A Christian Nation?

Nathan Tabor is uncomfortable with President Obama stating that this isn't just a Christian Nation. To be fair many Conservatives aren't. But in his latest article he takes it a step further.

He did away with the annual National Day of Prayer on which the White House traditionally hosted a service in its East Room. When a reporter asked Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs about Obama's decision, Gibbs replied, "Prayer is something that the president does everyday."

Lets pause here to note some minor dishonesty. Tabor makes it sound like this is something totally new; while President Bush 43 did hold a ceremony every year, President Clinton didn't hold any and President's Reagen and Bush 41 held one ceremony apiece during their tenures.

However, in the midst of a war against radical Islam and his push to takeover health care, President Obama found time to hold a White House dinner honoring the Muslim holiday of Ramadan Kareem. And the guest list did not only include Muslims. Many Washington elites attended the ceremony including some Republicans such as Senator Richard Lugar.

This is a bit like complaining about the President noting any non-Christian holiday, except that, of course, we are apparently at war with Islam. No wait, "Radical Islam." I'll note parenthetically that of course a white house dinner isn't just for Muslims, because presumably the President will attend and he isn't a Muslim.

All Real Christians have the Right Opinion on Abortion

I'm tired of writing this post already.

Nathan Tabor, in his latest article, writes that Liberals who are running for President claim to be religious but really aren't.

Earley recognizes the ideological disconnect which occurs when candidates speak solemnly about religious faith, then flock to Planned Parenthood events to announce their unbridled support for abortion on demand.

"It’s difficult to imagine positions more at odds with the motivations of the very evangelical voters they’re trying to court,” Earley said. “Protecting the lives of unborn children has been the cornerstone of politically active Christians for the past thirty years.”

Of course there are two offensive implications here.

1. Democrat Faith is simply a stance taken for political gain.

2. All real Christians are opposed to legal abortion.

There's no room in Tabor's religion for a Christian who wants Abortion to be "Safe, Legal and Rare."

I also note that people who want abortion to remain legal are "radicals." Since they make up some 77% of the population (according to Wikipedia and a poll in 2003), this is some new definition of the term radical.

See I Told You So

Not that this is a shocking revelation, but many Conservatives don't think Rudy Guiliani is all that Conservative. And Nathan Tabor in his latest article explains why.

For one thing, he lacks authentic conservative credentials. While Giuliani can claim that he would appoint a Roberts- or Alito-type to the U.S. Supreme Court, he’s pro-abortion. That means he’s beholden to the abortion faction in our nation—a faction that believes partial-birth abortion should be considered in the same light as gum surgery. Once Republicans regain control of Congress, it’s tough to imagine Giuliani signing legislation that would offer any sort of protection to unborn children.

In addition, Giuliani is not in a position to defend family values, given his history of defending special rights for people who actively engage in a homosexual lifestyle.

. . . Is Giuliani the most liberal candidate running for the White House? Hillary and Barack could certainly give him a run for his liberal money. But the hero of 9/11 is no conservative, and it would be a mistake for the mainstream media to count out conservatives this Presidential election season—even if it would cause them trouble meeting their deadlines.

So there you go - Conservatives are going to want a Conservative candidate - not very surprising. And Giuliani isn't it (neither is McCain). Kind of leaves the field wide open for Gingrich should he step in. And I would be enormously surprised if he doesn't.

The Importance of Being Lieberman

Conservatives are baffled by Liberal dislike of Senator Joe Lieberman. After all he makes it his business to support Republican policies pretty much at every turn; what's not to like in a guy like that?

Well, speaking as a Liberal, I think I would prefer someone who supports Liberal programs and opposes Conservative ones. Lieberman's convictions might be very deeply felt and he might be noble for following them. But if his convictions lead him to supporting President Bush and his neo-conservative agenda again and again, than I'd just as soon not have him in power.

Duh.

But apparently this is a cause of moral decay in the Democratic party, as pointed out by Nathan Tabor.

There was a time when statesmen spoke of ending partisan bickering in Washington . . . of working past party differences in order to govern the nation in a spirit of unity and teamwork. But Democracy for America wants no part of that. The organization's leaders want all discord-all the time. If the President says "yes," they want Democratic members of Congress to say "no"-apparently, no matter what the issue.

And the irony here is that Democracy for America is adopting policy stands which, if put up for a democratic vote of the people, would probably lose hands-down.

This organization is clearly misnamed. It should be referred to as Liberals for America. Or make that Liberals against the American President. Democrats who veer from the radical liberal line and dare to say a kind word for a Republican President need not apply for any political post-even if they do have a winning record.

Sounds all fine and noble doesn't it? Poor Lieberman - just trying to get along in a statesmanlike way. Why don't we appreciate all of his hard work? I mean bending over backwards so regularly is hard on your back.

But there's the rub. Compromise with Republicans means doing what the Republicans want. Bush isn't interested in compromising with Democrats but he's pretty happy when sell out Democrats want to compromise with him.

I also don't think Mr. Tabor understand the whole point to a primary. Or I don't know which people he is talking about whom he claims that Democracy for America is offending. The people of Connecticut? The Democratic Party members? Or Americans in general? And how does Mr. Tabor know what these people want?

It strikes me we might find out by letting them all vote in, say, a primary election. And then we might know what they want, instead of going on this conjecture.