Actually, I should say a note on faith. Many, many faith-based organizations, if not most, have no condition that you share their beliefs to get their assistance, especially not the mainline Protestant and ecumenical (like FA) groups I'm familiar with. It's a shame that some outspoken conservative Evangelicals have tarred all persons of faith with that image.
Faith based organziations don't get people to believe in fairy tales. Athiest organizations do. ;)
But seriously, about Beck, I can't ignore him because he already has a huge audience. And worse, while it's not as big as Rush's or Hannity's, they're more devoted. If CNN and the rest of the MSM didn't let Fox drive their agenda it wouldn't be so bad, but even then he's shown he's capable of getting people like Jones fired. I won't ignore that and just let it happen. Thank God for groups like Media Matters that do little more than point out his words verbatim.
I was shocked until the AA bit at the end. The way he handled his addictions is the one thing to admire about him, and the people I know who are recovering alcoholics do have a different way of viewing the redemption struggles of others. That makes sense.
That aside, though, it's so weird - and infuriating - when Beck and Erickson are right and Obama and Vilsack are wrong. That never happens. :X
I think it was Bold Progressive with a petition about that - shooting for 100,000 signatures and already up to 90,000. I usually ignore petition drives - a low number of sigs for a popular or at least well-known cause? who cares - but in this case, that's a huge number for an obscure issue. Impressive.
I hate to be a party pooper, but Gallup has consistently shown a narrow Dem lead or tie. This is our biggest in a while with them yes, but it is an outlier. Not if other polls show us gaining six points over previous releases from themselves, then it'll be a trend and I'll be happy.
I've not paid too much attention to this latest NAACP flap, but I think there is headway to be made by linking Republicans to the craziest of Tea Party ideas. Angle and Paul are official party nominees now. They've said what they've said about BP, civil rights, social security, etc. Even in Idaho, an endangered Dem is suddenly safer when facing a TP opponent. The nuttiness can be linked from the Tea Party to larger Republican Party, scaring indies away from the whole GOP because of one faction. It also seems possible that saying "Tea Party" rather than "Republicans" won't turn away swing voters who hate what they see as "partisanship."
She's got the support of all living Republican solicitors general. I'm reminded of what Repubs said in 2005 - "If you can't support John Roberts, what possible Bush nominee can you support?" Same thing, but with the other party. It's putting politics and self-agrandizement over the good of the nation. Anyone who supported Sotomayor but won't Kagan is little more than political garbage.
While I like the keys line myself, I think it should be limited to GOTV efforts and fundraisers. It's not the type of thing that's going to excite the swing voters we need. From a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll (one that admittedly oversampled Republican voters):
Do you think are more responsible for the current condition of the economy? 30% Democratic policies, 41% Republican policies, 21% both equally
Do you think are more likely to improve the condition of the country? 37% Democratic policies, 40% Republican policies, 9% both equally
I would only point to Bush fiscal policies when also pointing to Obama's new OMB director (the guy who oversaw Clinton's three surpluses) and current GOP flip-flopping on the creation of a debt commission once Obama endorsed it. Otherwise, when trying to win votes I'd stick to current GOP candidates, ie, the ones who embrace BP and, as you say, try to stop everything and shut the country down rather than working on it to make it more like their own (non-existent) ideas.
It wouldn't surprise me if there are fewer debates. People got sick of how many there were last time - they're especially opposed by big-name candidates who would rather hold a fundraiser or rally than waste a day on debate prep and a day looking small standing next to no-namers like Hunter or Johnson. If Palin skips a few, like Bush in 2000, she may be able to keep the total number down since non-Palin debates will be less interesting, especially if a Romney or Pawlenty joins her. Or maybe she'll at least convince sponsors to favor successive solo appearances like the Democratic LOGO forum in '08. We all know she doesn't have a good policy grasp - that's old news - so if it only shows up a few times rather than as a constant theme, it may not persuade anyone against her. Her base will view good answers as good answers and bad answers "gotchya questions" from the "lamestream media." And let's also remember, unlike '08 when she was thrown into the Couric/Gibson fire in a couple weeks, her PAC now has a full-time foreign policy advisor and a full-time domestic policy advisor.
But then again, living in her own little world with her own rules she assumes everyone follows, she might well ignore the advisors and do 20 debates. That'd be fun.
One other thought I have regarding her and the nomination is this: The GOP always goes with the next in line. I thought that was just a breakable cliche since there was no way they would nominate McCain, but then they nominated McCain, so I'm a convert to that phrase. The question is, who's next in line this time? Palin, the VP nominee who didn't actually run in the primaries? Romney, the establishment figure favored by the Bushies who ran the second strongest campaign? Or Huckabee, who's first in some LRV polls and had the second highest number of delegates last time?
Yeah, I'm gonna turn this into a full post later this week, I think.
Biden doesn't have "some kind of an elite Ivy League education." But whatever.
If Palin can acknowledge the difference between peaceful Muslims and 9/11 Muslims, why won't she allow a peaceful mosque near the site? Are we to ban all Baptist or Evangelical churches in the same town as abortion clinics, or prevent math professors from coming to Montana (the unabomber)?
If Huck doesn't run, she's got a good chance at their nomination in a crowded field where the anti-Palin vote doesn't coalesce. And if unemployment is anywhere near where it is today - and I think it'll come down, but there's no guarantee - the GOP nominee will have a good chance to beat the President. A President Palin is not likely at all, but it's also not entirely out of the question, so I'd rather not chance it and have her as their nominee.