The Voice of Treason

“Words matter. Words mean something.”

– Rush Limbaugh

“Actions speak louder than words.”

– Author disputed

“Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.”

– John 3:17,18

“Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often.”

– Mark Twain

Ah, all The Great Debates revisited. Church v. State. Words v. Actions. God v. Man. Old Testament v. New Testament. Right v. Left. The Big Question: Is God – if he exists – a political animal? I think many people believe, as I do, that God is just this seasoned, hardworking conservative guy who produced a good-natured, long-haired, sandal-wearing hippie son. They might not see eye-to-eye on everything, and certainly they employ different methods, but their relationship still works.

I’m reminded of growing up in Chicago in the 1960s with my lapsed Roman Catholic Italian-American mother and my sister, the Conflicted Conservative. A misanthrope, who often made Florence King look like Mother Teresa, she was also the most generous, kind-hearted, least racist person I’d known. But what she said sometimes didn’t always jive with what she did or how she conducted herself. Uh, perhaps she was nuanced.

A “for instance.” I’ve mentioned we lived in Rogers Park – a “safe” neighborhood. I imagine, looking back now, that this was code for a neighborhood that was white. In truth, it was mixed, diverse even by today’s standards, yet predominantly Jewish. Mixed, yes, but not mixed with blacks. This was Mayor Richard J. Daley’s Chicago, remember, where whites lived on the North Side and blacks lived on the South Side. An undisputed fact of life. That was Rogers Park in the mid-1960s. Times have changed and so has the neighborhood.

Shortly before we left Chicago for Prescott, Arizona, my mother flirted with the idea of moving us into one of those new apartment buildings the city was putting up for lower income families. Read: The Projects. I clearly remember her enthusiasm. My older sisters were married, my brother was off to an Air Force base in Texas, and it was just me, my sister, my mother, two cats and a raccoon. She had paperwork and glossy brochures.

“We could live on the 20th floor! Or the 22nd! Or the 24th! How exciting would that be?”

My sister, about fifteen at the time and always the voice of reason where my mother was concerned, looked at me – I was almost nine – then at my mother.

“You want her raped in the elevator?”

Again, the most generous, kind-hearted, least racist person I’d known until I met T. He was eighteen, wore heavy metal T-shirts and ringlets down to his waist, and he and his brother had been raised by their single mother on the Berkeley campus. Polar opposites? Not really. I observed him at work and thought to myself: This boy is conservative and doesn’t even know it. And the first person I’d known who truly evaluated each person he met on the content of his or her character and not skin color, economic status, or nationality. Eighteen years later, that hasn’t changed.

And so it was interesting to hear his assessment of Michelle Obama after a CNN profile that likened her to Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis: “She’s ghetto.”

This statement had little to do with the color of her skin. I’ve been watching Mrs. Obama for some time and every time I see or hear her I’m reminded of one of the more colorful expressions my mother learned from my father: “Her shit don’t stink, but her farts give her away.”

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama was born in 1964 and raised on the South Side of Chicago. I was born a few years earlier and raised on the North Side. On the surface, one might think Michelle could have been envious of me. I was a white girl with straight honey-colored hair and (then) blue eyes and I lived in an apartment on a tree-lined block just steps from Lake Michigan. On the surface, however, I believe I probably would have been more envious of her. She had what I didn’t have: two parents with dual incomes, fewer siblings, and – frankly – probably less competition in school. At my school, I was up against some real super-geniuses – not only the Jewish kids, but also the Asian kids and a lot of the European immigrants. The most super of the super-geniuses, in fact, was a quirky, high-strung Scots-Irish girl named Karen. That kid was Bill Buckley in Mary Janes.

My parents had been separated as long as I’d known them. Michelle’s parents were not. My mother waited tables to support us. Michelle’s dad had a good job with the city and her mom worked for Spiegel. (I just loved the Spiegel catalog when I was a kid.) And Michelle only had to share her parents’ affection with one sibling – a brother who was very close to her age. Gosh, her life sounded so normal. So different from what I had and so close to what I’d always wished for.

Which brings us to the current issue of the Obamas and Trinity United Church of Christ.

“Racism is so deeply ingrained in this country that he (Barack Obama) could be flawless in terms of his policies. But he’s still a black man in this country which has a sorry history in terms of how it sees African-American males. That’s my 65-year-old, jaded perception of where this country is.”

– Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., March 2007

Relatively tame stuff compared to the videos from the pulpit. My, the response to those sermons! Shocking? No, disheartening. Obviously the people who are so wide-eyed over this never listened to Ray Taliaferro during the Reagan-Bush years. This is old hat, folks. And disheartening because it’s a clear sign that a large segment of the black community has not progressed. Yes, there is racism. But racism is changing. The country has been changing. Hearts and minds have been changed. Well, some, anyway.

What caught my ear when listening to Reverend Wright was the part where he chastised blacks for killing other blacks. What should be asked is this: If blacks shouldn’t be killing blacks because blacks aren’t “the enemy,” then who exactly is “the enemy” and who should blacks be killing? The Obamas have been attending that church for twenty years; perhaps they have the answer.

This “controversy” reminds me of when I was in class with a middle-aged woman who suddenly snotted up in the middle of the session and confided that her life had been turned upside down because the pastor of her church where she’d been a member for most of her life said something about homosexuals that she just didn’t agree with. With tears in her eyes, she asked me what she should do. Torn to bits, she felt that the right thing was to leave her church, but she had a history there, had made dear friends, and loved and respected many of the parishioners. These people were family. But then this something was said, and it challenged her beliefs. Clearly a problem for this woman because it made her question her religion, herself, and everything she had believed about her world.

I never belonged to a church or a particular religion, I told her, so I probably wasn’t the person who should advise her. I belong to a political party and I don’t agree with everything every member of it says, but that’s politics and not religion. If what your pastor said is so offensive to you, perhaps you should find a pastor who believes what you believe. You chose your doctor, your dentist, your hairdresser, and your bank. You can choose another church and still maintain the relationships with those people you consider family. If they truly are your family, they’ll understand and accept your decision. And if they don’t, then maybe you’ll learn something. But what do I know? I subscribe to a political party and not a church. Politics isn’t religion, right?

One would think. As for Reverend Wright, the more I listen to him the less he sounds inspirational and the more he sounds like a run-of-the-mill politician. Coincidentally, the same can be said of his longtime parishioner, Senator Obama.

T drove me to my blood donation appointment this morning and I mentioned that the two of us should start working on some political Christmas parodies.

“Like, I’m Dreaming of a White Mistress?”

“Precisely!”

But then I got home and what did I find? John Derbyshire’s masterful parodies of carols on NRO:

To the tune “It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year”

It’s the Mitt Romneyest time of the year.
Evangelicals yelling
And everyone telling you
‘Make yourself clear!’
It’s the Mitt Romneyest time of the year…

To “White Christmas”

She’s dreaming of a White House Christmas
Just like the ones she used to know.
Table lamps a-flying
And Chelsea crying
When Bill’s been caught with trousers low.

She’s dreaming of a White House Christmas;
But now the race is getting tight.
And she daren’t show anger or spite.
What a pity Barack isn’t white!

To “Here Comes Santa Claus!”

Here comes Amnesty!
Here comes Amnesty!
Right down Pandering Lane!

To “Ding Dong Merrily on High”

Ding dong Huckabee on high
His poll numbers are soaring!
Ding dong Huckabee’s the guy
Nobody’s now ignoring!
Hu-u-u-u-u-u, U-u-u-u-u-u, U-u-u-u-u-u, U-u-u-u-u-u, U-u-u-u-u-u, Uck-abee!
The hand of God is on him!

To “Do You Hear What I Hear?”

Said the SecDef to the DIA,
Do you hear what I hear?
And how high is your confidence?
Do you hear what I hear?
A bomb, a bomb, Iran will have a bomb,
With delivery systems and all —
It’s now too late to forestall.

To “Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree”

Ron Paul around the Christmas tree,
No more I.R.S. to pay!
Everyone be conservative
In the new old-fashioned way-aaayyyy!!!

Why, thank you, John, for such a thoughtful gift! And a wonderful Christmas to you, too!

As always, Derbyshire’s words are better than my words. He did it all, and infinitely more – go to NRO and see for yourself! Ah, to live in such total harmony with the spirit of Christmas! Let us all say of him that he knows how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possesses the knowledge. May that be truly said of NRO, and all of NRO!

God bless the keen minds at NRO — every one!

“I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was six. Mother took me to see him in a department store and he asked for my autograph.”

– Shirley Temple

Which brings us to the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Christmas ads. Really there’s only four candidate ads to debate here: Huckabee’s, Obama’s, Hillary’s, and Rudy’s. All have been scrutinized, most have been criticized. Roasted like chestnuts on an open fire. Personally, I’d like to keep this in the holiday spirit and proclaim that all were calm, all were bright. But I cannot.

Look, I like Rudy. No matter how hard I try to find fault with the Mayor, I can’t forget that he’s the one with 12 Commitments that make sense to me. He’s the one with the record. He’s the one who made New York loveable. He’s the one talking about my 3 Ts: Terrorism, Taxes, Tort Reform. And throw in one more: Theater. The man knows how to put on make-up and a costume and belt out a song, but what the hell went wrong here? He has the timing, he has the humor, but where-oh-where was the script? I saw a couple versions of the ad and, frankly, they just didn’t work for me. Gotta give him the thumb’s down.

Huckabee. Omigod did you see that? Omigod there’s a big honkin’ cross in the room! Omigod there’s a cross and it’s glowing! Now, I have to admit that I thought it was the window until someone pointed out that it was a bookcase. The only issue I had was that if Huckabee’s in a room with a bookcase, where are the books? That it’s glowing and looks like a cross isn’t bothering me. The lack of reading material is. I liked the red sweater – unless, of course, it was some weird subliminal message that he was one with Hugo Chavez – and I appreciated the Bing Crosby/Andy Williams “Christmas special” feeling about it. I couldn’t help think that at any moment Claudine or Kathryn would be sweeping into the room in an appropriate holiday frock. “Cookies, anyone?”

No, instead, Mike was alone, but I still had the sense that Janet and the family dog were close by in the kitchen whipping up something tasty to eat. The criticism that the ad was too religious, too Christian? Well, that’s Christmas for you.

The Obama ad. Gotta give the Obamas a big thumb’s up. So tasteful, so pleasant. And, as Joe Biden would say, so fresh and clean. How charming to have such an attractive family nestled together for the holiday. Reminds you of the holiday dresses your parents picked out for you at Christmas. Ah, family. At home for the holidays. And isn’t that an important part of the season?

Of course it is. And something that was clearly lacking in both the Rudy and Hillary ads. At least in the Rudy ad you got the feeling that he was doing this on the fly because he and Judy had to get across town to a Christmas cocktail party. But the Hillary ad…

Sure it lacked warmth, and of course it was criticized for being so political. There she was handing out gifts to us. This is what I’m going to give you when I’m elected President. See? How benevolent I am? How I care? How much I will give to you? You will vote for me, now won’t you?

Not only was that creepy, but what struck me is how sad this ad was. Rudy was alone, Huckabee was alone, was Hillary was really alone. She looked like Martha Stewart, wrapping the perfect gift in the perfect setting, but she was the only one who would see it. Where was Chelsea? Where was the dog? Where was the Bing Crosby or Nat King Cole Christmas CD? And where-oh-where was Bill? He couldn’t even manage to be around on that one night of the year?

At least I had the sense that Rudy and Mike had something else going on in the house, but Hillary just had herself, some nicely wrapped empty boxes, and an evening of CNN ahead of her. Oh, dear. Have yourself a merry little Christmas, Mrs. Clinton.

I love coffee, I love tea
I love the java jive and it loves me.
Coffee and tea and the java and me
A cup, a cup, a cup, a cup, a cup!

I love coffee, I love tea…

I spent most of my life with two women – my little Italian, lapsed Roman Catholic mother and my ultra-conservative, atheist, excruciatingly funny sister – and most of what I’ve learned I learned from them. Unfortunately, most of it is absolutely crazy sh*t but, in those mountains of dreck, there really are nuggets of truth. One thing I remember them always saying about men was this: If he doesn’t have a sweet tooth, if he turns down a piece of cake or pie, or shies away from candy or chocolate, watch out. He’s a drunk.

The other thing – and this was gospel – was the coffee rule. Pay close attention to how a man takes his coffee, they said. It will tell you everything you need to know. Needless to say, I was intrigued when the coffee preferences of the 2008 candidates made news.

DEMOCRATS:
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Sometimes black, sometimes with cream
John Edwards: Doesn’t drink it
Barack Obama: Black, but rarely drinks it
Bill Richardson: Cream

REPUBLICANS:
Rudy Giuliani: Splenda, Sweet’N Low or Equal, whichever is available
Mike Huckabee: Splenda
John McCain: Cappuccino or coffee with cream and sugar
Mitt Romney: Doesn’t drink it, has been known to have hot chocolate
Fred Thompson: Cream

Oh, dear. I come from a long line of coffee drinkers and my mother mainlined the stuff. She never failed to remind us of her supreme sacrifice: She gave up the stuff while she was pregnant. A badge of honor, and we should have been grateful. Actually, we just suspected that she resented us for it. I do not exaggerate: The woman loves her coffee.

I, too, am a fan and I dutifully grind my beans – always dark, always fragrant – and concoct a brew that’s very dark and thick. Some have complained that my coffee has dissolved whole sections of stomach lining because it’s “too strong.” Too strong? What are they talking about?

Anyway, my theory is that if coffee is worth drinking, it’s worth drinking very hot and very black, or with a modest splash of half ‘n’ half. Real cream, of course, is acceptable if you’re lucky enough to have it, but milk is insipid. And the cream is there only to lighten and enhance the flavor of the coffee. Its role is not to overpower. After all, the expression is “coffee with cream,” not cream with coffee. “Boston,” as my mother and sister would say.

And please – none of those sugary, flavored creamers. Why? Because the rule of coffee is this: no sugar. Ever. With that in mind, which candidate passes my coffee test?

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy! Sweetener in your coffee? No wonder you attended every funeral after 9/11. When we first moved to California, our old Italian landlord, Mr. Mancini, always slipped me cups of hot, strong coffee with sugar. I drank it and loved it because sugar was only a minor ingredient. There was considerably more bourbon than sugar in there, and usually a bit of lemon, so the sugar was easy to overlook. I was only eleven, but I knew the family’s rule on coffee. If I’m going to have sugar in coffee, it had better be accompanied by alcohol and a lot of it.

Huckabee’s diabetic – and it’s probably because of all the sugar he put in his coffee. If he has the discipline to lose over a hundred pounds and run marathons, he should be man enough to kiss the Splenda goodbye. Mike, once you go black…

McCain. He’s a Starbucks guy, isn’t he? That combination of caffeine and sugar is probably what makes him so peevish.

Clearly, Fred Thompson is the only Republican on this list who knows how to take his coffee. A man’s man. An adult. The Gary Cooper in the group.

Mitt’s a Mormon, so I’m not surprised that he passes on the cuppa joe. It’s the main reason I’ll never join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That and the alcohol thing. But isn’t hot chocolate a stimulant? I mean, I’ve been stimulated by a good mug of hot chocolate.

So we’re left with the Democrats. So why doesn’t Edwards drink coffee? Just one more reason to dislike him.

Barack is trying to please everyone here. He drinks it, but he doesn’t. And in case you need to be reminded, when he drinks it, he drinks it black.

Govzilla uses cream, but how much I wonder? So… to my horror… the Senator from New York and I continue to have some things in common. I raise my mug to her.

“That was not just the worst debate of 2007, that was the worst debate in Western history – and that includes the Ancient Greeks. There was no record in any major European language of a debate this transcendently and crashingly dull. It was an astonishment.”

That, again, was Charles Krauthammer, describing the debate from Iowa. Today’s Democrat debate? No, that one, which he also described as “a bad debate,” was actually a slight improvement over the Republican. The little exchange between Obama and Hillary, Krauthammer explained, was “the only reason it didn’t reach the gold standard of cosmic dullness that was achieved yesterday.” And, frankly, if you ask me, the only reason Obama’s remark stood out was because it felt as if he’d taken a bit of Karl Rove’s advice.

“She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise…

Find a way to gently belittle her… Do it with humor and a smile and it will sting even more.”

That had some sting on it. Nicely done.

It was the weekend that wouldn’t end. Oprah and Obama were everywhere – there was no escape. I finally did catch the Iowa rally on C-SPAN – with sound this time – and decided I preferred what Oprah and Obama had to say when I couldn’t hear them. Were these rallies or revivals? Welcome to the Church of Obama! If this was to prove that the Senator is a Christian, that’s fine; after all, polls show that Americans would vote for a Mormon over a Muslim, but the whole “Second Coming” feel of these events was a tad unsettling.

It was just a little too weird to watch Obama addressing the crowds with the girl fan backdrop. Michelle, his wife, looking up at him from one side, and Oprah, his… I’m really not sure… beaming at him from the other. For those of you who have peculiar ménage à trois fantasies…

I’m serious: Does Oprah have a crush on Obama? Or is she simply kicking herself for wasting time and not hooking up with a promising young Senator a little earlier in her career so she would one day have a shot at First Lady? Hmmm. Shades of Jackie… O.

There was just too much Oprah and, to make matters worse, on Sunday night I actually watched that movie she’d produced. Don’t ask. Just know that I can never get those two hours back. Worse, I couldn’t even get away from the O-fest by burying myself in the newspaper. The cooing couple was there, too, but the absolute worst item was the article about what the former U.S. Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and mayor of Atlanta said about Obama in front of a Newsmakers audience.

Andrew Young – who, at age 75, isn’t – had the audacity to suggest that Barack Obama is “too young.” Well, it’s nice to see that ageism is so easily tolerated in the black community. But even more distasteful and offensive were his remarks about a former president. Bill Clinton, said Young, is “every bit as black as Barack.” Not waiting for that to sink in, he immediately followed up with:

“He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.”

Can we have a show of hands, please, from those who weren’t offended? Young is just one more reason why the United Nations is such a travesty. First, do we really need to be reminded that Bill Clinton is a ho? And, frankly, I know I’m not the only one who shuddered when Oprah mentioned Obama’s tongue. (I commented on this in a previous post.) Look. I just don’t want to have to think about a president’s body parts ever again. If her comment was engineered to bring back memories of a Clinton White House, then fine. It worked. But I never want to hear about Obama’s tongue again. Ever. It’s one reason John Edwards turns my stomach. I don’t want to see my president’s tongue, I don’t want to know what it’s doing, and I don’t want it distracting me during important addresses. A darting tongue is charming on a reptile, but repulsive on a candidate.

So, after all that, can anyone remember a damned thing Obama said over the weekend? Unfortunately, I do. First, his unflattering comment about being related to Dick Cheney and, second, his promise to raise the minimum wage every year of his presidency. There are times that Obama’s advisors should suggest he bite that tongue. This was one of them.

I know I’m not the only person who watched this spectacle and felt that I was being sold a bill of goods. Oprah is famous for hawking products and all she has to do is include something she likes on her list of favorite things and – Katy bar the door! – sales skyrocket. I know she likes Obama and I know she likes a particular face cream from Philosophy. So all I could think when I was watching her sell me Obama over the weekend was: The Audacity of Hope In a Jar.

Let me begin by saying that I am a woman of “a certain age,” probably perimenopausal, and I do not watch Oprah. I’ll repeat that: I don’t watch Oprah. It’s not that I dislike the woman, it’s just that she’s on at the same time Brit Hume’s on FOX. If I’m near a set at 4:00, I’m watching Brit. Anyway, today I sat down with a cup of tea and surfed around, then landed on FNC – the Obama rally in Iowa was about to begin. Michelle Obama, looking like she was on her way to a funeral, dressed in black from head to toe, introduced Oprah Winfrey to the expectant crowd.

Oprah took the podium and began to speak. A few moments later I came to an important realization: Oprah’s black. In fact, she was speaking black to a predominantly white audience. How odd, I thought. That is not her usual manner of speaking, yet she is suddenly using a heavy dialect and is dangerously close to lapsing into Ebonics.

Worse than how she was saying it was what she was saying. She described Obama as a politician who “has an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth.” Plainly someone hasn’t that ear for eloquence, and as for the tongue… well, better that, I guess, than a tongue dipped in an intern.

Say what you will about FNC, at least they weren’t having technical difficulties. I’d switched over to C-SPAN to catch what Obama had to say and I only caught every eighth word. I simply couldn’t get what he was saying because the sound quality was sh*t, but from what I could make out, Barack had brought his black voice, too. Again, an odd choice. You’re all up there talking about change – change we can believe in – and it appears nothing has. You say you’re not going to be a politician that says what he thinks people want to hear. You say you’re honest. You say you’re different.

Fine, then drop the phony dialect and just be yourself. Same goes for your friend, Oprah. Critics of George Bush cringe when they hear that drawl and they know he’s perfectly capable of speaking with barely a twang. It’s like Hillary and her Arkansas voice, back in the day. And worse, her “I don’t feel no ways tired” voice.

The human voice is a most important instrument. It is the essence of a person. To change one’s voice in order to communicate to a different audience is, frankly, a consternation. Sure, one might speak differently to an infant, a small child, or a dog, but if one is authentic, one should be able to communicate in the same voice to all people, no matter their age, their gender, their ethnicity, or their religion. In fact, one should even be able to speak – without altering one’s vocal quality – to another species. I mean, I don’t change my voice when I’m speaking to my dog. Why would I want her to think that I think she’s not as intelligent as she is?

Please. Just leave the dialects to the actors, dahlings.

“… There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

… Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, 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.

… As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ — the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

… Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

… 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.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

… 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.

… We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders — in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

We believe that every single human being is a child of God — we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are ‘thrown into the world all equal and alike.’

… It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

… In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. ‘They were too divided in religious sentiments,’ what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God … they founded this great nation.

In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine ‘author of liberty.’ And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, ‘with freedom’s holy light.’”

– Willard Mitt Romney, on Faith In America

Seems like people were divided on this one: Should Romney, the first Mormon to come this close to a nomination, address the nation… or not? You’d think that damn near fifty years since the last candidate had to go through this that it wouldn’t have been necessary. But we have more polls now.

According to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll from October, 33% of those polled would rather vote for a candidate who is the same religion as they are. And 46% said no, they wouldn’t. But then there was a poll that asked about particular religions. Would you vote for a candidate who is…?

Protestant (80%)
Roman Catholic (79%)
Christian Coalition (59%)
Jewish (50%)
Mormon (36%)
Atheist (15%)
Muslim (10%)

What about Hindus? Buddhists? I found myself asking the same questions when Romney said this:

“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. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.”

Again, what about the Hindus and Buddhists? To be fair, have you ever looked at the number of world religions? If Romney had wanted to give a little shout out to every one, he’d still be talking. But it’s what I’ve always said: the major religions have a lot in common and there is much about each to admire. On the other hand, there is much about each that is, at best, peculiar… quirky… downright bizarre. It’s why I maintain that comparative religion should be taught in the schools. The more one knows about each of the world’s religions, the less crazy some of these faiths seem.

But it sounds like there are still plenty of people out there that think Mormons are just plain nuts. Personally, I’ve never had an issue with Mormons because most of the ones I’ve known have been fine human beings. I’ve written before about how many of my friends were Mormons and how I was invited to church and to participate in activities, yet was never pressured to sign up. I was impressed with the contemporary church I visited in Prescott, Arizona when I was ten and remarked how light and open it was. To me, it looked like the inside of a giant 747. Kids were rehearsing skits and it felt like more of a theater company than a place of worship. Years later a Mormon friend recruited me and other friends to join the church’s volleyball team. But that was it. We played for the team, but were never approached about becoming more involved in the religion. It’s why I like the Jews. Come, participate, but no one is going to corner you and make you sign away your soul.

I’m in the camp that says the speech didn’t hurt. It’s a shame Romney had to share time with a homicidal teenager who shot up an Omaha shopping mall, but no one can predict what the next big news story will be. Mitt was visible, he was vocal, and any decent exposure is a good thing. Moreover, he was eloquent, dignified, and if he actually wrote this text, then we know a little more about how his mind works. Frankly, anyone who quotes John Adams, Sam Adams, and Abe Lincoln in the same speech is okay by me.

For a minute I thought his speech sounded a little like my post back on the last day of November where I started off with George Washington’s Farewell Address from 1796. Similar themes about morality and religion in government, and freedom. I have no qualms about voting for this particular Mormon, but I can’t criticize those who might reject any Mormon. It would be hypocritical to admonish another voter because I myself would find it difficult to support a Muslim presidential candidate. That might change one day, but for now… uh, let’s just say I’d have to give it quite a bit of thought.

As Romney said, “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.” I would hope I could keep this in mind if a Muslim were to seek the office. Romney also spoke of the cathedrals of Europe, grand buildings almost empty. I thought for a moment he was going to talk about the ones in Massachusetts. When I was in and around Boston, many of the churches were being converted to restaurants, bars, and night clubs.

Again, I think he was right to go with the speech. Voters look at candidates and ask themselves certain questions. Like, can I live with this guy for four, maybe even eight, years? Can I sit through press conferences and long State of the Union addresses? Can I even stand the sound of his voice? Will I be able to sleep at night knowing he’s in the White House? Do I want this person representing my country, representing me? Can anyone on SNL imitate him?

Or was this all just a waste of time and energy? Will it all come down to the flip-flopping? The media and the Democrats – and the Republican contenders — like to emphasize Romney’s changes of position on the issues. If another candidate does it, he or she is nuanced. When Romney does it, he’s conniving. It’s like the intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program. Suddenly, intelligence is gospel and can be trusted. Why? Because it makes the current administration look bad. Clarence Thomas only got where he is because of affirmative action, so he can’t possibly be qualified. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is where he is because he is qualified. There’s no such thing as illegal aliens because no human being is illegal… unless, of course, he’s mowing Mitt Romney’s lawn. Suddenly we have an immigration problem.

Isn’t that a bit of a flip-flop as practiced by the mainstream media? As for evangelical Christians being skeptical about Romney, all I can say is this: Many of the Christians I know did not necessarily start out that way. One day something happened and it made them change their minds… and they became Christians.

Now, would that be considered a flip-flop?

As I’ve mentioned, I like to be aware of any trends in our local bumper stickers, so one in particular caught my eye:

Me: “Oh – there’s one.”

T: “One what?”

Me: “Another Richardson bumper sticker. That makes three. Whoa – this one’s different!”

T: “Okay…”

Me: “It says… Richardson… Obama… ’08!”

T: “Oh, brother.”

No kidding. If Obama wants advice, I suggest he avoids reading the back of Nuevo Mexican vehicles. Listening to Karl Rove, however, is another matter entirely. I know the Democrats recoiled when Rove offered his suggestions, and I can’t say I blame them. It is slightly suspicious, if you believe in the V.R.W.C. (uh, that would be “vast right wing conspiracy”), that everyone on the right is suddenly giving the Senator from Illinois such helpful hints. As a member of the V.R.W.C., I can say with all honesty that this is no conspiracy. Really – we Republicans are just trying to help the brutha out.

Why? Because it’s just so frustrating seeing him squander so many opportunities. Pretend for a moment the advice isn’t from Rove. In a nutshell:

“First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.

Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise…

Second, focus on the fact that many Democrats have real doubts about Hillary. They worry she cannot win, will be a drag on the ticket and that if she got to the White House it would be a disaster…

Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand…

Fourth, when you disagree with her be clear about what you believe. You cannot afford more garbled responses like the one you gave in Las Vegas on drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens. Answer yes or no. Do not give voters evidence you are as calculating as her.

Fifth, you need to do a better job explaining what kind of change you represent. The change theme is a good one…

Sixth, find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on… So blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim. Do it with humor and a smile and it will sting even more.”

The reason it seems like everyone’s echoing Rove’s advice is because they know he’s right. We’ve all known Obamas and we know the type. Ineffectual because he’s so non-confrontational. It’s true that he avoids looking at her and it does seem like he’s afraid of her (uh, he should be), but it makes him look so anemic. Be bold! Like Rove says, do it with humor and a smile and no one will think you’ve sunk to her level.

I know it’s sacrilege, if you’re a Democrat, to attack Hillary’s husband, but I would just love to see a candidate – even if it’s Obama – challenge her for once on her feminism. I mean, consider the irony of it all. How can Hillary call herself a feminist and pretend to represent women when her husband’s administration — for all intents and purposes — killed The Movement? I mean, even I used to call myself a feminist, but since the Nineties I’ve practically omitted the word from my vocabulary. I just don’t want to be associated with all those conflicted female Clinton apologists.

But seriously, Rove is dead-on with his assessment and it’s good advice for all the candidates – Democrat and Republican. In fact, it’s especially good advice for the Republicans. Key words: “Visible” and “Vocal.” When Rove says it, take note. It should apply to Bush, Cheney, and anyone else who’s trying to get a message out there. The Democrats have no trouble whatsoever being visible and vocal, so the other side is really going to need to crank up the volume. Again, be bold! I mean, if you really think you’re going to get shellacked in ‘08, what have you got to lose?

And speaking of Rove, I did manage to catch his appearance on FNS with Chris Wallace and Chris Van Hollen. A spirited little debate, no? Hey — why doesn’t someone at FNC offer Rove more visibility? Say, his own show, maybe? As for time slot… uh, what time is Matthews on over at MSNBC?

One of the most delightful things about this holiday was the gloomy weather. I stayed inside, brewed big cups of hot tea, and had four solid days of C-SPAN 2 — Book TV. Sam Tanenhaus had been taped at AEI in Washington and I tuned in for his lecture: “George W. Bush and the Future of Conservatism.” One question: Has Tanenhaus read every book ever written? I know that would be impossible, but he does such a good job of convincing us he’s at least leafed through them all.

But I digress. He was making the point that, in many ways, President Bush could easily be compared to LBJ. Picture a rough-around-the-edges Texan assuming office after someone so smooth-talking and glamorous. (Tanenhaus uses the word “élan” and you get the picture.) Sure, Bill Clinton idolized Kennedy and comparisons have been drawn. Tanenhaus, whether you agree with him or not, deserves credit for supporting his case and support it he does.

So if we had Kennedy, then Johnson, and Tanenhaus compares this to Clinton, then Bush, who would be next in line? In other words, who’s the most Nixonian candidate in the race? It starts to make sense, doesn’t it? How often was the Clinton administration compared to Nixon’s? How many parallels were drawn? How many coincidences?

So if Hillary follows Bush… is there another impeachment in our future? A resignation, perhaps? Then who would be the VP assuming the office? If there’s anything to this repeat pattern we’d need a Ford. Mind you, all this was spinning in my head when I walked down to the mailbox and found my new dead-tree issue of National Review. The one with Barack Obama on the cover, described as “The New Jimmy Carter.”

I’ve seen the future… and I’ve already lived it.