Five years ago, Massachusetts Governor and first-time GOP White House hopeful Mitt Romney declared, "People in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their president." Just not his faith, according to that most Republican of audiences at this week's Values Voters Summit. Hoping to capitalize on polls showing almost a third of white evangelicals would be less likely to vote for a Mormon, Rick Perry's campaign orchestrated an appearance by Texas mega-church pastor Robert Jeffress to denounce Romney's religion as a "cult" which does not qualify "you as a Christian."

The virulent anti-Mormon bigotry on display at the conclave is all the more striking, given Mitt Romney's recent statements against religious intolerance, religious tests for office and the right-wing crusade against the chimera of Sharia law. But during his dalliance with the religious right four years ago, Mitt Romney suggested that Muslims had no place in his Cabinet and atheists no place in the American community. Now, as JFK warned 51 years ago, the shoe is on the other foot.

In his much-hyped "Faith in America" speech in December 2007, Mitt Romney explained that "No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith" and warned:

"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."

Sadly, Romney during his last presidential bid endorsed precisely that very religious test for followers of Islam or no faith at all.

Years before Herman Cain suggested Muslims appointees must swear a special loyalty oath to serve in his Cabinet, Mitt Romney explained they need not apply period.

In November 2007, the former Massachusetts Governor said as much to Mansoor Ijaz at a fundraiser in Las Vegas. As Ijaz recounted:

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "...based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Despite Romney's subsequent denials, Greg Sargent and Steve Benen documented other witnesses and other occasions during which Mitt repeated his No Muslims Need Apply policy.

Given his own membership in a small religious minority, one might expect more openness and tolerance from the Mormon Romney. But the next month, Romney doubled-down on his religious test during that "Faith in America" speech. The man who in 2006 declared, "People in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their president" in December 2007 added atheists to his list of those to be excluded from the American community:

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims."

Just as long as those frequent prayers aren't heard in President Romney's Cabinet Room.

As Atrios noted at the time, it was altogether fitting that Romney was introduced that day by President George H.W. Bush, who purportedly stated, "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." The former Massachusetts Governor made much the same point in his December 2007 appeal to Iowa's evangelical voters, proclaiming simply "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

That nonbelievers have no place in leading Mitt Romney's America was remarked upon by conservative commentators at the time.

Continue reading »

But seriously - what's with all the pledges? This isn't a frat party. It's still called the Grand Old one. Can't you just repeat yourself endlessly with identical talking points over and over again without having to always be signing something? Come on.

Anyway, yet another anti-gay marriage pledge was signed by candidates Bachmann and (of course) Rick Santorum. No preamble saying slavery was better for black children this time. Mitt Romney did sign this one because...well...he needs to play down the Mormon thing and look like he's against the wrong kind of Americans. It's very important to his party.

Here are the key points of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM!) pledge from Mother Jones:

• Support and send to the states a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman,
• Defend DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in court,
• Appoint judges and an attorney general who will respect the original meaning of the Constitution,
• Appoint a presidential commission to investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters,
• Support legislation that would return to the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage.

My favorite is the implication that people who "support traditional marriage" have been the ones harassed. Poor traditional marriage supporters - they've been bullied. They can't help it, they were born that way. Don't worry, it gets better. If history proves anything the thing with "traditional marriage" is that it changes all the time (see: miscegenation laws).

DOWNLOADS: (946)

PLAYS: (1788)

Embed

We've been saying for awhile that for a guy like Glenn Beck to try to claim the mantle of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement for conservatives -- as he is clearly attempting to do with his August "Restoring Honor" rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial -- is nothing short of a travesty -- especially when you consider that he otherwise spends his time promoting the work of a Bircherite Mormon who was otherwise well known for smearing King as a Communist (a practice Beck himself is notably fond of applying to other black liberals like Van Jones) and attacking "progressives" as a "cancer", even though King himself not only was a self-described progressive, but even made speeches proclaiming Beck's great shibboleth, "Social Justice."

Last night, Al Sharpton went on the air with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown and made clear that Civil Rights leaders are indeed deeply offended by Beck's desecration:

OLBERMANN: Read that phrase again: “we will reclaim the civil rights moment. We will take that movement, because we were the people that did it in the first place.” To your knowledge, who‘s this we he‘s talking about?

SHARPTON: I have no idea. From my study of history, those that claim to be the Tea Partiers and the followers and supporters of Mr. Beck and Mrs. Palin were the ones that today advocate the things that that march was against.

First of all, that march was to appeal to government to intervene and protect the rights of people. They are against big government. I mean, you don't have to get to race. Their idea of government and the idea that Dr. King and Roy Wilkins of—and others espoused is the exact opposite of what they're calling for. Dr. King met with Caesar Chavez and talked about how we protect people, no matter who they are, that come into the borders, and have a sound policy. They're the ones that are rallying against that. So I think that they are absolutely, unequivocally—I don't even have to get to the race side of this. They are against the concept of what the march was about in '63. And for them to now talk about we're going to reclaim or we're going to take back a movement, that they are the philosophical children of the Barry Goldwaters, who opposed it—I think it would be laughable if it wasn't so arrogant.

OLBERMANN: Yeah. What do you think—is there an attempt in here to desecrate Dr. King's memory and what everybody stood for then? Or is this just a publicity stunt by some sort of a megalomaniac?

SHARPTON: Well, whether it's an attempt to do the desecration or whether it's a publicity stunt, it can desecrate. The fact of the matter is the march was 47 years ago. So people that are middle-aged and younger would not understand what it was about if we did not do our rally that we do every year. And Urban League, Marc Morial and others that have inherited those organizations, as I came out as a kid in the aftermath of Dr. King's death from his movement—that's not what the movement is about.

The movement is about what they talked about them. Martin Luther King talked about America giving blacks and poor people a bad check. These people are the ones that don‘t want to even give you an unemployment check today. He talked about us having a judicial system that was fair. These are the people that defend brutality.

So I think that it will be a classic case of they're trying to hijack something. But there will be some of us in Washington, at another location. We're not going to confront them. We're going to do what we always do, affirm the dream to try to complete it, because we're not there yet.

Sharpton says the way to counter Beck's rally is for thousands to turn out for his "Reclaiming Rally" in New York the same weekend. And he said he's not alone in being offended:

SHARPTON: It's going—certainly it's energized by this distortion. I've talked to Martin Luther King III. He's coming and others. A lot of us are offended by it. But we're not going to play into that. We're going to put a clean glass next to whatever they do, wherever they do it.

OLBERMANN: It's a fascinating point that you can subtract the entire element of race out of this, and they've still gotten it wrong, from what Martin Luther King said in 1963.

SHARPTON: And if we had another hour, I could bring the race part up. If you just use government and what Martin Luther King said—read the whole speech. It is the exact antithesis of what they represent and what they‘re saying in the Tea Party.

Glenn Beck, of course, has no shame. It's about time someone called him out for his bizarre and hypocritical hijacking of Martin Luther King's legacy.

The Agonist: The Sovereign State of BP

Crackpot Press: 8: The Mormon Proposition

A plain blog about politics: On majorities

TheZoo: The Watering Hole: Why Obama prays

Democratic Strategist: What's a president to do?

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Liberality, Hecate, Ramona's Voices

Not many people know that Judge Jay ByBee is a Mormon and an anti-gay supporter. As Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, Jerry Nadler, and Jan Schakowsky all spoke out against him, Harry Reid wasn't saying much. Even though Diane Feinstein voted against his confirmation she now either has a no comment or is trying to wrestle control of the investigation.

Russ Feingold voted against his nomination back in 2003:

On more than 20 occasions, Mr. Bybee refused to answer a question, claiming over and over again that as an attorney in the Department of Justice he could not comment on any advice that he gave at any time. This is unfortunately becoming a very familiar refrain of nominees before the Judiciary Committee.

---

But the failure to make OLC opinions available to the Judiciary Committee during the consideration of a nominee for a seat on a circuit court is unacceptable... The administration should be able to agree to an acceptable procedure to allow the Judiciary Committee to review Mr. Bybee's OLC opinions. Given the recent history of many OLC opinions being made public, it is hard to believe that there are no opinions authored by Mr. Bybee that could be disclosed without damaging the deliberative process. Indeed, it is very hard to give credence to the idea that OLC's independence would be compromised by the release of some selection of the opinions of interest to members of the Judiciary Committee or the Senate.

After the release of these memos why then is Harry Reid not in line with almost every Democratic Politician?

A serious setback, however: Harry Reid, whose Senate would rule on an impeachment in the House, doesn't seem to like the idea:

"Judge Bybee has a good professional reputation in Nevada," Reid spokesman Jon Summers said in an e-mail. "While the memos that have been released are disturbing to Sen. Reid, at this point in time, he doesn't think we should be making a rush to judgment."

And as Alex Koppelman reports in Salon:

Reid has also resisted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's request to create an independent commission to investigate the interrogation tactics. In a recent statement, Reid said, "I think it would [sic] very unwise from my perspective to start having commissions, boards, tribunals until we find out what the facts are.”

Reid sponsored Bybee's judicial appointment, along with fellow Nevada Senator John Ensign. Ensign has been adamant in his support of Bybee, referring to the calls for the judge's ouster as "outrageous" and saying that "This was not torture. This is the thing we have to get away from, that this is somehow accepted that it was torture. The United States does not engage in torture. This was 'advanced interrogation techniques.'"

My question is of Harry Reid. Are you supporting Judge ByBee because he is a Mormon? I'm not against religion as I've said many times, but if Bybee was involved with any other religion, would Harry Reid have supported him? Will any reporters pose that question to Harry Reid? It just seems odd to me that Reid didn't condemn the memos he's credited with writing much more harshly and is resisting any form of inspection. This is very troubling.

(Original version on Calitics. Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign, which is a No on 8 coalition member)

The newest major donor to the No on Prop 8: Equality for All campaign is one Brad Pitt. It comes at a key time in fundraising over the initiative that would take away the right for gays and lesbians to get married. The Yes side is seeing a major surge in donations, flooding into their coffers. In fact, they are out raising us 3 to 2 right now, Brad Pitt's donation included.

Here is what Brad Pitt had to say about Prop 8:

Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8.

The Mormon church is getting heavily involved in the campaign. It looks like about 35% of contributions to the other side have come in from Mormons, or at least that is what they are claiming over at this Mormons for 8 website. A high percentage of the large checks are coming from Utah.

Here is the question: is a religious institution trying to buy this election and change the California Constitution?

They aren't just donating. They are fueling their GOTV activities. Mormons have been invading neighborhoods en mass. They are not using walk lists, but rather descend in large groups to knock doors and try and pass out the million yard signs they think is going to win them this election. It's flat out creepy. It freaks out entire communities and usually the No on 8 campaign hears within a few minutes where the Mormons have decided to invade on any given day.

Look, I don't have anything specific against Mormons. It's just that when a specific religious institution decides to play a large role in a political battle, it weirds me out. Separation of chuch and state....

I know many of you have seen the polls and think we are going to win the battle over fundamental rights here in California. But I have news from you. The other side is winning the fundraising battle. They are energized with volunteers and are counting on a sort of Bradley effect to put them over the top. This is from an email from Dale Bankhead, the campaign manager for No on 8:

You've probably heard that the polls show our side ahead. Some are saying that victory for our side is a sure thing. Don't be fooled! This race is too close to call. The ugly truth we have learned from defeat after defeat in states across the country is that people lie on polls, especially about how they feel about LGBT people. In contest after contest, from Wisconsin to Colorado, we have gone into election day with polls showing our side with 7 to 10 points more support than we actually received at the ballot box.

This thing is close. Want anecdotal evidence? Key campaign staffers and leaders within the gay community are somehow squeezing their long awaited personal weddings in right now. They are not running the risk that they will not be able to get married after the election. So they are taking time out of working on the campaign to get married themselves.

The No on 8 campaign needs your help. This is THE biggest campaign in California and we can't win it without money and volunteers.

So give via the Calitics ActBlue page directly to the campaign. And sign-up to volunteer. They need people in their offices making calls and IDing voters. This weekend there are a ton of field activities to participate in, as the Mormons and others on the Yes side try and pass out their million lawn signs.

Max Blumenthal in The Nation

Of all the right-wing figures who have promoted Mike Huckabee's extraordinary political rise from a backwater church to the national pulpit of a presidential campaign--and there are many--perhaps none know the former Arkansas governor and current Republican presidential front-runner better than Jay Cole. A Baptist minister based in Fayetteville, Arkansas, with a right-wing radio talk show of his own, Cole has been instrumental in inspiring Huckabee's rise over more than two decades. Indeed, when Huckabee was the governor of Arkansas, it was Cole who persuaded him to arrange the release from prison of a convicted rapist, Wayne Dumond, who had become a born-again evangelical in prison--the most controversial act of Huckabee's career, which still dogs him on the campaign trail.

I spoke to Cole by telephone a week before Huckabee's surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses on January 3. He was supremely confident that his saintly friend would prevail over the hosts of darkness. "Mike is one of the finest and most gracious individuals God has ever placed on Earth," Cole told me in his thick Southern drawl. "Not only does he have speaking ability, he has the Lord looking over him."[..]

(T)he Huckabee Cole has known and loved for decades contrasts sharply with the sunny figure the media's leading lights have conjured up. According to Cole, Huckabee has connected with voters--specifically, evangelical voters--not simply because he is a charismatic speaker, but also because he shares their apocalyptic world view. As Cole told me, "To date there's well over 139 prophecies that have come to pass exactly as the Lord says. Mike believes those things. Anyone with any Bible knowledge would have to say that this looks like the time. We're so close to the Lord's return."

During the period when Huckabee rose through the ranks of the Arkansas Republican Party to the governor's mansion, Cole became one of the state's most popular right-wing radio personalities. Cole volunteered to me the sectarian views that made his radio show a favorite of Arkansas's far-right fringe. Taking a potshot at Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, Cole compared the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to the Ku Klux Klan. "As you know from history, their original intent--[Mormon founding fathers Joseph] Smith and Brigham Young--was to take over the United States of America," he said. "They weren't just far behind the KKK in their efforts."

Cole was no more kind to Muslims. "If you think communism's bad, just think what the Islamics are doing," Cole warned. "Those people have no--they're just not human. They're just not human."

I can't think of anything to say to this except that it really, really scares me.

CNN: Are you confident that nobody who supports you is involved in that push polling?

Romney: You've got to be kidding. Obviously the beneficiaries of push polling that attacks me is not me. Somebody else has obviously pushed that forward. I have no idea who it was but....as you know it was a vicious attack on me. An un-American attack on me...I think it's the same kind of conspiracy theorists that you're raising that say we brought down the World Trade Centers ourselves and it turns everything on its head.It's a little silly I think...

OK, this answer by Romney is off the wall. Hmmmm....Makes you wonder though, doesn't it?

Several recipients of the calls, which raised questions about Romney's Mormon faith and military deferments, are prominent supporters of the former Massachusetts governor. ---Roth and Kramer are now the third members of Romney's Iowa campaign to have publicly acknowledged received the calls. Ralph Watts, a state representative in Iowa, who also backs the former governor, was one of the first people to come forward.

And yet, during subsequent press interviews, neither Roth nor Kramer disclosed the positions they held on Romney's team. In fact, as several other reporters have pointed out, both individuals drastically downplayed their campaign associations. And in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, Roth took the opportunity to lash out against Sen. John McCain, the presidential candidate initially thought to be behind the calls.

Not disclosing that you're part of the campaign and then blasting John McCain is cause for one of those Drudge flashing red lights. The press has virtually done nothing in regards to reporting on his campaign other than pointing out his constant flip flopping so I wonder---will this get the ball rolling?

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

I admit that I don't watch The McLaughlin Group very much. The constant screaming over each other makes it hard for me to understand anyone's point and frankly, reminds me a little too much of dinners at my house when I was a teenager. But every once in a while, you'll get an unintended revelation that just proves once again, that our punditocracy are just bloomin' idiots.

In discussing that few Iowans appear to be warming up to Romney, largely because they have issues with his Mormonism, host John McLaughlin insists that Romney must make a speech à la John Kennedy that his faith will not influence his politics. However, Washington Times' Tony Blankley just thinks that Romney hasn't given Republicans a reason to vote for him. The funny exchange is at the end:

Blankley: He hasn't yet shown an ability, religion aside, to be a competitive candidate.

McLaughlin: Look Americans -- particularly Republicans like you [referring to Blankley] -- they love authoritarianism.

Blankley: I don't love authoritarianism. Even though I love you, John.

McLaughlin: Keep quiet now. They don't want a President. They want an imperialist.

That sums up the Republican party in a nutshell, dunnit?

The bigotry targeted against Ellison has been incredible. Dennis Prager kicked it off with a disgusting display and was followed up by Virgil Goode who hasn't backed down. The wingnuts have been eating heaping spoon fulls of Zombie brains. Ellison spoke out against it today.

Download | play -WMP (low res-sorry) Download | play -QT

BLITZER: All right. Let me read for our viewers who may not be all that familiar with what Virgil Goode actually wrote to his constituents back on December 7th. Among other things, he said, "If American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

And you just heard our Brian Todd. He's on the scene. He says Virgil Goode is not backing away from that at all. What's your reaction?

ELLISON: My reaction?

BLITZER: Yes, what's your reaction, Congressman-elect?

ELLISON: Oh, yes, Wolf, I think that, you know, diversity of our country is a great strength. It's a good thing that we have people from all faiths and all cultures that come here. And we all support one Constitution, one Constitution that upholds our right to equal protection, one Constitution that guarantees us due process under the law, one Constitution which says that there is no religious test for elected office in America.

So the document that is the bedrock of our democracy expressly prohibits applying any religious test, and I think that diversity in our nation is a great thing and we should embrace it, not be afraid of it.

Continue reading »