question and came off as much more compassionate:
McCain: You know, this whole debate saddens me a little bit because we do have a serious situation in America. In 1986, we passed a law that said we would enforce our borders, and gave amnesty to a couple of million people. We gave the amnesty. Now we have 12 million people and still borders that are not enforced.
I came to the Senate not to do the easy things, but to do the hard things. Mel Martinez and I knew this was going to be a tough issue, but we thought the status quo was unacceptable: broken borders; 12 million people here illegally; a need for a temporary worker program, certainly in my state in the agricultural section, certainly in this state of Florida.
And we tried to get something done. We said we'd enforce the borders. The American people didn't believe us. They don't believe us because of our failure in Katrina, our failure in Iraq, our failures in reining in corruption and out of control spending.
So we tried and we failed. And I appreciate the president's efforts. He comes from a border state too. And what we've learned is that the American people want the borders enforced. We must enforce the -- secure the borders first.
But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. And we need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well.
I don't disagree with McCain. But I strongly agree with Fred. State and local police should help enforce immigration laws, we must control the border and end the sanctuary policies that some cities, such as New Haven and San Francisco have adopted.
You can watch the exchange between Thompson, Giuliani and McCain in the following video:
At a 2004 Republican Governors Association Dinner, then Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee had a conversation with God about President Bush’s reelection:
Sons of Confederate Veterans is calling Republican presidential candidates Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney "scalawags and carpetbaggers" for their criticism of the Confederate battle flag during the CNN/YouTube Republican debate:
The group issued a statement Friday that said the road to the White House hits a dead end when candidates "smear the good name of our Southern ancestors."
Romney and Thompson were asked whether the Confederate flag represents the symbol of racism, a symbol of political ideology, a symbol of Southern heritage -- or, is it something completely different?
Romney's answer was awful. He said he doesn't recognize the stars and bars flag and managed to disrespect and disparage an important symbol, a version of which, still flies on the grounds of the South Carolina capital:
Romney: Right now, with the kinds of issues we got in this country, I'm not going to get involved with a flag like that. That's not a flag that I recognize so that I would hold up in my room.
The people of our country have decided not to fly that flag. I think that's the right thing.
(Applause)
My own view is that this country can go beyond that kind of stuff, and that instead we can do as a party what we need to do, which is to reach out to all Americans.
Every time I listen to someone like John Edwards get on TV and say there are two Americans, I just want to -- I just want to throw something at the TV, because there are not two Americas. There's one America.
We are a nation united. We face extraordinary challenges right now. And Democrats dividing us and tearing down this country are doing exactly the wrong thing.
We're succeeding in Iraq. We've got tough challenges. We can overcome them. But we do not need to have that kind of divisive talk. And that flag, frankly, is divisive, and it shouldn't be shown.
Thompson was much more respectful, but probably upset some Southerners:
Thompson: I know that everybody who hangs the flag up in their room like that is not racist. I also know that for a great many Americans it's a symbol of racism.
So, therefore, as a public place -- he's free to do whatever he wants to in his home. As far as a public place is concerned, I am glad that people have made the decision not to display it as a prominent flag, symbolic of something, at a state capitol. As a part of a group of flags or something of that nature, you know, honoring various servicepeople at different times in different parts of the country, I think that's different.
But, as a nation, we don't need to go out of our way to be bringing up things that to certain people in our country that's bad for them. [From the CNN/YouTube Republican debate transcript.]
Here's the video of the CNN/YouTube Republican debate Question 31 - What does the "stars and bars" flag represent?:
Inclusion of this question is evidence of CNN's intent to ambush the Republican Presidential candidates. What purpose does raising the Confederate battle flag serve other than to remind voters of the 2000 controversy that helped defeat John McCain? Could it be to support Hillary's position?
Romney and Thompson aren't the scalawags and carpetbaggers here.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's response to a question asking about funding space exploration generated cheers from the audience:
Maybe Hillary could be on the first rocket to Mars.
More seriously, Huckabee said he supported expanding the space program because of how it has dramatically improved our lives:
Whether we ought to go to Mars is not a decision that I would want to make, but I would certainly want to make sure that we expand the space program, because every one of us who are sitting here tonight have our lives dramatically improved because there was a space program -- whether it's these screens that we see or the incredible electronics that we use, including the GPS systems that got many of you to this arena tonight.[From the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate transcript]
Tancredo was dismissive of sending Americans to Mars:
We can't afford some things, and by the way, going to Mars is one of them.
In an article about on Bill Clinton's claim that he was against the Iraq war from the start and what this means for Hillary's Presidential run, USA Today's Jill Lawrence quoted from my "There He Goes Again" post:
"Bill Clinton Rewrites History on Iraq?" wondered ABC News' Political Radar blog. "A political blunder of monumental proportions," Dan Spencer wrote at the conservative Redstate.com. At liberal DailyKos.com, the headline was "Bill Clinton's 'truthiness' problem."
I guess it's time I start posting under my own name.
According to the Onion News Network, whether a candidate seems like they could take a sucker punch in a drunken brawl is extremely important to voters.
In an interview with the New York Post, Democratic Presidential wannabee Barack Obama - asked whether he would hire Bill Clinton for a job in an Obama administration were he to win in 2008 - said, "In a second."
Obama also said he would bring on former Vice President Al Gore "in a minute," citing Gore's work on climate change and global warming.
With the Democrats' Defeatocrats' plans to force our surrender in Iraq setback by all the progress recently reported from Iraq, the Dems decided to change the subject:
This underscores the party leadership’s concern to avoid getting bogged down in more debate about Iraq and to make sure it is President Bush and Republicans who are blamed in the 2008 election for voter anxieties about the economy.
No sooner did The Hill report on the Congressional Democrats attempt to change the subject and seize on public fears of an economic downturn, than the Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy expanded at the fastest pace in four years during the third quarter, growing at a real annual rate of 4.9%.
Remember John Edwards, the sunny candidate with a positive tone? Things have changed.
Edwards has moved to negative aggressive tactics that are described by some as angry and by others as effective:
"Hell yeah I'm confrontational and I'm not ashamed of it," Edwards said. "We need a fighter in the White House."
In the Democratic debates, no one punches harder, especially when the target is front-runner Hillary Clinton, who accuses Edwards of throwing mud.
"She continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged, and is corrupt," Edwards said.
CBS's Chip Reid reports:
Edwards has no choice but to go negative. If he fails to win in Iowa, after campaigning there practically nonstop since he and Kerry were defeated by Bush/Cheney, Edwards is toast. Desperate times....
ABC's Good Morning America reports on Bill Clinton's claim that he was against the Iraq war from the start and what this means for Hillary's Presidential run.
My post on why Clinton's claim he was against the war from the beginning was a political blunder of monumental proportions is available here.
Bill Clinton made a political blunder of monumental proportions when he claimed that he "opposed the war in Iraq 'from the beginning,'" A statement even the New York Times found "is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003."
At Time, Mark Halperin reminds us that Mr. Clinton said he supported the War in 2003. On April 14, 2003, Clinton praised President Bush:
“In his first speech in Minnesota since leaving office, former President Bill Clinton on Sunday praised President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. But he criticized Bush’s domestic priorities and urged the administration to offer North Korea aid and a pledge of nonaggression in exchange for an end to that country’s missile and nuclear weapons programs." [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4/14/03]
On May 19, 2003, the Associated Press reported Clinton said he supported President Bush:
"Former President Bill Clinton accused President Bush of spending more time fighting the war on terrorism than on domestic issues during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College. 'I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we can’t be forever strong abroad if we don’t keep getting better at home,' Clinton said Sunday to a crowd of about 8,000. […] The Bush administration, Clinton said, 'is still focused on defeating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and that’s good, but not good enough. The power of our example is just as important as our military might.'"
Clinton may have questioned the timing of the invasion, but Clinton didn't oppose it "from the beginning."
On June 23, 2004, CNN reported Clinton revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq:
"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."
Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.
Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.
"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.
As Hillary campaign teeters on defeat and needs to rely upon the political prowesses of the infamous "comeback kid," he stumbles. Clinton reminds everyone, as Hillary's Democratic opponents continue to repeat - the Clinton's have trouble giving straight answers - Clinton admitted that answers he gave about Ms. Lewinsky during a 1998 deposition were false and that he "knowingly gave misleading and evasive answers."
For the extremist Liberal/Progressive Democrats Defeatocrats the timing is even worse. Now, on top of all the reports about the progress in Iraq Clinton has provided an opening to refute the left wing's attempt to rewrite history with the false allegation that we were mislead into the war. Thanks to Clinton's latest lie, we will be reminded again and again that everyone thought Saddam was much too dangerous to be allowed to keep the weapons of mass destruction everyone believed he still had at the time of the invasion.
McClatchy Newspapers reports that Hillary's new health-care plan bears a striking resemblance to the health care plan proposed by President Richard M. Nixon:
Nixon introduced his Comprehensive Health Insurance Act on Feb. 6, 1974, days after he used what would be his final State of the Union address to call for universal access to health insurance.
“I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses,” he told America.
Nixon said his plan would build on existing employer-sponsored insurance plans and would provide government subsidies to the self-employed and small businesses to ensure universal access to health insurance. He said it would not create a new federal bureaucracy.
Fast-forward 33 years to the American Health Choices Plan, which Clinton outlined Sept. 17, and to similar plans by Democratic rivals Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
[. . .]
Like Nixon, Clinton said that her plan “is not government-run. There will be no new bureaucracy.”
Nixon’s plan did not require all Americans to purchase health insurance, as Clinton’s does. Edwards also favors government-mandated purchases of health care. Obama would mandate only that all children be insured.
Like today’s Democrats, however, Nixon sought help for small businesses and sole proprietors to pay for insurance.
Political Wire got an advance look at a new Strategic Vision poll in Iowa that shows Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama tied in the Democratic presidential race at 29%, with John Edwards trailing at 23%.
On the Republican side it shows, Mitt Romney barely leading with 26%, followed closely by Mike Huckabee at 24%, Rudy Giuliani at 14%, Fred Thompson at 10% and Sen. John McCain at 7%.
That's quite a move on the Republican race. Strategic Vision's previous Iowa poll found Mitt with an 11 point lead:
Mitt Romney 30% Mike Huckabee 19% Rudy Giuliani 12% Fred Thompson 11% John McCain 7% Ron Paul 5% Tom Tancredo 2% Duncan Hunter 1% Undecided 13%
The Democratic race is more settled with Hillary stalled: Hillary Clinton 29% Barack Obama 27% John Edwards 20% Bill Richardson 7% Joseph Biden 5% Chris Dodd 1% Dennis Kucinich 1% Undecided 10%
Jesse Jackson complains the Democratic candidates -- with the exception of John Edwards are ignoring African Americans:
Can Democrats get the votes they need simply because they're not Republicans? You might think so in this presidential campaign.
[. . .]
Yet the Democratic candidates -- with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign -- have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country. The catastrophic crisis that engulfs the African-American community goes without mention. No urban agenda is given priority.
[. . .]
The Rev. Martin Luther King saw the movement to end segregation and gain voting rights as the first stage of the civil rights movement. The second stage -- to gain economic justice and equal opportunity in fact -- he knew would be more difficult. Now, 40 years later, it is no longer acceptable for candidates to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to entrenched discrimination and still expect to reap our votes.
Jesse Jackson's lament may help explain why Black evangelicals find themselves torn between parties.
Another Jackson, Pastor Harry R. Jackson Jr., has stood with Republicans to help serve as the "moral compass of America:"
In his rhetoric and his political agenda, Jackson has much in common with other evangelical Christians who are part of the conservative wing of the Republican party, except that Jackson is African American and so is his congregation at Hope Christian Church in Prince George's County.
Jackson, head of a group of socially conservative black pastors called the High Impact Leadership Coalition, in many ways personifies the possibilities that Republican strategists such as Karl Rove have seen in appealing to the social conservatism of many African American churchgoers. Blacks overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats and typically support Democratic candidates, but optimists in the GOP think one way to become a majority party is to peel off a sizable segment of black voters by finding common ground on social issues.
As a group, blacks attend religious services more frequently than whites and are less supportive of gay rights. In a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard University poll this summer, 43 percent of white Democrats supported same-sex marriage, about double the percentage of black Democrats who said they do. More than half of blacks said they oppose both same-sex marriage and legal recognition of same-sex civil unions.
In the 2004 election, President Bush appealed to those differences and increased his share of the black vote. He did so by questioning black voters support for Democrats at Democratic strongholds such as the Urban League's annual convention, where the President quoted Charlie Gaines:
Blacks are gagging on the donkey but not yet ready to swallow the elephant.
During this campaign, Pastor Harry R. Jackson Jr. is pushing an issues agenda rather than "carrying the water for the Republican party," he said. "They are not reliable enough."
The Republican candidates need to follow President Bush's example and reach out to conservative African Americans.
"My guess is Senator Obama's going to win Iowa and that he's going to win it by a surprising margin," the former Speaker of the House told ABC News' Diane Sawyer on "Good Morning America."
[. . .]
Pressed on whether the Oprah-factor would "tip" the nomination toward Obama, Gingrich replied, "I think it's a significant asset to (Obama) and he's not married to her."
"I think there's a double-edged sword when President Clinton shows up because he also reminds you, do you really want two presidents in the White House?
Republican presidential wannabee Mike Huckabee has played his experience as a Southern Baptist minister and president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention into second place in Iowa polls.
The Los Angeles Times reports Huckabee being backed by 44 percent of evangelical Protestants, who make up four in 10 Republican caucus goers. But the Times points out there are doubts about Huckabee:
Some conservatives are leery of his views on taxes, pointing to his Arkansas record.
The Club for Growth, which advocates limited government and lower taxes, points out that as governor he increased taxes on sales, gasoline, cigarettes and nursing homes. He says he had little choice because of court-ordered spending increases or rising federal entitlement spending for programs "over which you don't have executive control."
That's an issue which was hammered home by conservative columnist By Robert Novak in an article titled, "The False Conservative:"
Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses and might make more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem.
The rise of evangelical Christians as the force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger: What if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own? That has happened with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax-and-spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. When he lost 100 pounds and decided to press his new lifestyle on the American people, he was hardly being a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.
Huckabee's new ad, which starts with a close-up of Huckabee and speaking directly to the camera and then superimposes the words "CHRISTIAN LEADER" over an image of Huckabee on a farm, may highlight his beliefs and appeal to his evangelical targets in Iowa, but it will frighten more voters in the end:
The New York Times reports the ad is clearly using Huckabee's faith to differentiate himself from his Republican rivals. Americans want their leaders to have a faith, but they don't care for leaders who are perceived as, well, too evangelical.
In his "Bad for Huckabee, good for America," Dan Gilgoff writes that this picking and choosing among candidates is a sure sign that many evangelical leaders have moved beyond mere identity politics and toward an overdue openness to compromise in a political system that's built on it:
Does a proudly pluralistic nation want candidates openly appealing to voters on sectarian grounds -- as Huckabee seemed to do at the Values Voter Summit -- so that evangelicals back only solidly evangelical candidates, Catholics support orthodox Catholics and Jews vote for faithful Jews?
Perhaps Huckabee didn't intend to ask for votes on the basis of church membership. Perhaps he merely wanted to communicate that he's more solid on hot-button social issues like gay marriage and abortion than his GOP competitors. On that grounds too, the failure of his ideological purity to translate into more Christian right support is still good news for American politics.
Gilgoff has it about right. The religion card Huckabee played is too sectarian.
Is Huckabee on the path blazed by Pat Robertson in 1988, when Robertson finished second-place in Iowa then stalled?
In an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson accused the network of bias against his campaign.
During the interview, Chris Wallace pressed Thompson on how some conservatives have lambasted Thompson's campaign and showed clips of Fox conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes criticizing the former senator. Fred responded by attacking Fox:
"This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth." He noted that other conservatives have praised his bid for the GOP nomination and took issue with a Fox promo that focused on polling in New Hampshire, where Thompson is registering in the single digits.
He said he is running second in national polls and has been leading or tied for the lead in South Carolina for "a long, long time."
Thompson, in a firm, but measured tone, scolded Wallace: "...for you to highlight nothing but the negatives in terms of the polls and then put on your own guys who have been predicting for four months, really, that I couldn't do it, kind of skew things a little bit. There's a lot of other opinion out there."
Fred didn't come off well in the exchange, which reminded me a little of Bill Clinton's temper tantrum during a Wallace interview.
