2 Democrats, One Jump

And as long as we're talking about the pending election, here's a video of Senator Clinton having a drink and some pizza with the voters of Indiana.



And after the jump, FoxNews blog calls out Obama for criticizing Clinton's drinking night out, after he had a night out with voters in Latrobe, PA. Draw your own conclusions.

More on McCain

In other McCain news, he called the New York Times out for nearly compromising U.S. Security through its coverage of undocumented wiretaps on U.S. citizens with non-U.S. residents "suspected" of terrorism. Get the scoop after the jump.

So No More Wall Street Donations, Eh?

McCain blames the recession on "greedy people" on Wall Street, amongst others, including President Bush.

Religion & Election Update!

From Suburban Messiah:

Since I haven't posted much on the Quail lately, I feel some duty to keep everyone up on my latest Religion & Politics post, a topic I heavily covered here last semester.

With Obama and Huckabee winning the Iowa caucus a couple weeks ago, there was wide speculation — before they both lost on Tuesday in New Hampshire — about their effects on the evangelical vote if they were to be nominated for the general election. However, then they both lost in New Hampshire.

In addition, I reiterated the importance of the Catholic vote. I also found an interesting article the amount of money being donated to candidates by clergy members; surprisingly, the Democrats, specifically Obama, lead the pack.

Enjoy the article, and let me know what you think here or on the site!

Religious Freedom and the Atheist Contingency in American Politics

From Suburban Messiah:

I've been putting this article together for about 10 days now (taking significant breaks for holiday revelry), outlining how atheists are neglected in American politics, how that correlates to the concept of religious freedom, and also how the atheists of political belief — i.e. those who don't carry cards for either major political party — find themselves in a similar position.

Romney's "Faith in America": The Hangover

I mentioned in my post last night (includes complete video of his address) that I thought Romney's speech needed to cover his Mormon religion moreso than contemplating "Faith in America," as he did.

Well, Christianity Today checks in on that very tip, explaining "What Evangelicals Heard in Romney's Speech."


Echoing my speculation, David Neff, the author, explains, "According to a Pew poll, 36 percent of evangelicals say that they are less likely to vote for a candidate who is a Mormon (compared to 25 percent of all Americans). Republicans know that this kind of evangelical resistance must be overcome in order to win a presidential election."

Of course, polls are always sketchy footholds, but it demonstrates that a much larger percentage of Evangelicals, to whom Romney was speaking directly in his address, are skeptical of his religious affiliation.

Neff outlines several places where Evangelicals can jive with Romney, based on the overarching, non-committal comments he made about "religion," which, by itself, was never actually defined. Granted, he was speaking to a group of people that already has pretty firmly in its place a definition of religion, but as someone with a non-traditional definition of the term, and a swing vote, I'd like to hear at least one candidate come out for some type of religious pluralism in America — isn't that kind of what freedom of religion is all about? To live justly and "freely" together is not only about "tolerating" all religions — "tolerance," to me, implies reluctance and still suggests that the "tolerator" is superior to the "tolerated — but also, I think, involves actually engaging with others of these faiths and trying to understand them as well.

But I digress. Neff explains, despite Romney's slick speechwork:

"Because of the iconic quality of the presidency, many Americans will feel discomfort with the mainstreaming of a marginal faith that a Romney presidency would represent. It's one thing to listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or to elect Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch. It is quite something else to elect a Mormon President. Americans accept partisanship and diversity in our legislators. But the presidency is supposed to unite the nation, and for many, Romney's reassurances can't address the apprehension they feel in their guts."

Yes, this is only one viewpoint, but a strong influence in the Christian media at that. If my suspicions here are confirmed, we probably won't see Romney on the ballot next November.

Romney gives his speech on Religion

Below is the video of Mitt Romney's speech on "Faith in America," intended at least in some capacity to address his religion, Mormonism, and how that might affect his presidency, if he were to be elected.



The video is 20 minutes, I know, so I've included below one of what seemed to be the key themes in his speech. Basically, he seems to say that America is for religions of all types, as long as you believe in the Christian God.

Lifted from this article from Talk To Action, here's one of the quotes that sums up for me the address. Enjoy the article as well; it checks in with an thoughtful view on the matter.

Romney says: “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.”

I think that this kind of comment works, if he weren't Mormon. It seems to me that mainstream Christians are LESS likely to vote for him than people who are agnostic or atheist. I would imagine that most Christians don’t really care if he talks about God. Heck, those “crazy Muslims” worship the same God as they do. They want to know if he renounces Mormonism in public matters. If not, he’s out.

On that front, The Washington Post checks in.

Chuck Norris' power should never be underestimated

Could he be the reason for Mike Huckabee's resurgence in the Iowa polls? Since Norris offered his support to the candidate from Arkansas, Huckabee's Internet buzz and subsequent popularity has skyrocketed. I mean, if this guy showed up in my voting booth and told me to vote for Mike Huckabee, I just might.


Huckabee's surging popularity may not only be a result of the Chuckster's influence, but it's an intriguing coincidence nonetheless. I was wondering how both Guiliani and Romney received matching bruises on the right sides of their faces, but it's all clear to me now:

Roundhouse.

(thanks, Scott, for the tip)

Baptist Preacher calls for prayer in order to summon evangelical President

Whatever happened to mobilizing voters? This specific preacher asks the very question I've spent answering for the last couple monts: Where is God in the 2008 Election?

Clearly, he hasn't been paying much attention. However, maybe he's right in a way. I don't want to lambast him for calling his congregation to prayer in order for God to bring the evangelical community an appropriate leader. Yet, it seems to me that this kind of inaction on the part of evangelical voters won't lead to much solidarity.

I see the same problem with the "evangelical community" as I do with the "youth vote." Both are nearly indefinable, as there are myriad individual views within these way-too-broad categories. But, just as 18-year-olds are still waiting for their parents to change the political state of our country instead of trying to do it themselves, simply praying for change will not allow it to happen. Remember: millions upon millions of Christians with viewpoints opposite or conflicting will be praying for what they want as well. I'd imagine that God probably won't choose "favorites" among His children (though some might disagree), and that he might leave it to us on this one.


ADDENDUM: While we're on the Religion & Politics kick, here's a nice outline of some of the major stories from 2007 from the fine religion blog over at the Dallas Morning News, which sets the stage for the coming election on the faith-based front.

Mike Huckabee Talks Directly To God

Here is video of GOP presidential hopeful, Mike Huckabee, having an onstage cell phone conversation with God at a 2004 fundraising event:



I seriously think he ripped this bit off from my high school youth minister.

CNN/Youtube Debate

Stephen Green from VodkaPundit has a quality roundup from the Republican debate last night. Also, Christopher Beam at Slate live-blogged the event.

I watched most of the debate, and found that the Youtube questioners were generally pretty good; despite the fact that at least one was apparently planted by Hillary.

I thought McCain had a good night; he was strong on the war, and is the only candidate who can really address the torture issue. Romney looked like he would run away with it until he stumbled (badly) on the "is the bible the word of God" question; also, Guiliani accused him of hiring illegal immigrants to work at the Massachusetts governor's mansion. Ron Paul's position on the war (he wants us out) has become untenable given the current picture in Iraq; he looked pretty silly trying to defend his stance last night. Mike Huckabee looked as slick as a Southern Baptist preacher. Guiliani seemed to simply hold serve, despite the revelation during the debate that he cost the state of New York tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses while pursuing an extramarital affair.

Florida Snowmen Demand Answers

In anticipation of the CNN/YouTube presidential debates coming up this week, Billiam the Snowman showed up to ask this question about global warming:


From The Washington Post:

In an interview Wednesday with the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, Romney said he's not a fan of the CNN/YouTube format. Referring to the video of a snowman asking the Democratic candidates about global warming, Romney quipped, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

Billiam has this to say:


There is nothing more I can say about this. God Bless America.

Tuesday Timewaster

23/6.com has "Democratic Campaign Slogans I'd Like to See".

My personal favorites include:
"Hillary Clinton: Secretly Gay, But Isn't Everyone?"
"John Edwards: Beating A Dead Horse Since 1998"
"Vote For Kucinich: Oh, That's Right, Because Hippies Can Vote"
"Vote For Obama: It's As Close As You'll Ever Get To Making A Black Friend"

Enjoy!

Back to the grind: Religion drinks too much egg nog with Politics, has nasty hangover

I've been away for a couple weeks, and there is no doubt too much news occurring the political race for me to catch up on fully. Therefore, just for goodness' sake, here's the 17th of the approximately 1 million reiterations I'll make that the Religious Right stands to sway the 2008 election.

In short, Frederick Clarkston, the article's author, dissects yet another proposition that says "No matter who becomes the next president of the United States, the American people have already won a great victory - with the total disintegration of the once all-powerful religious right." Clarkston knocks this assertion out of the park by explaining that the "Religious Right" is as strong as its ever been; namely, it has never really been unified totally, and that it still holds a strong special interest vote.

Anyway, I found the article a riveting read, so enjoy, and we'll have you back on track with all the Religion and Election 2008 you can handle over the next year.

The Potential Republican Nominees for President

NPR's Ken Rudin has an interesting rundown on the Republican field as it stands now. Some interesting notes from the column:

- Guiliani appears to be gaining endorsements from unlikely places (ie., Pat Robertson) because many have calculated that he is the only candidate that has a shot at Hillary in the general election.

- Romney is polling strong in the key primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire, but still lags significantly behind the other candidates in national polls.

- McCain is still old and hurting for money, but has somehow performed well at the debates.

- Thompson picked up a key endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee, but is still way behind in Iowa and New Hampshire. His refusal to actually campaign is almost certainly taking its toll.

- On Paul - "many of his supporters, who have little faith in the two major parties, see him less as an ideological soul mate and more as someone who hears their frustration. Paul is not challenging the leaders in any state polls, but his backers suggest that he could surprise in New Hampshire."

Exposing the Youth Vote

As our stock election photo implies, every election, the Democrats swear up and down that "this is the year the youth vote will matter." And every election, the youth vote doesn't turn out, predictably because college kids just don't really care about voting, just about comparing their parents' politics.

With reference to this, here's an interesting piece about different things for which NYU students would trade their vote. At one of the most supposedly sophisticated universities in the nation, not many of these kids really seems to care about the ramifications of their vote.

I don't really see anything surprising here; as many of the kids rationalize, New York probably will always vote Democrat, just as Georgia will vote Republican for the whole of forever. But it just provides another example of the party leaders understanding very little, if not nothing, about their supposed contingencies.

Religion and the Election Friday!

As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, the Catholics are at an impasse with regards to which side to vote for in the 2008 Election. Here, Gary Stern outlines the Church's "voting guide", reiterating the fact that the Catholics are VERY conservative on say, the abortion issue, but lean very liberal on many other social issues, such as immigration.

Again, then, as I mentioned Tuesday in a post about Sam Brownback, politicians pushing religious agenda probably would do well to recognize that strict adherence to doctrinal belief does not align with doctrinal adherence along party lines.

-------------------

With respect to the immigration issue, here's Jim Wallis' take on it from his Christian perspective.

From the article: "This immigration policy question is for us as people of faith the 'welcoming the stranger' question. . . The way we talk about people is off course. Fear and anger dominate the conversation, not a civil discussion about the legitimate issues involved."

That is only a brief summary of his discussion, which explains how yes, there are fundamental legal issues at stake with regards to immigration, but by being disallowed by law (as people are in Oklahoma, now, according to Wallis) to aid illegal immigrants medically, he says, impedes his right to be a Christian steward.

As a legal American citizen, he should have the freedom to welcome a stranger into his home (or homeland, as the case may be). A sticky issue, surely, but I think it represents the fact that not all Christians fall further to the right than Barry Goldwater.

-------------------

Finally, on Slate's blog, a conversation began by questioning the state of the "Jewish" vote, which was illuminated as being about as definable as the "Christian" vote.

Basically, you can’t pigeon-hole all the people in one religion to one party. In my opinion, that's probably because the "parties" don’t really represent "anyone."



I know this is a topic I've harped on strongly for the past couple weeks, but since no one has contested me on it, I'm sure I'll continue rambling as such. I find it very interesting that the leading political candidates are trying their best to pander to the religious contingency, but can't quite figure out exactly what these voters want. Again, it's probably a matter of the fact that each voter is unique, and a dichotomy between a turd and a douche simply doesn't fit most people anymore — or maybe it never did, but at least people are more willing to say it now.

Maybe this can be a wake-up call to politicians that they should actually try to do what's best for a country of 300 million people instead of waffling around and not accomplishing anything. You're not always going to be popular when you're charged with a job like that, and the people will speak if you screw it up too badly. Why not try a new strategy as opposed to taking on a ridiculously dated campaign method?

Mitt Romney's Mormon Mission to France

Today, the New York Times has an article about Mitt Romney's Mormon mission to France in 1968, and the deep impact that his time there had on his life. While there, Romney observed the break down of traditional French society and an emergence of younger and more progressive generations. Also, he missed the same (although less extreme) changes in American culture. From the article:

"There had been this whole revolution while we were gone,” recalled Dane McBride, a close friend from the mission. “While we had gone from being adolescents to grown-ups with a lot of responsibility, our peers — from our perspective — were just tearing down the country, becoming dangerously childish.” He added, “It just seemed deplorable."

Take a look at the article, its a very interesting read.

Presidential Candidates looking. . . competent?

I haven't heard too much about Ron Paul, save his record-setting fundraising on Guy Fawkes' Day, but he actually seems like a viable candidate.

Of course, he's not likely to be nominated, but the AP reports on his unconventional politics, showing that there's at least one person in the race who actually is trying to utilize the system for something other than perpetuating the way it already is.

In other words, Paul is actually trying to sell himself by — get this — promoting his own beliefs as opposed to trying to pander to everyone.

From the article: "Paul remains a very long shot for the nomination. But as the only Republican candidate backing a prompt troop withdrawal from Iraq - and an airing of possible impeachment charges against Vice President Dick Cheney - he appeals to a mix of liberals and conservatives who feel alienated and deeply distrustful of the government."

He really should run as an independent; I could see him going all Perot on us. They even kind of look alike.

Romney spends subtle amounts of money on television advertising

In the Pasty Quail spirit of updating previously reported news, Mitt Romney is spending $85,000 a day on TV ads, putting his total to $10.2 million at this point.

I reported a story on how much would be spent for the election, and it looks like that figure should be no problem.

Maybe I'm just not watching enough TV, or the right channels, but I haven't seen any Romney ads. I guess they're focusing more in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, but I want in on this action too. There's going to be nothing better than a bunch of ads showing Hillary in devil horns.