Bush Greets the German Shepherd

Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Washington today, with the unprecedented honor of a presidential airport greeting. This was a nice gesture by Bush, and shows how respect for the pontiff crosses all kinds of denominational and political lines.

B16 made a little news before the plane even touched down by telling reporters he was "deeply ashamed" at the clergy sexual abuse scandal. I think it was a heartfelt statement, and may have the added bonus of disarming some of the people who were determined to make that awful scandal the centerpiece of the entire visit.

There is a lot of speculation in the blogosphere on what the Pope will say about this or that problem. Everyone wants him to validate their pet issue. I liked what Archbishop Sambi, the nuncio to the U.S., had to say in a TV interview. He suggested - in a kind and loving way - that rather than tell the Pope what we want him to say, we should listen to whatever he thinks needs to be said. Sounds like good advice.

In that spirit, I intend to watch the various events on TV and pray that much good comes from the next few days. EWTN will, naturally, have extensive coverage. If you watch/read the mainstream media, remember to deduct about 50 IQ points from whatever they say about the Catholic Church and religion in general.

Truly Awful Video

Forget Obama's Preacher. Hillary Clinton must immediately denounce this man and his sick, evil campaign methods. Four more years of this will destroy America.

You may want to have a barf bag ready before watching the video.



Hat tip: Mark Shea

Obama's Preacher

This week Barack Obama denounced a number of "inflammatory" statements made by his longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I think it is a bit surprising that so many people are so upset by brief snippets of very long sermons. It would be nice to see them in full context before jumping to conclusions.

However, I will concede that Rev. Wright appears to have some far-left political views. Why, exactly, does this surprise anyone? Pulpits across America are regularly occupied by liberals of every color. It is more common in some denominations than others, but the things Rev. Wright said are not that unusual in certain quarters. He is just more forceful and colorful than most in expressing what he thinks.

It is also not news that Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama are close associates. Anyone who was paying attention to the presidential campaign knew all about Rev. Wright and his rhetoric over a year ago. Why is it suddenly a big deal? Perhaps because the media wishes it to be so?

I'm also not sure which of the things he says are so wrong. Rev. Wright thinks that black people still lack equality in America. He mentions the KKK and wants black Americans to embrace their African heritage. From this some people conclude he must be a kind of reverse racist. Yet this doesn't fit with the many self-help initiative his church has sponsored. Wright often, according to reports, exalts his black congregation to stand on its own feet and stop waiting for handouts. These are all good things. Furthermore, Wright's church is part of the largely white United Church of Christ denomination. None of this is consistent with the racist attitudes some think they see in him.

We also saw clips this week of Rev. Wright talking about U.S. military actions he thought to be atrocious, like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whether you agree with him or not, this is not exactly a fringe view. There are plenty of people from all backgrounds who think Truman should not have used nuclear weapons. Among these are many preachers, teachers, professors, popes, politicians, diplomats and war heroes.

The one thing that probably resonates the most is the clip of Wright saying "G-- D--- America." This is from a sermon he preached right after 9-11, the theme of which seems to have been that we in America brought the attacks on ourselves. Again, this is not an unusual view. Last year on the sixth anniversary of 9-11 I posted this speech and video by Rev. John Corapi suggesting much the same thing, albeit for different reasons. Many, many pastors made similar comments about God using the terrorists to send a message to America. Wright's crime seems to be that he said it a little louder.

If you're wondering whether I have gone off the deep end here, calm down. I will never vote for Obama as long as he favors legal abortion and infanticide. There are plenty of reasons to hope he never becomes president. What I'm saying is that the fact he has a fiery, opinionated pastor is not one of those reasons. I feel sure that every politician in both parties has some close associates who have said outrageous things. What counts is what the person who wants our vote thinks, and what he intends to do if elected.

Frankly, I'm glad that Obama at least has a pastor and professes some semblance of Christian belief. It gives us hope that he will someday see the error of his ways. A crazy pastor is better than no pastor at all.

RIP William F. Buckley

I think it was 1982 when I first read National Review. I was a freshman in college and it caught my eye in the library one day. One reading and I was hooked, mainly due to the incisive prose and brilliant reasoning of William F. Buckley, Jr. I proceeded to read several of his books and even his spy novels. He was a major intellectual influence on me. While I've since moved past him on some issues, I continued to admire and respect him.

Buckley passed away last night. He was found where every writer is happiest - at his desk, probably working on another column. After a lifetime of verbal battle, it's fitting that Buckley died in combat, weapon still in hand. May God grant him eternal rest and peace.

Rod Dreher has a good eulogy.

You Can Keep The Change

Do you begin to see why I don’t want to write about politics anymore? Look where we are. After the Florida primary Edwards and Giuliani are out of the race. Rudy’s demise is cause for slight celebration, but hold that thought for now. Mike Huckabee's claim on Isaiah 54 appears not to have been well-received before the Great White Throne. At best, he may be able to play a spoiler role at the convention and/or get himself on the ticket as VP. Yippee.

So now it appears that one of four people will be your next president. All are war-mongering statists, to slightly varying degrees. There is some variation on the issue of abortion. Specifically:

• One candidate is in favor of letting babies die even after they are born, as long as the original intent was to abort them.
• Another favors aborting babies up to and including the moment just before they are born, even if it means sucking their brains out with a safe & legal vacuum cleaner.
• Yet another says he is against aborting babies, but was in favor of it not so long ago and conveniently changed his mind just in time to run for president. He also created a health plan making abortion available to the sexually crazed residents of his state for the bargain price of $50.
• The last one is against aborting babies but favors using your tax dollars to cannibalize tiny unborn humans for the purpose of extending and making more pleasurable the lives of we humans who were lucky enough to escape being aborted ourselves. Furthermore he fought in court for the power to keep you from telling other people which politicians support such things.
  

These are the choices the democratic process gives you. Happy now?

What’s really funny is that this year’s campaign buzzword is “change.” In fact, the last thing any of these four will give us is change. All are zealous defenders of the status quo. None will do anything to disturb the stranglehold the Culture of Death has on America, or to end the idolatrous and global “End to Evil” war set in motion by our current Caesar, or to reduce the crushing debt that has accumulated thanks to our willingness to sell our votes to the highest bidders. Not going to happen. They're all different voices singing the same meaningless song. Here's the video evidence.

So I'm back where I started. Because he refuses to join the deceptive game the so-called "viable" candidates are playing, Ron Paul has no chance of being elected president. He is, however, a man I can support without also enabling some form of intrinsic evil. He will have my vote in the Texas primary, and maybe in November as well (even if I have to make it a write-in). Hopefully enough people do the same to demonstrate there is still a Remnant that will stand up for truth.

If the result is we have to face the lions, so be it. My conscience will be clear.

Behold Your Next President

Over a year ago I posted this picture of Billary Clinton and now it's suddenly getting hits from all over the world. Since everyone seems so interested, here is another version for you to enjoy. Sorry if it gives anyone nightmares.

Tired of Fox News

Apparently this is the week for TV anchor people to make idiots of themselves. First we had ESPN's Dana Jacobson with her drunken tirade against Notre Dame. Now John Gibson of Fox News is dancing on Heath Ledger's grave. Check this out. (via Mark Shea)

I don't have any particular affinity for Heath Ledger. I didn't see Brokeback Mountain, but I liked him in The Patriot and A Knight's Tale. Whatever kind of person he was, he's dead now and his family and friends are grieving. Making his death the butt of jokes is a low-class thing to do. I expect such things from shock jocks, not the author of The War on Christmas who is a popular figure on the "conservative" news network. At least Jacobson had the excuse of being drunk; Gibson was sober when he said these things, and probably even wrote the lines in advance.

I used to be quite a Fox News junkie. Over the last year I've grown tired of their fixation on celebrity gossip and grisly crime stories. The political coverage is still good but I've lost interest in that, too. Guys like Gibson and Sean Hannity now strike me as little more than blowhard shills for the Rubber Hose Right. I don't miss them at all.

Maybe I should start a support group for ex-Fox News addicts. Anyone else out there feel the same?

Pentagon Prepares For Hillary Takeover

Why Vote Pro-Life?

I wish I had written this. From Red Cardigan of And Sometimes Tea:

No issue that America faces can possibly be as grave as the hideous injustice that is abortion. No clearer sign of the degradation of our culture exists than the ease and almost-indifference with which the innocent unborn are killed, four thousand of them every day. The other issues that plague us, serious though they may be, do not contain within them the moral imperative demanding their resolution that abortion does; the innocent voices cry out to Heaven for vengeance, and God Who hears these cries will not long spare our nation from the consequences of these decades of hideous depravity, where the death of the child in the womb is seen as of no more moral weight than the removal of a tooth or the choice of a haircut. We ignore this issue at our peril....

For those whose chief objection to my position here is to say that we will never overturn Roe v. Wade, or that we will never completely outlaw abortion, I can only point to our ancestors who kept working to end slavery even when decisions like the Dred Scott decision seemed to settle the question on the pro-slave side, once and for all. I know one thing: America can endure as a nation, or abortion can endure as the public policy of this land. Both will not endure. Either abortion will one day be viewed with as much horror as we now view slavery, or America as a country will cease to be. If we cannot bring the justice of men to end this barbaric practice on our native soil, God's justice will prevail.

Well said. Read the rest.

Rudy's Answer To Everything

Positioning yourself as The President of 9/11 appears not to be the best strategy, at least in Iowa and New Hampshire. It will take a miracle to get him back in the race now. This video says it all.



Hat tip: Elizabeth Andrew

ObamaNotes

Reports today suggest that Barack Obama may be on the verge of a big breakout in New Hampshire. I'm not a Democrat and who they nominate is their business. Here are some random thoughts, though.

First, after Obama's big victory in lily-white Iowa some people got all misty-eyed about how far we've come in race relations, that finally a black man is a legitimate candidate, etc etc. Please, pull yourselves together. It is precisely because he is black that Senator Obama has been so successful as a candidate.

As Daniel Larison says, would a white first-term Midwestern Senator with little prior experience and a ho-hum liberal voting record be getting the adulation that Obama does? Even if he gave a stemwinder of a speech? I think not. Obama is good, but his race is the main reason people give him a second look. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but spare me the talk about America finally turning color-blind. We're not there yet.

Second, we should not forget that Obama is arguably the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. That's what Terry Jeffrey of Human Events said on EWTN last week. Obama opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions, and even worked to kill a law in Illinois that would have mandated babies born alive after botched abortions be given medical care. For all his soaring rhetoric about change and responsibility, Obama might be better described as the candidate of infanticide.

Third, there is an outrageous e-mail floating around about Obama and his alleged Muslim heritage. Click here if you haven't seen it. The origin of the message is unknown but it appears Hillary Clinton supporters have taken particular glee in forwarding it to everyone they know. Among the charges is that Obama is some kind of closet radical Muslim and that he insisted on taking his oath of office on the Koran rather than the Bible.

The message invites readers to check Snopes.com for verification. I did so, and Snopes actually debunks most everything the letter says. Click here and here to see for yourself. There are a few grains of truth and things that can't be proven, but for the most part the e-mail is a political hit job of the lowest kind. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Senator Obama's presidential aspirations; his history on abortion alone guarantees he will never get my vote. There's no need to spread lies about his background.

The message about Obama and Islam reminds me of another one that asked "Can a good Muslim be a good American?" I dealt with it here.

Now The Gloves Come Off

So Huckabee and Obama won the Iowa caucuses, by surprisingly big margins in both cases. I watched Obama's victor speech last night. While I disagree with him on pretty much everything politically, I have to admit he's good. Rhetorically, Obama will easily outshine any of the Republicans if he gets the nomination.

Meanwhile the pundits have already settled on a party-line for Huckabee: he won big in Iowa because of the large evangelical Christian population, and won't be able to duplicate it in bigger states. A lot of people are pointing out that Pat Robertson won the Iowa caucuses in 1988. True enough, but Huckabee seems to be connecting with people outside the Christian right, too. His populist rhetoric may be very well-timed with the economy weakening.

Also, I think there is a substantial amount of resentment among social conservatives who feel the GOP has taken advantage of them and given little in return. Darth Beckman said it best:

The Republican Party treats religious conservatives like the high school quarterback treats the homely girl - he's happy to make out with her behind the bleachers, but he doesn't want to be seen in public with her. Huckabee was dead on when he said the party expects us to show up and vote, but is horrified at the prospect of actually responding to our desires. I've always known the party leadership felt this way, but now every religious voter knows it.

The thing both Obama and Huckabee have in common is that they represent a firm rejection of their respective party establishments. Democrats are tired of Clinton. Republicans are tired of Bush. Neither wants more of the same, and large numbers of people see Obama and Huckabee as a break from the past. Whether this is actually true or not isn't the point. The point is that people have that impression and are acting accordingly.

The establishment candidates aren't going to give up easily. Now is where the real fun begins. I predict you will see dirt flying in the next few days. It will be well-disguised but you can bet the Clinton and Romney campaigns will bring out the sharpest knives they can find. It may well backfire on them, but with the stakes this high they will do what it takes.

I'm not counting out Rudy Giuliani just yet, either. His campaign appears to be on life support at this point, but if the others damage each other badly enough Rudy could still be the last man standing.

And so it begins.

Anticipating 2008

At this time of year we are always treated to a flurry of predictions for the new year. Unfortunately I cannot join the fun because my crystal ball is out of order. For your enjoyment, however, here are a few things I suspect will dominate the headlines for the next twelve months.

U.S. Presidential Election: If you're already tired of the endless campaign, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Tomorrow nigh week real people in Iowa will actually start selecting delegates to the national party conventions. Then things will start to happen really fast, and we ought to know who the two nominees will be sometime in the next few weeks. Then we will be treated to fun of a different kind as the two finalists spend months slinging rocks at each other. There's a good chance that one, and possibly both, candidates will be senators, which means every single vote in the U.S. Senate will become a presidential campaign issue. Congress may just grind to a complete halt - which wouldn't be such a bad thing, actually.

Troops Withdraw From Iraq: The "surge" strategy may or may not be working, depending who you ask and how they measure success, but one way or the other the U.S. military commitment in Iraq should start to fall significantly this year. The Pentagon simply can't sustain current troop levels for another year unless they lengthen tours beyond 15 months. Hopefully the force reduction will be orderly and the Iraqis will be able to maintain order on their own.

New War Fronts: The troops who leave Iraq may not get much rest before finding themselves in another hotspot somewhere around the Gulf. Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey are all potential destinations. Iraq will not be the last campaign of the War on Terror.
.
Geopolitics: Apart from the Middle East there are plenty of other trouble spots. Radical Islam is moving into Asia and Africa, for instance. It will be interesting to see how Russia develops when Putin moves from president to prime minister. North Korea, Venezuela, and other potential enemies will bear watching. The summer Olympics in Beijing will have vast political implications.

Pope Visit U.S.: Pope Benedict XVI will visit New York and Washington in April. He is scheduled to address the United Nations and meet with President Bush. The publicity surrounding this will be intense and coming in the midst of the presidential campaign it will inevitably turn political.

Culture War: The movie and TV writer's strike, if it drags on, may have the pleasant side-effect of sparing us from Hollywood's worst indignities, at least temporarily. Don't applaud too quickly, though; they will find new and innovative ways to pipe garbage into your home.

Bolt from the Blue: It's the things you don't expect that always matter the most. The possibilities are endless: another 9/11, nuclear war in the Mideast, bird flu pandemic, economic collapse, you name it. At some point in 2008 we'll get an ugly surprise, and maybe more than one. Should we worry about it? No. Just be ready. You can save time if you start praying now.

I can say with complete confidence is that this time next year, things will be a lot different. In what ways? I'll get back to you on that.

Democratic Humor

From Andy Borowitz:

Edwards Blasts Obama for Criticizing Hillary’s Claim That Obama Criticized Edwards

Iowans Confused By Charges, Countercharges, Counter-countercharges

An already perplexing Iowa race became even more impenetrable today as former Sen. John Edwards blasted Sen. Barack Obama for criticizing Sen. Hillary Clinton’s claim that Sen. Obama had criticized Sen. Edwards.

At a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids, the former North Carolina senator said that the Illinois senator’s criticism of the New York senator for claiming that the Illinois senator had criticized the North Carolina senator was “an attempt to confuse the voters.”

Mr. Edwards’ comments set off a new round of charges, countercharges, and counter-countercharges between the three Democratic rivals, with Sen. Obama lashing out at Sen. Clinton for supporting Mr. Edwards’ criticism of Sen. Obama’s criticism of Sen. Clinton.

Read the rest

Huckabee's Cross

Mike Huckabee's Christmas commercial (video) outraged both secularists and some Christians. I don't have a problem with politicians wishing the public a Merry Christmas or, as Huckabee did, talking about how Christ is too often missing from the season. Huckabee is a preacher and it's fine for him to let people know what is important to him.

However there comes a point when the religious imagery goes too far. The bookshelf/Cross that appears behind Huckabee in the ad may have been coincidental. The way the camera pans across the room makes me wonder, though. Peggy Noonan says these things don't happen by accident.

In 1989 there was an uproar about this "artistic" photograph of a Crucifix immersed in a jar of urine, at taxpayer expense no less. It was a blasphemous outrage. I'm not sure that dropping the Cross into a political campaign, however subtly, is a great deal more appropriate.

Be that as it may, Noonan's column mentions something else that I thought was interesting.

In an interview this week with David Brody of CBN, Huckabee said people everywhere were coming to him and saying, "We are claiming Isaiah 54 for you, that the weapons formed against you will not prosper."

This language calls to mind the "Name it and Claim it" theology of certain fundamentalists like Kenneth Copeland. Sometimes it is called the "Positive Confession" or "Word of Faith" movement. These people believe that God wants us to be healthy, wealthy and successful. In their view, if we simply pray hard and show our faith God will give us what we ask for. Those who are poor and sick obviously don't have enough faith.

Needless to say, I don't accept this view. Does Huckabee? I don't know, but he's the one who brought it up. At the very least it's an odd choice of words. It's also an odd interpretation of Isaiah 54, in which the prophet describes "New Zion," the restored and glorified Israel. If, in fact, some of Huckabee's supporters are "claiming" this chapter for him, they seem to be equating their candidate with God's Chosen People. Maybe they don't mean it that way, but the implication is inescapable.

They might want to read the whole chapter, too. The line about weapons is in verse 17. Back up a little to verse 4, where we read "You will forget the shame of your youth." This is not politically helpful. What part of Huckabee's youth was shameful, and why did he forget it? Inquiring minds want to know.

While I still support Ron Paul, I was initially open to Huckabee. Some bloggers I greatly respect like The Catholic Knight are pushing for him. He may be the best available option, all things considered. Yet as I learn more, I still can't muster much enthusiasm for Huckabee. The most I can say is that he seems sincere in his faith and is on the right side of the life and social issues.

In other words, Huckabee is essentially George W. Bush without the pedigree: a big-government conservative who wants to save the world. If you liked Bush, you'll love Huckabee.

Think I'm wrong? Leave a comment and tell me why.

The Allure of Power

I recently discovered a very interesting blog called Rebellion. The owner, Mike Tuggle, seems to share much of my concern about the state of our culture, and where it is taking us. Here's what he said about the Rev. Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani.

What attracted Robertson to Giuliani is the allure of State Power, the new object of post-Christian America’s veneration. It’s not a failing that’s confined to Robertson, but to all who support any and all demonstrations of the Empire’s military might. We Americans are all pagans now, and emperor worship has supplanted both the ideals and traditions of the American Republic as well as the foundations of our Christian faith. Power, our power, intoxicates and defines us at the same time. We may pay lip service to our old traditions, but with a few new definitions, we’re good to go on to our next imperial conquest. So when we invoke the core principles of the American tradition, we now affirm loudly, and with straight faces, that the Founders intended us to roam the world to root out deviations from the one, true system, which we still fool ourselves into believing is the American Way—which we still try to fool others into believing is a universal truth meant for all. Therefore, our armies do not conquer, but liberate. And those who stand in our way are so blind to our noble intentions that they deserve what they get.

This is the attitude that grips us now. That’s what Robertson has actually endorsed. And the longer the rot of empire eats away at us, the worse we will all become. Rudy’s outrageous antics will soon become the norm, and the death-spiral of empire will only accelerate. May God have mercy on us.

Read the rest

Ron Paul vs. the Neocons II

My favorite neoconservative, Donald Douglas, is once again going off the deep end about Ron Paul. He can't seem to decide whether Paul is a major threat to the Republic or a joke with no chance of electoral success. These are, of course, mutually exclusive positions, and the strain of holding them both at the same time is causing him no small amount of cognitive dissonance.

I've addressed this subject before but Donald seems to have forgotten, if he ever understood in the first place. Someone who is actually interested in a reasoned discussion would try to understand the opponent's position in order to refute it more convincingly. Donald does not do this. Instead he stands by the side of the road like a bag lady, shouting insults at passers-by. Nothing he says makes sense but he seems totally convinced of his own genius. That such a person managed to get a Ph.D. is a serious indictment of graduate-level education in this country.

Read the comments from this post and you'll see what I mean. Numerous people - including me - try to talk sense to Donald but none come close to succeeding. Donald is hung up on the fact that people from assorted fringe groups are uniting behind Ron Paul instead of a "legitimate" candidate. A more rational person, assuming he wants to see the White House stay in Republican hands, would quickly realize this is actually a good thing. The GOP needs all the help it can get. Another commenter named Rhys had this to say:

It's not hard to explain Paul's support among fringe elements. He stands for freedom and liberty, and fringe elements feel oppressed.

I think that it is amazing. What other politician today takes donations and claims support from both racists and integrationists, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, military and civilian, Democrat and Republican? It's not hard to explain Ron Paul's ground-swelling of support from all sides (with the exception of big government and socialist interests) because it is the natural consequence of standing up for the values that united us over 220 years ago.

What I would like to see explained is why Republicans are not rallying behind the only Republican who seems capable of enticing Democrats to cross party lines in the general election? I'm starting to think that Republicans don't want to win. Maybe, they want to be in the minority party and lose the office of the president. I want to vote for a Republican that has a semblance of a chance at beating the Democrats in the general election.

This makes such breathtaking good sense that Donald will probably ignore the actual substance of it and instead accuse Rhys of being a neo-nazi sympathizer.

Donald also can't process the idea that Ron Paul as president is the last thing any real neo-nazi (as opposed to people who are just racists that like to wear brown shirts) should want. His philosophy is the polar opposite of state-centered fascism. To the extent any such people are supporting Ron Paul, they are working against their own interest.

Not content to attack people only on his own blog, today Donald pursued me back to Driving Out The Snakes and, for some unknown reason, chose my recent Feline Music post as the best place to resume haranguing me about Ron Paul. Hopefully this post will serve as a more relevant place to leave future incoherent arguments and insults.

Rudy & The Christians

I have a couple of theories about Rudy Giuliani’s continued high support among conservative Christians. Pat Robertson’s endorsement is only the latest evidence that Rudy’s softness on abortion and other social issues isn’t a deal killer.

First, most evangelicals and conservative Catholics really don’t think about these things very much. A substantial minority are very devoted and active in pro-life causes, of course. These are the people who stage the sidewalk prayer vigils, staff the crisis pregnancy centers, and write blogs. They make a lot of noise but in the big picture there aren’t that many of them. Most people are far more concerned about things that they think relate to their everyday lives.

Rod Dreher recently quoted a CBS News survey of white evangelicals which found that the four most important elections issues were health care, the Iraq war, immigration and the economy. Abortion is way down the list. With these priorities, it’s not hard to see why people are willing to overlook Rudy’s weak spots.

The second point is something I can’t prove with hard data but it makes intuitive sense. Most people hate to make important decisions by themselves. They would much rather be told what to do and what to think. As the World War II “Greatest Generation” leaves the scene and people who grew up with LBJ’s welfare state take control, there is a common attitude that the government will take care of us. People look to the president as a kind of National Dad who gives us money so we can go out and party.

Because the terrorists threaten our right to party, we need Dad to protect us from them. We feel better when Dad is a tough guy who can beat up anyone who gets in his way. Rudy Giuliani looks, talks and acts like a tough guy. Therefore, people want him to be their Dad.

The same is true, to a lesser degree, for John McCain and Fred Thompson. The non-tough guys like Romney, Huckabee and Paul don’t have this image, and that’s why they aren’t likely to win. The objective fact of whether a candidate promotes the right policies is just not important. Retailers have long known that packaging is what sells. It’s equally true in politics - and Giuliani has great packaging. As long as he makes a few noises about being a religious guy, even most Christians won't look much deeper.

In fact, I could argue that evangelical Christians are even more likely than the general public to fall into this category. Just look at the "megachurches" that draw in thousands of people every Sunday. Many - and perhaps most - are built around a pastor with a strong personality who uses his sermons to tell people what they want to hear. They "vote" for this pastor by choosing to attend his church instead of another. These churches are a tiny microcosm of the American electorate.

We’ve all had the experience of buying a product that looks great on the shelf, only to find after we open it that it doesn’t do the things we thought it would. We find the same thing with politicians after we elect them. Christians who vote for Giuliani because they think he will keep them “safe” may find themselves in more danger than ever. Too bad presidents don't come with a warranty.

Ron Paul Hits The Jackpot

From the LA Times:

The Texas congressman with the sharp libertarian bent thanked his supporters Wednesday for what is one of the best single-day fundraising totals in presidential campaign history. He insisted the event is not an anomaly but a sign of real progress, a claim supported by several Web commentators.

"Amazing! I have to admit being floored by the $4.2 million you raised yesterday for this campaign," Paul wrote to his supporters, adding: "What momentum we have! Please help me keep it up. As you and I know, and our opponents are only suspecting, we have success on our minds and in our hearts."

Mainstream Republicans and conservatives are still having a hard time figuring out how to handle Ron Paul and his supporters. I think I know what the problem is: Dr. Paul actually believes the things he says. He doesn't lie and pander to attract an audience. This is so unusual in politics today that the audience is actually finding him.

I first heard Ron Paul speak in 1985. He had the same message then that he does now. There is no other candidate in the race with a comparable record of consistency and honesty. Few people agree with him on everything - but people from all perspectives seem to find something they like.

The promoters of realpolitick want me to get aboard with somebody who is not "on the fringe." What's sad about this is that it is considered strange for a presidential candidate to have real principles that aren't subject to compromise. Unfortunately, most of the voters don't have principles. What they do have is a short memory - which is why we keep electing people we regret.

People say they want "change," then go tell the pollsters they're backing one of the candidates who offer nothing but "more of the same, only better."

If you really want change, do something radical and support Ron Paul.

The Pat & Rudy Show

The big political news today is that televangelist Pat Robertson is endorsing Rudy Giuliani for president. I have to say I'm not very surprised. I have nothing against Robertson and I know he's done much good work. However, he's always struck me as a pragmatic sort of guy. He's calculated that Giuliani is the likely GOP nominee and naturally wants to get aboard the bandwagon.

Robertson is a little wacky sometimes but he's no dummy. The fact that James Dobson and other religious right leaders are loudly anti-Rudy gives Robertson an opening to be Giuliani's link to evangelical Christians. If Rudy goes on to become president, he'll owe some favors to Robertson.

Even so, it seems wildly inconsistent for someone like Robertson to support a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights guy like Rudy. The answer, I think, is that to Robertson these things are less important than the fight against radical Islam. He is one of the Giuliani Christians that I wrote about a few months ago, people who will compromise larger principles so they can feel "safe." I think these folks are wrong but there are obviously a lot of them.

Stephen Bainbridge reports on an interesting angle someone noticed. Consider:

1. Giuliani's biggest political problem is his stance on abortion and gay rights.
2. Giuliani's greatest strength is his leadership of NYC on and after 9/11.
3. Robertson has said that God sent the terrorists to attack us because of American support for abortion and gay rights.
4. Therefore, God must want Giuliani to be president.

This is a twisted line of thought, but to Robertson it just might make sense. It fits perfectly with his eschatological views and fervent desire to defend Israel. Because Giuliani and Robertson both view Islam as a dangerous enemy, each sees an alliance as beneficial despite their other differences.

Will it matter? There are plenty of people who regard Pat Robertson as a dangerous nutcase, so the endorsement might actually hurt Rudy with them. You could argue that the people Robertson is most likely to influence are concentrated in Southern states that will vote Republican anyway, no matter who the nominee is. On balance I think it is probably a plus for Rudy, but things can change very quickly.

More views from the blogosphere:
Rod Dreher
David Kuo
Texas Fred
Steven Taylor