harikari.com

How did this guy become chairman of the Repbublican National Committee?

Yes Michael Steele did kiss Rush’s fat ass last week, but he seems to have gone off the rails again in a recent interview for GQ.  The New York Times reports:

On abortion, Mr. Steele said that Roe v. Wade was “wrongly decided” and that states should decide the issue. But he also said that the issue was one of “individual choice” and that women had the right to choose abortion. (The R.N.C.’s platform states the party’s opposition to abortion rights.)

Asked whether homosexuality is a choice, Mr. Steele responded no. “I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, ‘Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay,’” Mr. Steele said. “It’s like saying, ‘Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.’”

Both of those statements sound perfectly reasonable and therefore very “un-Republican.” 

As you would guess, conservative leaders were outraged:

…including former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who said Mr. Steele’s remarks could cause the Republican Party “to lose many of its members and a great deal of its support in the trenches of grass-roots politics.”

Well that would be a good thing, wouldn’t it?

more…

“For Chairman Steele to even infer that taking a life is totally left up to the individual is not only a reversal of Republican policy and principle, but it’s a violation of the most basic of human rights — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Mr. Huckabee said. “His statement today helps but doesn’t explain why he would ever say what he did in the first place.”

Look for Mr. Steele to be kissing Mike Huckabee’s ass later this week.

According a group of mostly college educated, economic conservative, socially moderate-to-liberal Christians who participated in Relevant Magazine poll, Jesus would vote for Barack Obama.

Coming in second was Mike Huckabee, and third place went to Ron Paul.

Jesus would be least likely to vote for Mike Gravel or Hillary Clinton.  I don’t know why…

Other interesting results:  The most important issue for presidential policy?  Illegal Immigration.

The least important?  Gay Rights

Check out the poll results here.

It was in the late 1940s when, as a pre-teen,  I first heard the word “bigotry.”  Washington State had restrictive liquor laws.  No Sunday sales.  You could not carry a drink in a bar.  If you wanted to change tables you had to call for a barmaid (hey, it was 60 years ago) to take your beer to your new location.  Few places had liquor by the drink.  I can remember my folks going to the old Dick Parker’s dance hall in north Seattle where they would set a bottle of liquor under the table, order set-ups from the house and enjoy an evening of dancing to Duke Ellington’s band. 

Well, an initiative was placed on the ballot to liberalize the laws and create a “Class H” license whereby liquor by the drink would be readily available.  Although I was a constant captive to the church’s message that this was the work of Satan I was struck by the theme of the pro-initiative forces who called the church groups bigots, which they defined as “I don’t like it so you can’t have it!”  The initiative passed and some still contend that Satan prevailed.  They have a hard time separating “secular” and “Satan.”

Yesterday we had Huckabee echoing the illustrious Ellen Craswell in his statement to the effect that the Bible trumps the Constitution.  The evangelicals captured the Republican party in Washington a few years back and Craswell was nominated to run against Gary Locke–his good fortune.  She repeatedly proclaimed that she would use the Bible as her guide if there were a conflict with the Constitution.  She was trounced.  Huckabee’s religious belief that the wife should be subservient to the husband should make him a good target down the line. 

One of my favorite defining court rulings was by the California Supreme Court when it ruled that a school board, which had banned a book from its district libraries because “it offended Christian values,” had acted unconstitutionally.  It noted that books could be deemed inappropriate but not on the basis of religious considerations.

All of this is an introduction to the God-O-Meter  Earlier today on MSNBC I viewed an interview about it.  Go to the site and start wondering who the bigots are in this country.

H. L. Mencken noted:  Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority.  The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right  and what is wrong.  All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them.  The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others.  His culture is based on “I am not too sure.” 

Iowans like Barack Obama because he’s so fresh and so clean clean.

Iowans like Mike Huckabee because he’s born again crazy.

I always wondered what the “H” in “Jesus H. Christ” stood for…

now I know.

It’s too bad that Romney’s “Faith in America” speech is even necessary, but he felt pressured into it and delivered it yesterday.

Here’s what he got right:

Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty.

…I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

“As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

…A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

…Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

…No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.

…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.

Anyone familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows all that should go without saying.  We should hear similar statements from all the candidates, not just Romney.  (Are you listening Mr. Huckabee?)

What he got wrong:

“Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are.

…When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.

…no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

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.

…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?

…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.

The common thread through all those statements is that he excludes “the faithless” as if agnostics and atheists are second-class citizens not worthy of his attention.

Is the religion of an aspiring candidate an issue we should question?  I think not, but obviously many millions think otherwise.  Again, read the Constitution – it’s not an issue.

If he became president he would make a promise to God?  So when it gets right down to it, if God and the citizens of America are in disagreement, who does he serve?

Can a movement of conscience speak to non-religious people?  Is he saying they don’t have consciences?

When this country was formed, it was for the most part made up of Christians and Deists.  Since then, our country has absorbed people from all around the world, and they’ve all brought with them their own religions – what Romney calls a “Symphony of Faith.”  Let’s run with that metaphor for a second.  If everything is in balance, the symphony sounds great.  Occasionally the violins dominate, sometimes the woodwinds, sometimes the brass, sometimes the percussion.  But what if one voice always dominated?  What if all we ever heard were trumpets and trombones at 120 decibels?  That would drive many out of the hall, even some of the concertgoers who also played brass instruments would get sick of it.  So tempering the religious displays in the public square is not necessarily about removing any acknowledgement of God, it’s about balancing it all out so that no one religion dominates.

Oh, and secularism is not a religion.  I can’t believe he even said that.  Maybe he had W read his speech and asked him for suggestions.

And about that “most important question to ask a person of faith.”  He can’t ask an atheist the same question?  Does he think they aren’t qualified to answer it?  Probably not since they don’t fall into the group he refers to as his allies.

It’s not hard to guess how the non-believers will respond to his speech. 

So how will the Christian Republicans respond?  Can they accept a Mormon as their candidate for president?

They should be able to, but I’m betting they won’t.

If you were voting in the Republican primary tomorrow, which candidate would get your vote and why?

“Uh, hello? Rudolph Giuliani. He protected New York City from the terrorists on 9/11 and he’s like the anti-terrorist version of Sean Connery in the Untouchables. The Iraqi people put me in a wheelchair, so now he’ll put one of them in a torture prison.”

via Something Awful

For the following reasons, I don’t think this primary season is going to be easy for Republicans.

1. Romney will implode on the issue of his religion. Proper Xtians don’t like Mormons and Mormons don’t like a Massachusetts Governor who won’t defend their faith — and Mormonism is tough as shit to defend under serious scrutiny.

2. Huckabee, like Romney, will fall under the weight of his faith. He is simply TOO religious.

3. Giuliani has secrets just waiting to find the right mouthpiece.

4. Ron Paul isn’t a republican.

5. Thompson’s a poseur. He’s a great republican, though. Just like Reagan.

6. Tancredo’s a nutjob. Tancredo, before it’s too late… WTF!?!?

7. Hunter is…wait. Who? Actually, if Hunter wins the nom and chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, I may actually consider voting for “Hunter/Thompson 2008″.

8. McCain. Caucus Republicans love him, but don’t believe in him. Hate him, but respect him. He won’t pander to the Christians, he won’t get tough on terrorists, he did spend 5 years in a Vietnam prison camp, but he ran against Dear Leader 8 years ago, and lost. If he can’t defend his nomination from a draft dodger, how can he defend our country from islamo-fascist militants who want to bomb our malls and poison our small town water towers? However, I think he’s the only one who could kick the Dem nom’s ass in 2008 if he manages to get past the past 6 years of lap-dogging and elbow rubbing.