Job One

When I was growing up, I remember my father telling me he believed the best thing about America was that the right person always came along to provide the leadership the nation needed at the time it needed it.

Dad isn't a classic historian. He taught religion and philosophy at one of the local colleges (there were three) in my rather small hometown so, certainly, biblical history was part of his courses. And he did study history in general to a certain extent — and on certain sub–topics that were of interest to him — but he has never been the go–to guy to put things into historical perspective.

Nevertheless, I had to admit that he was right. America's had its share of incompetent leaders in the last two centuries, but, when the chips have really been down, usually someone steps forward — Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts — to keep the country from veering too far off the path.

Kind of smacks of predestination or manifest destiny, doesn't it? Well, maybe it is a variation on the theme of American exceptionalism, but I think that, given our history, Americans have earned the right to see themselves as exceptional.

You can always find scabs to pick at in American history. This nation isn't perfect. It is a work in progress. We acknowledged that from the beginning, yet we asserted our exceptionalism, in the preamble to the Constitution, when we spoke of seeking to be a more perfect Union.

(Barack Obama used this phrase himself in a speech during the 2008 campaign. You may remember it. It was given amid the controversy brought on by Rev. Jeremiah Wright's infamous "God damn America" remarks.)

It is a nation that was founded on faith. Even if a person has no real religious faith, most Americans do have faith in their country and the concept of limitless opportunity here. We have tried — not always successfully but we have tried — to change those things about ourselves that are contrary to our lofty self–image.

That faith has been severely challenged in the last four or five years by an economic crisis unlike any since the Great Depression. For a president who was elected on the strength of voters' belief in hope and change, it can be staggering when you talk to those who have completely given up hope during his tenure.

Their ranks are likely to swell, I am afraid, with today's jobs report. The economy did add 163,000 jobs in July, and the average monthly jobs gain in 2012 has been 151,000, which is adequate to keep up with population growth, observes Christopher Rugaber of the Associated Press, but it isn't enough to bring unemployment down.

And that was really Obama's mission when he was elected. He made a lot of other promises to a lot of other groups, but the economy and joblessness were the two dark clouds that hung over the Republican–held White House and truly made it possible for a black man with limited political experience to be elected president by an electoral vote landslide.

Until that implosion, the race was neck and neck. Many Democrats openly wondered if Obama had made a mistake in picking Joe Biden as his running mate. Hillary Clinton would have united the party, many said.

The economy's implosion was a very recent development when voters went to the polls in November 2008. It certainly wasn't the reason that either Obama or John McCain got into the race to begin with, but righting the economic ship had become the #1 concern that September.

That hasn't happened, and a recent Gallup poll shows voters want the next president to make the economy and job creation his top — if not sole — priority.

Indeed,through most of Obama's presidency, poll after poll has indicated that it is still voters' top concern. But good news from the Labor Department has been rare. In fact, the unemployment rate went up — to 8.3% — in today's report.

Which puts the president in a position — historically — that makes his re–election prospects seem weaker each day.

With about three months left before the election, Barack Obama faces some pretty steep historical mountains to climb — and not much time to conquer them.

The most ominous is the fact that, when the unemployment rate has been 7% or higher on Election Day, practically no incumbent presidents have won. Ronald Reagan, in 1984, was an exception, but Reagan had a steadily improving economy working in his favor. Obama doesn't have that.

Conventional wisdom also holds that, if a president's approval ratings are below 50% on Election Day, that president is toast. This president, who entered office with three of every five Americans approving (when, technically, there was nothing to approve), hasn't received the consistent approval of a majority of respondents in more than a year.

Recent polls show Obama's approval in the 40s, and today's jobs report isn't likely to help.

Another rule of thumb is that right track/wrong track question that pollsters ask. Essentially, voters are asked if they think the country is on the right track or the wrong track. When the majority say the wrong track, that isn't a good sign for the incumbent.

The latest poll results I have seen on that question were reported by Rasmussen Reports. Only 29% of respondents said the country was heading in the right direction.

(The good news in that for Obama is that the number is up from this time last year, when only 14% believed the country was going in the right direction.)

Rasmussen's figure is a little lower than the others I have seen, which are typically in the 30–36% range, but even the most positive of them has no good news for the administration.

The other truism of American politics has to do with personal income. People vote their wallets. I have always believed it is the reason why Reagan's question at the end of his debate with Jimmy Carter — "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" — resonated the way it did.

Personal income is a little harder to boil down into easily digestible numbers, like the unemployment rate, presidential job approval and right track/wrong track, but the Commerce Department reported recently that personal income was up modestly in June. A troubling side note was the decline in personal spending; in a consumer–based economy, that is definitely not a good sign.

Those four historical factors — frequently cited by historians, pollsters and political scientists as the most reliable predictors of an election's outcome — are all working against the incumbent.

And it doesn't seem likely to me that he can reverse those trends in three months.

Mom's Milestone

---

---

Today would have been a milestone for my mother — if she had not died in a flash flood 16 years ago.

Today would have been her 80th birthday — and, if nature had not intervened, I am quite sure she would still be with us today.

I can't know a thing like that, of course. But I know the family history, and I know what Mom's health was like on the day she drowned. At the time she died, I believed she could have been with us for another 20 years, at least, and I still believe that today.

Anything else could have happened in the last 16 years, though. Family history isn't infallible. Mom's father died of a heart attack in his sleep when he was 70. The same thing could have happened to her.

But my grandmother outlived my grandfather by nearly 20 years — even though the quality of the last 10 years of her life is debatable. She suffered increasingly from dementia, and I know that Mom feared a similar fate.

She never said so, but she didn't have to.

Mom was a first–grade teacher. At times, it seemed to me that she drew energy from the 6– and 7–year–olds in her classroom. They kept her young, and I realized, after she died, that a significant part of her was afraid of ending up like my grandmother, unable to recognize those who came to see her, unable even to communicate in her final years.

Funny thing — when Mom died, she was the subject of several newspaper articles because she had been recognized for her classroom innovations. Someone (and I can't remember now whether it was an administrator or another teacher or a parent who said this) was quoted as saying Mom was "everyone's favorite grandmother."

I had trouble seeing her as a grandmother. Mom was a free and independent spirit. She also had a childlike fascination with things that I'm sure made her popular with the children who spent their first year in elementary school in her classroom. It permeated her life — and I never realized that until after she died.

I remember one day when I was sorting through my mother's belongings following her death. My father walked into the room while I was looking at a special vest Mom wore on an excursion to St. Louis with some of her colleagues. The vest was covered in buttons she got at a Cardinals baseball game.

One button was equipped with a music player. When you pressed it, it played "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." I pressed it, listened to it, looked up and saw my father, who had entered the room without my notice. He smiled. "Your mother was a child," he said, turned and walked out of the room.

Yes, she was. Maybe that was what made her such a great mother — and a great teacher (and, by extension, everyone's favorite grandmother). Above all other things, my memory is that it was fun having her for my mom. She made everything an adventure. I'm sure it was that way for the children in her classroom.

I am about to begin my second year of adjunct teaching in the local community college, and I am trying to apply things she taught me in my classroom. It is a work in progress.

After she died, a family friend sought to comfort my brother and me by observing that Mom "went out at the top of her game."

At that time and under those circumstances, it simply wasn't possible for me to be comforted by that thought — I didn't want her to be gone, still don't, and no thoughts that indicated an acceptance of the new reality could be tolerated — but I have drawn some comfort from it since.

I wish Mom was still with us, but if she was spared her mother's fate, then I am thankful for that.

You see, I understand now, in a way that I really didn't before, that no one lives forever. Oh, I said things like that, but it was more of an expression for me, I guess. I didn't really think about the truth of those words or however subtly they might be influencing me (sort of like the Pledge of Allegiance I dutifully recited each morning as a child). I do now.

I understand that, while no one really wants to die (probably because none of us can be absolutely sure what happens when we die — we may think that we know, but no one who is living can really know), it's going to happen to all of us. I can't imagine what that will be like, but I've concluded that there would be no advantage in living forever — not even if one could strike some sort of deal and be sure never to age or lose one's mobility.

Since such a Faustian arrangement is not possible — at least as far as I know — I would rather not linger past the time that all my contemporaries have gone. I would rather be taken when I am still alert and capable — and the people I leave behind believe there were still things I didn't do that I should have done before I died — than to overstay my welcome and die long after my quality of life began to decline.

Whichever it turns out to be, I would just prefer that my death wouldn't be an excessively painful or lingering one. I don't even have to know it's happening. My grandfather died in his sleep — wouldn't any of us choose that over being conscious?

Mom's quality of life definitely did not decline — and I can only hope that she did not experience too much pain. But that is something I will never know.

---

---

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Mom's sense of humor. It was different, but I really miss it.

Mom had a great knack for laughing at herself.

When I was a child, she used to make a beef–noodle casserole that was absolutely delicious. As far as I could see, it was perfect. Mom used to rave about how easy it was to prepare, and I don't exaggerate when I say it was one of my favorite dishes. I actually looked forward to evening meals when I knew it was on the menu.

She served it once when some friends came over, and they went wild, insisting that Mom give them the recipe. She promised that she would.

Never one to put off such things, Mom typed the recipe on an index card the very next day and passed it along to her friend while she was out running errands.

(Now, when I say "typed," I mean that — literally. It was long before personal computers and word processors with spell checkers or any of that other stuff. Mom used a typewriter — and it was the old–fashioned, manual kind, too.)

Mom didn't proofread the card first, and it turned out she had typed an o instead of an e in the word "noodle" in the title of the recipe (which was something very basic, like "Beef–Noodle Casserole," but, with the typo, it read "Beef–Noodlo Casserole").

Someone noticed the typo and remarked that the dish was "Goodloe's Noodle–ohs." Mom liked that. We ate it at least once a week every week — and we called it "Goodloe's Noodle–ohs" for about as long as I can remember.

It became kind of a family joke. I can remember having friends over to spend the night, and I would ask Mom what we were having for dinner. She would reply "Goodloe's Noodle–ohs," seemingly oblivious to the fact there was a guest in the house who wasn't familiar with the joke.

Mom also liked to joke about what she called the "Goodloe luck." It was sort of a family variation on Murphy's law. I'm not sure if she originated it or not — or if perhaps my father played a role — but if something went wrong, we were sure to hear the "Goodloe luck" mentioned.

The photo of Mom sitting in our foldout camper was taken on the occasion of my favorite example of the "Goodloe luck." We had driven from Dallas to South Padre Island during the Christmas holidays — about an 11– or 12–hour drive, as I recall. It was something we had done — without incident — the year before, and the entire family was looking forward to some sand, surf and fresh seafood.

The picture that shows Mom smiling and laughing in our camper was taken about an hour after our arrival. The weather was gorgeous, and everyone was in a jovial mood. But, during the night, a storm front moved in, and we spent the next couple of days huddled around that small table, eating modest meals and playing card games while wind and rain pounded the tiny trailer outside.

Finally, my parents decided that we had had enough, and we left on the third day. We took down our camper in a pouring rain and began the long drive back to my grandmother's home in Dallas. On the way, we heard on the radio that the storm was the worst to strike the area in decades. Boats were missing at sea.

That, my parents agreed, was the "Goodloe luck."

I guess the most extreme example of the "Goodloe luck" was the flash flood that took Mom's life. But that would be a real misnomer. There was nothing lucky about that night.

Well, anyway, today would have been her birthday. It isn't the anniversary of her death. It's an appropriate time to remember who she was, not how she died.

I can't help feeling somewhat wistful on this day. I think of the world that existed on the day Mom died and the world that exists today, and I can't help wishing she had lived to see some of the things I have seen.

The flip side of that, of course, is that I'm glad she was spared some of the things that have happened since her death — so I suppose it is something of a tradeoff, as it is in every life, be it wealthy or privileged or longer than most.

In the great scheme of things, I guess one life is pretty much the same as the next. Some are longer than others. Some are more accomplished.

Religious people often speak of "God's will" and his "plan." I guess it is the only way some people can make sense of the irrational. There must be a reason why terrible things happen. We just aren't smart enough to figure it out.

I guess it's comforting, in a way, to believe that things that appear to make no sense — like the deaths of children — really do have a purpose. And some people believe the purposes for all things will be revealed to us when we die.

But some people will tell you that, whatever the reasons for these things may be, those reasons are God's, not man's — and God is under no obligation to explain himself.

So life continues to be, as it has always been, unfair. Some lives end far too early while others go on for a century or more, and there is no justification for it. Some lives are harder than most while others are easier, and there is no obvious justification for that, either.

I don't think I ever discussed this with Mom during her life. I know she believed in God, but I don't know what her conclusions were about the inequities of life.

Mom's life could have been longer than it was. Perhaps it could have been more accomplished.

But today, I want to remember Mom's life, and I want to do something to mark the occasion. Today is Saturday, and I'm going to the cemetery.

Maybe it seems odd to say that, but it isn't. Not really. In the years since Mom's death, the cemetery is the only place where I can feel close to her. I don't know if it is her "spirit" or not. I just know that is the way it is.

I used to go there every year on the anniversary of her death. I preferred going to the cemetery in May over going there in August, even though going there in May always seemed like more of an observance of her death than her life. It's always hot here in August — and it has been especially hot this summer.

But, since this would have been a milestone birthday for Mom, I will brave the elements, however severe they may be, and pay a visit in the morning hours. I'll keep it short, though. Classes at the community college begin next week, and I have last–minute preparations to make.

Mom would have understood.

Thanksgiving Thoughts

---

"God only knows that we can do,
No more or less than he'll allow.
Well God only knows that we mean well
And God knows that we just don't know how."

Joe Henry

---

Thursday was Thanksgiving, a holiday that has always been special to me.

I suppose that is because I actually was born on Thanksgiving. When one is born on a holiday, I guess that holiday always holds a unique significance.

(On at least one occasion, an old friend of mine who died a few months ago was asked her favorite number. She said her favorite number was 16, the number of her birth date.

(She said it is hard not to like the number of the day you were born, and I guess that's true. I never really thought of it that way before.

(Using similar logic, I guess, it's hard not to feel partial to a holiday on which one is born. And, while I have never discussed this with my brother, my guess is that he feels the same way. He was born the day after New Year's Day.)

Well, my situation is unusual, I suppose. It wasn't Thanksgiving where I was born. You see, my parents were Methodist missionaries in Africa at the time of my birth. They were always American citizens, though, and back in America, my grandparents were observing the Thanksgiving holiday, probably with their friends.

I don't know if my parents had planned to observe the holiday with their American friends (I don't even know if traditional Thanksgiving foods were available at that time in that part of the world). I don't think I was due for another two or three weeks so it's possible that they had plans, but, if they did, I disrupted them. Clearly, my mother was in the hospital that day, and I guess my father was sitting in the waiting room.

No one ever told me the story of how that day unfolded, but I think it is safe to assume that neither of my parents ate any turkey and stuffing that Thanksgiving.

In spite of the fact that I was born on Thanksgiving, I've always had mixed feelings about it. I like the concept of being grateful for what you have, but that begs the question of "Grateful to whom? Grateful to what?"

I mean, does the very act of setting aside a day to express gratitude for what you have necessarily imply faith in a higher power?

For some, I suppose the answer is "yes" — albeit an indirect confirmation. As Meister Eckhart, a theologian from the Middle Ages, said, "If the only prayer we ever said was 'Thank you,' that would be sufficient."

For such people, the very act of being thankful is an acknowledgment of faith.

But doesn't that suggest that you are being rewarded for doing the things you are expected to do? And, if that is true, then the whole God–man relationship, from early times to the present day, is founded in a kind of performance–based agreement, kind of like the incentive bonuses that some pro athletes have written into their contracts.

It's the kind of thing I can equate to my own life.

As a child, I was always eager to please my elders so I tried to do the things they wanted me to do. I took certain classes because they were recommended to me. I participated in certain activities because they were recommended to me.

I went to college and graduate school for much the same reason, I suppose. There was more to it, of course, but it definitely played a role. When I look back on it now, I wonder if I did so with certain expectations of the outcome, that each of the "right" things that I did made the ultimate payoff more secure.

I guess I'm not so different from most people, even if I was born on Thanksgiving. I'm a seeker, a questioner, a doubter, a skeptic. That may be part of the reason I gravitated to journalism.

Then, again, it was hard not to be a seeker, a questioner, a doubter, a skeptic if you grew up when I did. It always seemed like those who were in charge were lying to the rest of us — Lyndon Johnson lied about Vietnam, Richard Nixon lied about Watergate and so on.

It was hard to know who or what to believe so I turned to my elders. I put my trust in them, and they told me to trust God.

I was brought up to believe in God, to believe in Jesus, to believe the Bible. But, in my experience, most of the people who were brought up that way went through their moments of doubt and pain as well.

Some of the people I knew when I was growing up lost their faith along the way. I still want to believe the things I was told when I was young are true. But many of the things I have seen contradict that, especially lately.

This isn't a new crisis for me. It wasn't brought on by Phyllis' death. Phyllis' death merely contributed to a pre–existing condition. She always seemed to understand things I don't understand.

Phyllis never lost her faith in God, and she suffered in her last years, which came far too early. There are many things about that experience that I don't understand. What was the purpose behind it?

When I was a child, I was told there was a purpose behind everything, a reason for every life. But I struggle when I look for the purpose.

Several friends have died this year. I expect that, of course. But the last few years have been brutal — this year in particular. Before Phyllis died, two of my friends killed themselves, and others (of varying ages) died of other causes.

And I have been without full–time employment for more than two years. I am doing some part–time teaching at the local community college, and I guess I am thankful for that this Thanksgiving. But it doesn't pay much.

There is still much uncertainty, a lot more than I ever dreamed there would be back when I thought I was doing all the right things to make my future a bright one.

I'm probably not the only one who has thought that, if there is a God and he really does have a master plan, this would be a good time for him to let me in on it — or at least let me in on enough of it to know things are moving in the right direction.

Things have been a bit chaotic for me in recent years.

A Season of Loss

---

"To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven."

Ecclesiastes 3:1

---

The last couple of years have amounted to one long season of loss. Frankly, it's wearing me down.

I've been through this kind of thing before, although not quite as extensively as lately. It's been getting to the point where I'm almost hesitant to check my e–mail for fear there will be word that someone else I know has died.

Let me backtrack a little here. I was raised in the South.

And, if you were raised in the South, there are times when — regardless of what your personal religious beliefs may be — a quotation from the Bible is the only appropriate answer to the complicated question of why bad things happen to good people.

For me today, the above quote from Ecclesiastes — which was more popularly known when I was a boy as a line from a song by the Byrds — is the one that keeps coming to mind.

Yesterday, I received an e–mail from one of my high school classmates reporting that the son of another classmate had been killed in a car accident.

I have written of this classmate before, most recently last February after his father, a man known as "Justice Jim" Johnson, committed suicide.

Justice Jim, as I mentioned at that time, was something of a notorious segregationist politician when I was a child. He also lived just down the road from my family, and I spent many afternoons playing with his twin sons, who were my age.

---

I found this undated photo of David's twin brother
Danny (left) with their father, Justice Jim (right),
and Danny's daughter at some sort of school dinner.

---

Few people outside my own family have known me as long as David Johnson and his twin brother, Danny. When their father killed himself about five months ago, I found myself frequently thinking about my childhood and pondering the bizarre twists and turns of life — the randomness of it all.

I reflected a great deal on myself as a child, and I pondered what I might tell that child if I could go back in time and talk to him. But the well was dry. What could I tell him? I know I had no idea what the future held. Not even a clue. No one does, really, even those whose lives seem to have been pre–ordained. What wisdom would I share with him that might make his life easier?

I had a general idea of what I wanted to do, of course, what I wanted to study in college and all that. But, in spite of my plans and expectations, life has, at times, taken me in totally unexpected directions. It is at such times, I suppose, that I am reminded of how little I really do control.

"Life is what happens to you," said John Lennon, "while you're busy making other plans."

That's OK, I guess. I'm a journalist, by training, experience and inclination, and it can be difficult for a journalist to be in the dark, to not know all the facts, but journalists learn to live with imperfections like that. However, in the last couple of years, it seems like darn near everything is out of control. And there are many times when that is a little too imperfect for me.

I don't know the details of the accident that took the life of David's son, but to be 21 years old and (presumably) healthy and then to die in a car accident seems — to me, anyway — to be perhaps the most random way a person could die.

And the pain of losing your father and your child within a matter of months is something I cannot begin to imagine.

I've never been a fan of Garth Brooks, but he might be on to something when he sings that our lives are better left to chance.

Is there anything good to be found in this? I'd like to think so — for my friend's sake — and for my own peace of mind as well.

As I say, I've experienced seasons of loss in my life, and the one through which I have been living lately often seems as if it will never end. Such seasons have come and gone. In short order, bad times have been followed by good times in the natural ebb and flow of the human existence.

But lately the bad times seem to last longer than they did, and the good times are fewer and farther between. Is that just a normal function of aging?

Or has it been worse in the last couple of years because everything else seems to be so screwed up? You know what I mean — the avalanche effect.

I don't know why the Ecclesiastes quotation keeps running through my mind — unless it is because of the dual message it offers. Yes, it acknowledges that time is short — that, in the words of another popular song, it's later than you think.

But, rather than urge readers to enjoy themselves, Ecclesiastes offers the assurance that there is an appointed time for everything. In hindsight, that time may seem very short, and you may be denied the satisfaction of seeing your goal(s) fulfilled. But if one has faith, it seems to me, one must believe that, in some way, every life — no matter how brief it may be — makes a contribution.

My faith isn't always as strong as I'd like it to be, but I would like to believe that.

God and Politics, 2008 Style

As North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole's beleaguered re-election campaign has chosen to raise the specter of God in the waning days of the campaign, I decided to pay a long-overdue visit to the God-o-Meter, belief.net's ranking of each candidate's faith.

It's been months since I visited the "God-o-Meter," but it appears to give Barack Obama a higher rating on religious issues than it gives John McCain.

It also had immediate reflections on the "godless" campaign commercial the Dole campaign has used recently.

Dan Gilgoff writes for the God-o-Meter that the rapid response ad produced by the campaign for Kay Hagan, Dole's opponent, "is a very post-2004 way for a Democrat to respond to a faith-based attack: quickly responding to the attack head-on and testifying unabashedly about one's faith commitment."

Hagan's tactic, Gilgoff says, is "a very 'Obama' way to respond to a faith-based attack, as opposed to the 'Kerry' way of responding: wringing one's hands and marrying each public pronouncement about one's faith to a reaffirmation of support for the complete separation of church and state."

As for Dole, Gilgoff observes, her commercial "is a stark reminder that faith-based attacks have been kept to a relative minimum in the presidential race."

Gilgoff goes on to point out that McCain has not used religion as a wedge issue in this campaign, not even using Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright to "skewer him for cozying up to a man of the cloth."

Although many voters have welcomed the de-emphasis of religion in the political debate, Gilgoff appears to draw the conclusion that refraining from "faith-based attacks" will cost McCain the election.

And he warns that could be the lesson Republicans take into the next presidential election cycle.

"[I]f [Sarah] Palin, Mike Huckabee, or another social conservative gets the nod in 2012, due to a post-McCain religious right uprising, we could be looking at more faith-based attacks at the presidential level," he writes.

Heaven forbid.

A Pastoral Symphony

Nothing would please me more than to see this national discussion about religion and pastors come to a merciful conclusion. Soon.

And, in the future, I'm going to do what I can to avoid mentioning the subject here.

But Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times should be read by everyone. It doesn't matter if you support Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or you're undecided.

The column, headlined "The All-White Elephant in the Room," observes that not just Obama's pastor has been guilty of "clerical jive."

Rich points out that a "a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee," who endorsed McCain's candidacy when former Baptist minister Mike Huckabee was still in the race, has made several "outrageous statements" -- including the assertion that "God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins.”

(If Hagee was correct and the hurricane was God's punishment, that punishment was aided by the Bush administration's feeble response to the emergency.)

And, as Rich further observes, Hagee made this statement more than once.

McCain, as Rich says, claims he does not agree with Hagee, just as Obama says he does not agree with his former pastor. The distinction between McCain and Obama, Rich says, "boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church."

That's true. But it's also true, as Rich mentions, that the case for this distinction is "thin," to say the least.

"That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement," Rich says. "In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptive 'holy war' with Iran."

Rich goes on to point out that McCain said, two weeks ago, that "while he condemns any 'anti-anything' remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still 'glad to have his endorsement.'"

And, in what is perhaps a more telling observation about McCain, faith, and (as Rich calls them) "wacky white preachers," Rich writes that "virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens 'coming home to roost.'

"That would be the Sept. 13, 2001, televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and ACLU lawyers. ... Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers 'agents of intolerance' and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006."

Rich acknowledges that "[i]t is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over.

"But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates -- and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them -- we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick."

If Obama wins the nomination, it is essential that he make that argument in the campaign against McCain.

If he fails to do so, he is, indeed, too naive to be president (more naive than John Kerry was in failing to adequately respond to the swift boat attacks four years ago) and will be deserving of the defeat that awaits him.

The Relevance of Religion

When a voter is being asked to vote in a presidential primary, and one of the candidates doesn't have much experience and wants voters to assess his judgment as a yardstick for his potential, is it fair game to evaluate the organizations to which he has belonged (such as his church) and the people who have been in leadership roles in those organizations (such as his pastor)?

These are, after all, the organizations he has chosen to join and the people he has chosen to follow.

So I think the answer to that is yes -- to a certain extent.

Personally, I don't care where a candidate goes to church -- or if the candidate goes to church at all. I think that is the candidate's business, not mine.

I must admit, though, that I do like to know that a candidate for president is committed to something he/she believes in -- besides obtaining and holding on to power. But I don't want to be told that a candidate believes in something. I want to see evidence of it.

In matters of faith, it's easy for politicians to deceive the voters.

In the final two seasons of The West Wing, Alan Alda played a moderate Republican running for president. His character had been through a crisis of faith when his wife died, and he had not been to church since -- except for weddings and funerals.

Alda's character's church habits became an issue in the campaign, and he was finally forced to hold a press conference to defend his right not to attend church. In so doing, he spoke of how easy it is for a politician to lie about his faith. "It's the easiest lie they'll ever tell," he said. And he was right.

In this country, people like to talk about the separation of church and state, but as I've pointed out before, that has never really existed in the United States.

There is no state religion in this country, except to say that Christianity is the prevailing faith. That's just the way it is -- the same way that English is the primary language. It's not mandated by law. It's simply a fact. It has its roots in the settlers who came to the New World 400 years ago.

And, while Protestants and Catholics tend to live in harmony in this country, Catholics have only recently (in the last 50 years) been capable of receiving enough votes to win a national election.

And John F. Kennedy had to address the issue of his Catholicism head-on before being elected -- narrowly -- in 1960. No Catholic has been elected president since then -- unless you count Ronald Reagan, who had Catholic ancestry but wasn't a practicing Catholic.

Sometimes, the religion factor isn't what some voters would prefer. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower had no formal affiliation with any church before he became president in 1953. He was baptized, confirmed, and became a communicant in the Presbyterian church less than two weeks after his first inauguration.

Some of our presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, had no religious affiliation. Does that mean they didn't believe in God? No. There seems to be some disagreement among scholars about Lincoln's faith in Christ, but he seems to have had a belief in God -- for most of his life, at least.

And religion continues to be a factor in national politics.

Jimmy Carter's "born again" religion was an issue -- for a time -- during the 1976 campaign.

Mitt Romney had to speak in defense of Mormonism a few months ago.

And today, Barack Obama is trying to deal with issues raised by his relationship with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

In my "heart of hearts," as the saying goes, I don't think that what a minister (who isn't running for the presidency) says has very much to do with what someone who is running for president will do if elected.

In this case, Obama has been running for president with only a few years experience in national politics and policymaking. So he has been asking voters to assess him on the quality of his judgment.

Based on that, I think it is just as fair to question his relationship with his pastor as it was for reporters to accept Gary Hart's challenge to them to catch him in the act of being unfaithful to his wife 20 years ago.

You could argue -- as some people did -- that Hart's infidelity had no bearing on the kind of president he would be. Just as some people argue today that what Rev. Wright says doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the kind of president Obama would be.

In Hart's case, his infidelity went to (pardon the pun) the heart of his campaign. Questions had been raised about his honesty, integrity, trustworthiness. When reporters caught him in an extramarital affair (after they had been dared to follow Hart), it confirmed a lot of suspicions voters had about him. It reflected poorly on the argument he made for being nominated for president.

Obama is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. His relationship with Rev. Wright reflects on the quality of his judgment, the same as his remark about "bitter" voters clinging to guns and religion (two of the sacred cows -- so to speak -- of American politics) and his appearance at William Ayers' home in Obama's 1995 campaign for the state senate did.

When one enters the race for the presidency, one enters the "big time." If one is not prepared to be scrutinized, one does not need to enter the presidential arena.

Obama could run for the Senate and encounter far less scrutiny three years ago. The scrutiny level was even lower when his campaigns were for a seat in the Illinois state legislature. The typical voter does not feel it is necessary to know everything there is to know about the candidates for the state senate -- or even the U.S. Senate.

But voters feel they need to know everything there is to know about those candidates who seek to be president.

Voters get to evaluate candidates by any means they wish. Candidates do not get to choose how they are evaluated, but they certainly should know that voters tend to use a candidate's political record and political statements in making their decision.

And voters may focus on seemingly irrelevant factors because they want to know as much as possible about a candidate, about how he/she thinks, about what he/she believes, before trusting him/her with the most important office in the land.

One of the things voters want to know is whether they can believe what a candidate says. When that candidate is trying to sell his/her judgment as the reason for being elected, a candidate's truthfulness is particularly important. And voters are going to use all sorts of methods to evaluate the candidate's truthfulness.

In this campaign, Kennedy's name has been mentioned frequently. Kennedy also had to sell the public on his judgment -- his opponent, as vice president under a popular president, had the advantage of semi-incumbency, even though his tenure in Washington was no longer than Kennedy's. And, when things backfired on Kennedy, as they did during the Bay of Pigs invasion, he had to be candid with the public.

He had to admit that his judgment had been faulty.

These days, it's the judgment of Obama that is being questioned. And, whatever mental image one has of Obama, the reality is that he is a politician. And he hasn't shown much hesitation to throw his inconvenient associates -- William Ayers, Tony Resko, Jeremiah Wright -- under the bus in order to further his political goals.

A lot of people are writing about Obama and Wright these days. The longer the questions linger, the longer attention will remain focused on this instead of the economy, gas prices, the war, health care, etc.

(By the way, if you'd rather be reading about something more relevant to the economic problems we face, may I suggest Thomas Friedman's column in the New York Times about our energy policy?)

In the meantime, we're getting a steady dose of writings about Obama and Rev. Wright. And we're going to continue to get that until all the questions are answered. When will that be? That depends on how candid Obama is -- or is perceived to be.

* Charlie Cook calls Rev. Wright "the Rev. Kamikaze" in the National Journal.

"Just days ago, it seemed that the only way that Barack Obama could fail to clinch his party's nod would be to leave his wife and move in with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright," writes Cook. "That is, until Wright took to the lectern at the National Press Club to launch what amounted to a kamikaze attack on Obama's candidacy, sputtering nonsense that must have left the senator's campaign operatives wondering whether they had accidentally tuned their TVs to the political horror channel."

* In the National Review, Byron York writes that the danger from this Wright affair isn't over for Obama. "The most damaging thing Rev. Jeremiah Wright said at the National Press Club on Monday had nothing to do with God damning America, or AIDS, or chickens coming home to roost," York says. "It had to do with whether Barack Obama is telling the American people the truth about himself."

* Peter Carnellos' piece in the Boston Globe carries the headline, "Candidate faces down his former pastor, but what took so long?"

Canellos raises a point that may be troubling many voters, even if they can't articulate it as well as he can.

"On Monday ... Wright took another shot: 'I said to Barack Obama last year, 'If you get elected, November the 5th, I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people,'" Canellos writes. "If Wright really had issued such a warning, Obama should have smelled trouble immediately. His failure to do so, and his decision to portray Wright as a distraction, inevitably raises the question of whether Obama is too naive to be president -- the very insinuation he ridicules on the campaign trail."

* Dick Morris writes in The Hill about "Obama's opportunity" to "define himself." He needs to seize that opportunity before others do.

* Richard Baehr writes, in American Thinker, about "Obama's Wright turn" at his Tuesday press conference -- in which Obama "condemned Wright and claimed that Wright had offended him."

* Mary Mitchell claims, in the Chicago Sun-Times, that "Obama opens a can of worms" and suggests, "This is a sad day for black America."

* In the Boston Globe, Scot Lehigh says, "What's really relevant here is not what Jeremiah Wright says but what Barack Obama believes. And in his remarks yesterday, Obama said unmistakably that Wright does not speak for him."

* Ralph Peters writes, in the New York Post, about "The Rev & The Global Victims' Club."

* Also in the New York Post, Michelle Malkin writes about the "Jive Talk Express." She casts doubts on Obama's judgment by raising a point that Republicans will be sure to bring up in the fall campaign.

"Who knew that the greatest threat to his presidential campaign would come from the preacher who married him, baptized him and prayed with him?" writes Malkin, a well-known conservative. "Obama should've known -- that's who. 'Yes, we can'? Try: Yes, you should have."

* John Nichols writes, in The Nation, that "[t]he problem is not Jeremiah Wright. The problem is a contemporary political culture that has come to rely on character assassination as an easy tool for reversing electoral misfortune -- and a media that willingly invites manipulation."

* Mark Brown writes, in the Chicago Sun-Times, that "it's gut check time for white Americans."

* In the New York Observer, Steve Kornacki writes about "Obama and the Benefit of the Doubt."

These are just the articles that have popped up in the last couple of days. There will be more articles written on this subject in the days and weeks ahead.

Obama has addressed this issue twice in the last six weeks. His original speech was hailed for its oratorical qualities, his press conference was hailed for other reasons.

But the questions persist.

It reminds me of something Dr. Samuel Johnson, the 18th century British author, said: "(The) manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."

Obama's Pastor

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright won't go away.

That's what's so wrong about Rev. Wright, as far as Barack Obama is concerned.

In America, everyone is free to believe what he/she wants to believe, and everyone is free to say (just about) anything he/she wants to say.

Our laws do draw the line at certain points. But it's our freedoms that allowed Jeremiah Wright to stand in the pulpit of his church and call upon God to "damn America."

Rev. Wright is entitled to his opinions, and he has expressed them frequently. But Obama, who apparently does not share Rev. Wright's views even though he spent many years as a member of Wright's congregation and listened to Wright's hate-filled messages Sunday after Sunday, is being weighed down by the minister's words.

"When I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it," Obama said. "It contradicts everything I am about and who I am."

What seems contradictory to me is the relationship between Obama's words and his actions. Is Obama saying he finds Wright's words "appalling" now that he wants to be president and needs the support of white blue-collar voters to make it happen -- but those same words were acceptable when Obama represented a mostly black state senate district in Illinois and heard Wright utter them as the pastor of his church?

Obama has no shortage of defenders for why he spent nearly two decades in Wright's church -- where he remains a member after Wright's retirement.

"Having been deserted at age 2 by his father," writes Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, "Obama has now been deserted by the father-figure in his church, the man who inspired him to become a Christian, married him, dedicated his house, baptized his children, gave him the title of his second book and theme for his presidential run and worked on his campaign."

Dowd is a diehard supporter of Obama's campaign, and that is something she is certainly entitled to be. But even the most devoted supporters can do only so much for a candidate. At some point, the candidate can no longer allow his surrogates to make his apologies for him.

Obama still needs to explain to a dubious public why he remained in the church for two decades and listened to Wright's assertions that the federal government manipulated AIDS to apply a "final solution" to blacks in America and that God permitted the September 11 attacks to happen because America had been practicing its own brand of terrorism abroad.

That's something Obama did not do at a news conference in Winston-Salem, N.C. And, try as she might, Dowd cannot apologize for Obama's lapse in judgment -- if one can call it that.

"Tuesday was more than a Sister Souljah moment," writes Dowd, "it was a painful form of political patricide. 'I did not vet my pastor before I decided to run for the presidency,' Obama said. In a campaign that’s all about who’s vetted, maybe he should have."

That seems a rather tame defense to me. Obama didn't need to investigate Wright. Obama was a witness. He sat in the pews of Wright's church for two decades and heard the minister's sermons himself. How much vetting did he need?

And how's this going to play with the blue-collar white voters?

(I assume they're the same voters Obama accused of clinging to their religion in times of crisis.)

Leap of Faith

This is Leap Year. And today is Leap Day.

What better time to take a leap of faith and see what the God-o-Meter says about the religious conviction of the presidential field?

Conventional wisdom and statistical reality has held that religious conservatives are overwhelmingly in the Republican Party, but, according to the God-o-Meter, the Republicans are on the verge of nominating someone whose religious rating is behind both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Candidates are ranked from 1-10 in the God-o-Meter. Mike Huckabee has made it to 10 a few times, but he has an unfair advantage. He was a Baptist minister earlier in his career; currently, his rating is 9. Longshot Republican Ron Paul rates 7. John McCain's ranking is 5.

On the Democratic side, Clinton has a 9 and Obama has an 8. The only candidate (and the term must be used extremely loosely for this individual) whose ranking is below McCain's would be Democrat Mike Gravel, who has a 4 -- but it must be noted that the God-o-Meter hasn't bothered to adjust Gravel's ranking, up or down, since August 2007.

What will religious conservatives do in November? Will they vote Republican from force of habit? Or will they cross party lines and support a candidate who may or may not share their views on everything, but whose faith is devout?

Perhaps this is part of a larger trend.

Ronald Brownstein writes, in the National Journal, that "a new Democratic coalition is being forged" in this year's primary season.

"[E]xit polls from this year's contests show the Democratic coalition evolving in clear and consistent ways since the 2004 primaries that nominated John Kerry," Brownstein writes. "The party is growing younger, more affluent, more liberal, and more heavily tilted toward women, Latinos, and African-Americans."

Well, let's see. This "new" coalition is made up of young voters (who do not have a strong record of showing up on Election Day), women (who have tended to be Democrats all along), Latinos (who don't have a strong record of showing up on Election Day), and African-Americans (who have been Democrats all along).

Is this the coalition that's going to produce a political shift in the fall?

Talk about a leap of faith.

The Candidates' Christmas Ads

Along with the usual Christmas commercials for products and services, this year we have seen commercials for presidential candidates with Christmas/holiday themes.

Ads by Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama have been on the airwaves, and political strategist Dick Morris took some time to discuss the ads on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" recently.

Of the Clinton ad, Morris says it was a "terrible" ad, in which Clinton was surrounded by gift packages, each bearing a tag that mentioned a specific issue, like "Bring the Troops Home," "Universal Health Care" and "Middle Class Tax Breaks."

But Clinton's ad was more generic than the others, referring only to the "holiday season" and making no specific mention of Christmas, for which Clinton was punished by the God-o-Meter.

Huckabee's ad was the "greatest ad," in Morris' words, "because we have to appreciate, politically, that Christmas is Huckabee's season." And the Huckabee ad, as the God-o-Meter points out, is the only one that mentions the birth of Christ.

Besides, the God-o-Meter already punished Huckabee this week after Bob Novak reported that the"elite evangelicals" who support Huckabee's candidacy are short of Southern Baptists.

"He did not join the 'conservative resurgence' that successfully rebelled against liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention a generation ago," Novak writes of Huckabee, a former president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention.

Novak says Baptists aren't on board with Huckabee, but other Christian conservatives are, particularly in Iowa.

Morris says the "Huckabee-Romney split ... mirrors the division between economic and social conservatives. The country club, upper income, Wall Street, business community is [for] Romney, the Joe Six-Pack, Christian right community is with Huckabee. That's the fault line that's running through it."

And Morris predicts Huckabee will win Iowa.

Like the Clinton ad, Obama's ad was punished by the God-o-Meter, as was Giuliani's. The God-o-Meter hasn't said anything about the Edwards ad.

But Morris says he liked the Obama ad, which achieves the "warm and fuzzy" level Clinton sought by showing Obama with his family. Morris didn't particularly care for Giuliani's ad, in which the former New York mayor (sitting next to Santa Claus) "lists those issues" of concern to voters, as Clinton's does. Edwards, Morris points out, "discusses" them in his ad.

Morris also says he believes the "anti-Hillary vote is coalescing around Obama." He predicts that Obama will win in Iowa and when that happens, much of the Edwards vote will gravitate toward him, leading to Clinton's defeat in New Hampshire as well.

And that could produce a new front-runner among the Democrats a little over a week into the calendar year.

Romney to Give 'Mormon' Speech Thursday

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney apparently has decided to give the "Mormon" speech (inspired by John F. Kennedy's address on his Catholicism in 1960) well before the end of the holidays.

Earlier, it had been reported that his campaign staff had made an internal decision to wait until January before Romney took on that particular issue.

But that was before recent polls that showed Romney's campaign faltering in Iowa, where caucuses will be held Jan. 3, and in New Hampshire, where primaries will be held Jan. 8.

Romney will make his "Mormon" speech this Thursday morning during a visit to the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. Presumably -- although I haven't heard any announcements about this -- the speech will be carried live on CNN, C-SPAN, Fox, MSNBC and other cable news outlets.

If you're interested in making a comparison, the text of JFK's speech, delivered to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960, can be found at the JFK Presidential Library and Museum, along with a recording of the address.

In his speech, Kennedy didn't actually defend Catholicism. He defended religious freedom and his right to be Catholic. He also made a vigorous argument that no president -- of any faith -- should take directions from the leaders of his church.

Movement in the God-o-Meter

We're starting to see movement in the God-o-Meter among Democrats as well as Republicans.

Earlier this week, we reported that Mike Huckabee had achieved what no one had ever achieved. He scored a perfect 10 in the God-o-Meter.

And the distance between Huckabee and Mitt Romney in this particular area appears to be widening. Romney's rating went down when it was reported that his campaign had come to a conclusion internally to delay a "Mormon" speech (inspired by John F. Kennedy's speech in 1960 about being a Catholic) until after the holidays.

Meanwhile, Huckabee got a big boost from an endorsement from Jerry Falwell Jr. The former Arkansas governor seems to be on a meteoric rise these days. David Yepsen, political columnist for the Des Moines Register, says that Huckabee belongs in the top tier of Republican candidates.

On the Democratic side, the God-o-Meter's rating for Hillary Clinton went up when she got the endorsement of a group of South Carolina ministers.

The endorsement is being seen as a blow to Barack Obama's campaign. Obama had been actively pursuing the evangelical Christian vote in South Carolina.

What's Happening in Florida?

A couple of stories in the media today seem to be providing conflicting spins on what's happening in the Republican presidential campaign in Florida.

According to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, just released today, Rudy Giuliani's lead in Florida is expanding.

That poll says the former New York mayor has the support of 38% of likely primary voters in Florida, 21 percentage points ahead of Mitt Romney, his nearest rival. John McCain and Fred Thompson each have 11%, and Mike Huckabee has 9%.

Keep that in mind. CNN says Huckabee has 9% in Florida.

Based on that, one has to wonder if CNN or Insider Advantage has the inside track on where the Republican candidates stand in the Sunshine State.

According to RealClearPolitics, a poll by Insider Advantage also says Giuliani is the leader, but with 26% (down 7 points since the last such poll in mid-October). And trailing the former mayor is none other than former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, with 17%, which is nearly double his showing from mid-October.

That poll shows McCain at 13%, Romney at 12% and Thompson at 9%. RealClearPolitics proclaims that Huckabee is "surging" in Florida.

But that's certainly not what the CNN poll says.

Who's right? I guess we'll find out when Floridians hold their primary in January.

Do you suppose this is the work of the Divine? Maybe. According to the God-o-Meter, which directs readers to Fred Barnes' latest column in The Weekly Standard, Huckabee has just achieved what no other candidate has achieved in the God-o-Meter before. He scored a perfect 10.

Christian Conservatives and the Republican Candidates

In the aftermath of the Values Voters Summit in Washington this weekend, there's been a bit of a shakeup in the "God-o-Meter."

There was no update on John McCain. He didn't get much support from the Christian conservatives in their straw poll, either. One has to wonder if McCain's pandering to the religious right has backfired.

Mitt Romney stayed where he was, which was at the top. Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee and even Rudy Giuliani went up slightly, perhaps from the exposure of speaking to the summit attendees.

There have been no updates recently on the Democratic side.

A week ago, Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard was saying that Giuliani needed to make a serious commitment to the pro-life position when he spoke to the social conservatives. Now, Barnes is saying that Giuliani made inroads with Christian conservatives with some of the things he said yesterday.

Apparently, that "inroads" assessment conveniently overlooked the fact that Giuliani got less than 2% of the vote in the Values Voters Summit straw poll. Giuliani doesn't seem to be building a groundswell of support among Christian conservatives for his candidacy.

By the way, the Philadelphia Inquirer has an interesting observation or two about the Republican race.

And Steven Greenhut of the Orange County Register sees the libertarian and conservative factions that Ronald Reagan brought together in the 1980s splitting apart.

Such a split was inevitable, without a charismatic force like Reagan to keep them together.

Romney, Huckabee Favorites At The Values Voters Summit

Republicans have been gathering in Washington this weekend to appeal to Christian conservatives at the Values Voters Summit.

There never really was any question that abortion would be a hot topic at the summit.

And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani deserves credit for facing up to his stated position, which isn't very popular with Christian conservatives. Giuliani is pro-choice, and he didn't walk away from that position to win some votes.

"Isn't it better that I tell you what I really believe instead of pretending to change all of my positions to fit the prevailing winds?" Giuliani asked his listeners.

The sentiment was admirable, but not successful.

Even though Giuliani spoke about his own faith and his reliance on religion being "at the core of who I am," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished first in a straw poll of Christian conservatives at the Values Voters Summit, receiving 1,595 votes (27.6%) from 5,775 that were cast online, in person or by mail.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee came in a close second with 1,565 votes (27.1%), Texas Rep. Ron Paul was third with 865 votes (15.0%) and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was fourth with 564 votes (9.8%).

The remaining 20% were divided among the other Republican candidates. In that group, Giuliani received just 102 votes (1.8%).

Based on that, it appears that Giuliani has considerable work to do to convince Christian conservatives to support him in both his bid for the nomination and, if successful, his bid to win the general election -- even though Giuliani tried to reassure the restless Christian conservatives by telling them that he would appoint conservative judges, support school choice and demand victory in Iraq.

Those are all issues that are important to Christian conservatives -- but it appears that abortion remains the No. 1 issue with that voting bloc.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, who emphasized his own conservative credentials and his opposition to abortion, appears to be increasingly irrelevant to the presidential campaign. He received only 81 votes (1.4%).

Among those who voted in person at the summit and heard all the candidates speak, Huckabee, who criticized the "holocaust of liberalized abortion," was the clear choice, receiving 488 of 952 in-person votes (51.3%). Romney received 99 in-person votes (10.4%).

It's odd that Romney should win the overall vote, based on his support for the anti-abortion cause. His original position was pro-choice, but he has switched to pro-life since deciding to enter the presidential race. Romney also has some work to do to persuade Christian conservatives that Mormons are Christians. About half of Christian conservatives polled are unconvinced.

On the Democratic side, there's some news from Iowa. The Storm Lake Times endorsed Delaware Sen. Joe Biden for the presidency, following Biden's recent visit to the small town of Storm Lake in western Iowa. The newspaper told its readers that Biden has the "professional skills and ... the personal strength" to be president.

Whither Goest the Evangelical Vote?

We've been wondering which candidate would earn the allegiance of the evangelical voters.

In today's Washington Post, we found the answer we had been expecting, really.

No one.

All the Republicans covet the evangelicals' backing, but each has a shortcoming -- or two -- that gets in the way of closing the sale.

The Post spoke to Chuck Colson of the Prison Fellowship, a national Christian ministry. Colson's assessment: "Nobody has rung the bell yet."

There's a certain irony to the idea of the Washington Post quoting Colson, who spent time in prison for what he did in service to the president, Richard Nixon, who was driven from power by the Post's investigation into Watergate.

At the time of the Watergate break-in in 1972, Colson was a conniving chief counsel for Nixon, known as Nixon's hatchet man who was responsible for drafting the memo that served as the basis for the infamous Enemies' List.

It's also ironic that Colson's quote should appear in the Post on this date -- the 34th anniversary of the famed "Saturday Night Massacre" when Nixon ordered the dismissal of the special prosecutor, leading to the resignations of the attorney general and his top assistant.

Four weeks later, in defending his actions in a nationally televised press conference, Nixon uttered one of his most famous sentences, "I am not a crook."

Colson became one of the famed Watergate Seven, along with H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and John Mitchell, who were indicted for their roles in the scandal.

That was 30 years ago. In the last three decades, Colson has developed a reputation as a leader among evangelical Christians.

It's interesting, also, that the New York Times' David Brooks thinks former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee might be the most acceptable candidate to all the factions in the Republican Party.

As a former Baptist minister, Huckabee would appear to have a natural "in" with evangelical voters. But he doesn't seem to have registered with them yet.

Patrick Ruffini, writing in Town Hall, thinks the Republican Party may have hit rock-bottom and is due for a rebound.

So whoever wins the allegiance of evangelical Christians has the advantage in the race for the nomination. And that nomination may turn out to be more valuable than it appears to be right now.

The 'God-o-Meter' Revisited

I'll admit it. I couldn't help myself.

When I told you about the Beliefnet.com "God-o-Meter" last weekend, I bookmarked it and decided to keep up with its ratings.

I find this fascinating because I think the presence or absence of the evangelical vote could be a huge factor in next year's elections. And I do think it's possible that many evangelicals won't vote next year. If they do vote, will they stay with the Republicans? Will they switch to the Democrats? Will they support a third party?

Often, a voting bloc is as noteworthy for what it doesn't do as for what it does. When a group feels demoralized and taken for granted, many members of that group may choose not to participate.

Evangelical voters may not be a significant part of the Democrats' primary electorate, but they will be part of the general election electorate. It will be interesting to see what Democrats do to attract them for the fall election.

We already know that evangelical voters played a decisive role in re-electing George W. Bush in 2004. And their consistent support for Republican candidates helped ensure two terms in the White House for Ronald Reagan and one for George H.W. Bush, not to mention Republican majorities in the Senate in the 1980s and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress in the 1990s and the first half of this decade.

But the Republicans have failed to show much competence in Bush's second term, from the mishandling of the war to the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina -- and, seemingly, everything in between.

And the majority of evangelical voters are not only anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-gun control; they are also attracted to the Republican tradition of fiscal responsibility.

These voters also display a compassionate side on issues that have historically been important to Democrats -- global warming, environmental issues, energy conservation, medical support for victims of AIDS and cancer, stem cell research.

Many evangelicals supported the Iraq War until they realized that the Republicans weren't competent directing the war, they weren't living up to their reputation for fiscal responsibility, and they weren't committed to the social issues the evangelicals cared about.

But Democrats haven't come up with workable -- and passable -- solutions for governing since winning control of Congress last year.

Some of the most interesting developments in the latest "God-o-Meter" ...

* Former Arkansas Gov. and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee has slipped from near the top to the middle of the pack with comments about negotiating with Middle Eastern countries. It appears he's traded places in the Republican rankings with ...

* Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who has surged by saying the kinds of things that religious voters like to hear. He's rated slightly ahead of ...

* Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who nevertheless has improved her rating lately. It didn't hurt that she reminded voters that, in her youth, she was a "Goldwater girl." But the Democrats who are getting the best religious ratings -- equal to McCain -- are ...

* Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Obama has been making news everywhere, including this blog, for his "40 Days of Faith and Family" tour of South Carolina that prominently features gospel concerts and faith forums. It seems to have backfired a little. His rating dropped a bit in the "God-o-Meter."

So it's hard to tell what the evangelical voters will do next year.

Who Owns The 'Faith' Issue?

You have to go back to before Ronald Reagan's election as president in 1980 to find a time when religion wasn't regarded as the exclusive domain of the Republican Party.

Thirty years ago, in 1976, faith seemed to belong to Jimmy Carter and the Democrats. Carter's "born again Christian" appeal brought a lot of evangelical Christians into the political arena, but it was really Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority who mobilized the evangelicals for the Republicans in 1980 and delivered them as a voting bloc for the next quarter century.

Now, political observers are wondering which party the evangelicals will support in the next presidential election. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told reporters, after speaking to a congregation of evangelical Christians in Greenville, S.C., Sunday, that, at a time when evangelical leaders are talking more about issues of social justice, like AIDS and poverty, "I think it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party."

Obama and his campaign certainly seem to be targeting religious voters in the South Carolina primary, which is scheduled to be held in late January. The Obama campaign is reaching out to evangelicals in a promotional effort dubbed "40 Days of Faith and Family." Gospel concerts and faith forums highlight the agenda.

There may be evidence that the image of Democrats as being friendly to people of faith is improving. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Survey reports that, from July 2006 to August 2007, the percentage of Americans describing Democrats as being friendly to religion went up from 26% to 30%. In the same survey, the percentage of Americans who described Democrats as being unfriendly to religion went down from 20% to 15%.

Fifty percent of respondents described Republicans as being friendly to religion.

Faith and Politics

How does the religious rhetoric from presidential candidates stack up?

One way to measure it is by taking a look at beliefnet.com's "God-o-Meter," which updates a candidate's rating based on interviews and other statements concerning religion. So each rating apparently is current.

Members of the religious right are said to be likely to bolt the Republican Party for a third-party candidate if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination. Based on the God-o-Meter's current rating, that may be correct. Giuliani currently gets the lowest rating of any of the presidential candidates -- tied with Democrat Chris Dodd.

Does religion belong in a political debate? Many people swear by the principle of "separation of church and state," but, in reality, church and state have never been legally separate.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan owed his election as president, in part, to the activities of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Four years earlier, Jimmy Carter had no problem talking about being a "born again Christian" who was seeking the presidency. In 1960, John F. Kennedy had to deal with criticism for being a Catholic running for president of a nation that had always had Protestant presidents.

The discussion of Mitt Romney's Mormonism is just the latest chapter in the story.

Whether overtly or covertly, religion has always had a role in political campaigns.

The question each voter has to answer is, how much of a role does religion play when you're deciding which candidate to support?