I understand that many politicians are themselves religious, and that, moreover, it is politically prudent to invoke religious belief and speak in religious terms when 80% of the population identifies as Christian. Nevertheless, as a nonreligious individual, it is sometimes hard for me to stomach the religious rhetoric of politicians. The feeling arises due to a variety of factors, but perhaps the weightiest is the way that religion has been co-opted by social conservatives to justify the perpetuation of cruelty and suffering through, for example, denying gay men and women marriage rights, restricting a woman’s reproductive rights, etc.

When I first heard Barack Obama speak on politics and religion in June of 2006, I had a mixed feelings. However, with the perspective of another year, and another speech by Obama on religion and politics just passed, I’ve come to a different conclusion. Practically speaking, I think a frank discussion of religion and religious beliefs that accord with liberal policies is the only way for democrats to go. What puts me at ease is Obama’s particular approach to religion and politics. He wants to navigate the relation between the two in a way that does service to both religious and secular citizens.

In a Chicago Tribune article from three days ago, Obama is quoted as saying:

“One of the things that I’m always interested in when it comes to politics is making sure I can continually translate values that are grounded in my religious faith into universal values that appeal to all people. If I’m in church I might quote some Scripture. If I’m outside a church I might quote FDR. Hopefully, they both lead to the same place.”

While that makes a lot of sense to me, I’m curious to see how it plays with a more devout audience. Obama apparently anticipates the difficulty, saying in the June ‘06 speech “Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the bible, as many Evangelicals do, but in a pluralistic society we have no choice.” It is encouraging, therefore, to see religious leaders reaching out to Obama, as Pastor Rick Warren did by inviting Obama to speak at Saddleback Church for the Global Summit on AIDS and the Church in December of ‘06 (a contentious invitation within the congregation, to be sure).

Some are skeptical that the democrats opening up on religious life will have much of an effect. Michael Gerson writes that Obama’s openness about his religion will not be sufficient to win over Christian voters. His suggestion, for all democrats, is to soften their stances on the typically foundational issues for Christians: abortion and gay rights. However, it seems to me that this would be going to far. What excites me the most about Obama’s willingness to talk religion is that it puts him in a position of credibility, from which he can immanently criticize religious conservatives. For example, ‘You think gay men and women shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Well what about the injunction to love in 1 Corinthians 13? Or the injunction to not judge in John 8:7?’ Furthermore, for democrats to change their position on social issues would be to abandon their traditional base and lose their identity.

Obama, and hopefully a younger generation of Evangelicals, wants to move away from the polemics of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the like. Reverend Joel Hunter, for example, realizes that “our focus on arguments and opponents is not working.” What is encouraging about Obama is that while he may speak in religious terms, he does so while calling for fair mindedness. His goal is to foster discussion between individuals of differing religiosity. His candor is refreshing.

Rahm Emanuel, responding to Cheney’s assertion that he is not part of the executive branch, will introduce an amendment to the funding bill for the executive branch, the Raw Story has learned. The amendment will remove all funding for the Vice President’s office.

“However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President’s funding is consistent with his legal arguments.” At a press briefing yesterday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino said that Cheney’s assertion that he operates outside of the executive branch of government was “an interesting constitutional question that people can debate” and a “non-issue.” On Thursday, Emanuel suggested that if Cheney feels his office is not part of the executive branch “he should return the salary the American taxpayers have been paying him since January 2001, and move out of the home for which they are footing the bill.”

What’s even funnier about the whole debacle is that the White House considers a constitutional question a non-issue — what a surprise. Oh, and from the Raw Story article, Rahm on the floor of the House shared the new interpretation of the branches of government.

The November 2006 elections meant one thing, and meant it very clearly, the American people are tired of the same policies of the Bush administration. They demanded a change in direction to the President’s failed Iraq policy. To date, the Democratic Congress has not provided any change in policy. Considering the way Congress rolled over and acquiesced to the President’s demands after his initial veto, raises an important question: “was all that just for show.”

The answer to that question though, now appears irrelevant. Today’s Gallup Poll, brought to us by Election Central shows that American’s confidence in the Congress is at an all time low.

The current confidence rating for Congress — 14% — is the lowest in Gallup’s history for that institution. Although ratings of Congress have never been high, they were at the 40% level at the time of Watergate in the 1970s, and again in 1986.

Clearly the Watergate example is illustrative that Congress has the opportunity to gain public favor, and do so by standing up to this President, gone renegade. Now news and military reports are coming in and telling us that “Choosing Victory — The Surge” isn’t working as we were told it would.

If Democrats in Congress are going to stand up to President Bush it needs to happen with the next round of appropriations. The issues surrounding Iraq are clearly complicated, but Congressional Democrats need to force Bush to take a different direction. Americans are not going to tolerate watching their sons and daughters come home maimed or worse, dead, defending people from a civil war. The Democrats are the party of the people, the people want to see a change in the Iraq policy, and if there is no good solution, no good plan, they want their sons and daughters to come home, and not be markers in W’s game of international checkers (What, you thought he could actually play chess?).

John Faso just defied the expectations of many Republicans and got 61.2% of of the vote by delegates at the party convention for the New York State Governor’s race. That means that he will be the party’s designee on the Sept. 12 primary ballot. Being the party designee is usually a nominal honor, but it could be consequential this year. This might bring Faso more money, media attention and endorsements, all of which is likely to fracture the Republicans before November. Spitzer had some $19 million dollars to spend as opposed to a combined $3 million by both Weld and Faso in January.

Story on Democratic Convention Story on Republican Convention

Also, later today there will be an interesting battle for the nomination on who will oppose Hiliary.

ABC News’ The Note has two leaked strategy memos, one from each party. In my optimism, I read through them expecting something big. Lo! and behold, here it is! From the Democratic leak:

Third, pound the ball on the ground by showing that it is Democrats who will stand up for the truth and move us forward: Let’s stand for something that actually matters to people in a way that will brand the party as truly being the party of reform for the middle class. We need to appreciate that we are not in power and have no obligation to put out proposals that can be immediately implemented. Let’s keep it simple and identify three truly BIG ideas that will communicate to voters that we actually want to do something to make their lives better. Here is a halftime snack of a pu-pu platter of ideas to choose from: let’s have tax reform that eliminates taxes for those making $50,000 or less and reduce forms to one page (front and back); let’s clean up Congress by putting in place actual term limits; let’s immediately impose sanctions on Iran and keep all options on the table; let’s have an energy plan that makes the U.S. independent from the Middle East in ten years; let’s have a sin tax on the porn industry that pays for college for every kid in America that gets a B average; let’s create a string of high tech universities and colleges to meet the challenges of the flat world; let’s establish a national 401(k) (thanks, Gene).

Those are brilliant! Brilliant, I say! And when was the last time you heard anything of similar value and innovation from either party? If the Democrats ever put forth ideas like these seriously and on a national scale, I’ll walk through fire to keep the party in power.

“Sin tax”? It’s a little judgmental, and I’m not sure I’m thrilled about the First Amendment implications of such subjective law, but it’ll play like football in the Red States, and I’ll confess that on balance I actually like the idea.

Term limits? High quality education commensurate with a Thomas L. Friedman reference?

Sign me up.

According to Friday’s Hotline (subscription only) Tim Kaine, brand spanking new governor of Virginia is to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union. Kaine, of course is the new governor of Virginia, and someone I blogged about earlier in the year for endorsing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state of Virginia, as well as his opposition to civil unions.

VA Gov. Tim Kaine (D) “will deliver his party’s rebuttal to” Pres. Bush’s SOTU 1/31, according to Dem sources. “Kaine is expected to echo” nat’l Dem “charges that” GOPers “foster a culture of corruption at the highest levels of” gov’t “as well as speak about his party’s efforts on behalf of the middle class.” One Dem: Kaine is a “perfect choice” because “he is a” Dem “who was elected from a red state by focusing on the issues that affect all Americans and has a proved track record as a leader who successfully tackles the tough issues” (Preston, CNN.com, 1/19).

So, that’s the voice piece we want, a governor pandering to the ugliest discrimination to face America in years, and he’s our guy? Come on, please tell me we can do better.

Josh Marshall lays the facts out regarding whether or not Democrats are involved in the Abramoff scandal, the answer of course is no.

Sure, some Democrats may have gotten donations from groups Abramoff lobbied for, but that’s more “tainted-money” then the money this scandal is concerned with. Sen. Dorgan received tainted money, but that’s because he represents Indian tribes as part of his State, and has received donations from them for years, the fact that Abramoff may have also worked for that tribe has nothing to do with the corruption case.

The case instead as blogged on earlier is regarding quid-quo-pro favors, and doesn’t pertain to the natural day to day function on Capitol Hill.

Via TalkLeft: the VA inmate that some believed may have been incorrectly executed was in fact guilty as per the DNA evidence tests requested by Governor Mark Warner.

Governor Warner deserves praise here for having the courage to open up this inquiry when the death penalty remains a hot topic and often a fatal one for Democrats.

I got to thinking to myself, what would happen if Alito confirmed and installed upon the bench joins a majority to overturn Roe v. Wade? Immediately state legislatures would have to act and decide what their statutes on abortion would read. Women in many parts of the country would be denied the ability to seek safe abortions by medical professionals, and we’d return of course to underground and unsanitary medical practices, or perhaps secret doctors making house calls only to be exposed in what one would assume would be the many witch hunts to follow.

Then that particularly crass and calculating side of me kicks into gear. Is Roe being overturned really in the best interests of the conservative movement? Abortion, and now to a certain degree gay bashing are the tools of the right wing to hold in the religious right and bring them out election after election. But what happens if they get what they want? Do the religious stay at home in greater numbers thinking that their war has been won? If Roe is overturned then activists must then turn their attention to the states, why waste their time on federal elections that will have little affect?

I’d argue that for the conservative movement, at least the component of which includes the electoral support of a religious entity who they frequently ignored in past administrations–Bush is of course the exception–that winning the “war against the baby killers” would be the worst thing to happen. Immediately they would lose a major magnet to attract these voters, after all Supreme Court precedent doesn’t change over night, not even in an election. Without Roe states decide, and so it seems logical to me that these activists, the Robertsons of the world, would turn their wrath to such renegade states like New Jersey and California who continue this murderous campaign outlawed by our Supreme Court, blessed of course by God.

Yet, then would come the outrage from the majority of Americans who support the right to choose. The preceding elections would almost assuredly be windfalls for Democrats. Without even saying it or campaigning for it they would gain a monstrous share of the women’s vote and urban and women voters would come out in record numbers as never before, probably handing majorities to the Democratic party for their long and brave support for a woman’s right to choose. It could usher in a premature realignment, one that may not take hold, but one that would almost assuredly give the Democrats a chance to reshape Washington and with justices growing older perhaps the court with younger justices who will assuredly benefit from advances in modern medicine to live longer and healthier lives.

Now of course all of this is to suggest that the plight of women in states that would outlaw abortion would be an acceptable casualty in our fight. This of course I would not subscribe to and would not encourage. However, there does remain the question, are republicans really dumb enough to overturn Roe, or do they realize that Roe is their major calling card to reach the religious right they so depended on in 2004.

Corzine wins in New Jersey as does Kaine in Virginia. More to come on this later.

Yesterday, when Senator Reid invoked rule 21 and brought the Senate into a closed-session, he did something more courageous than any other Democratic leader. Senator Reid forced discussion regarding Phase II of an investigation being conducted by the Intelligence Committee. Phase I covered the failures of the intelligence agencies, but didn’t include information on the White House Iraq Group or the White House’s use of intelligence, that is what Phase II was for, and as we can imagine it has been long over-due.

Republicans cried politics and dirty tricks, but that’s not what happened. Instead the Democratic Party became the party of the opposition, it marched into the Senate and used today to set a deadline for findings and to force Congress to act in regard to the possible misuse of intelligence in advocating for the Iraq War. No one knows what was said, but we can all imagine that Senator Reid was speaking intensely, as he never once left the Senate chamber to address the media in the corridor remaining inside the entire time rallying the troops and keeping us on message.

Republicans would have loved for the story to be about a “hijacked Senate” and everything else, but the media and sees it differently, because at the end of the session emerged answers and commitment to the investigation, obviously things were accomplished.

This is what Democratic leadership is all about. Most importantly, this is a message to the American people, that the Democratic Party despite being a minority is still working for the people, still working to find answers, and more than capable to retake the reigns of government in 2006 and make a positive change.

The Senate is back from a closed session, it has been announced that each party will choose three members to form a six member task-force in order to investigate and report on the progress of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s progress in Phase II of the investigation, and will report back with the information and a date for completion no later than the close of business on November 14th. More to come, but it looks like while the Republicans are complaining, the over all goal of the closed session, forcing debate on this issue and moving Phase II forward, has been at leat mostly accomplished.