Politics Daily

Obama Getting Heat From Left and Right for U.S. Role in Libyan Attacks

Politics Daily Staff — 2011-03-22T09:32:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Republicans, Terror, Obama Administration, National Security, Congress, Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, United Kingdom, France, Military, Barack Obama

President Obama is getting blowback from both sides of the aisle for taking military action in Libya without first formally consulting Congress. Debate in Washington heated up even before reports Tuesday that a U.S. warplane, patrolling Libyan air space, had crashed.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), a conservative member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Obama's "unilateral choice" to join a U.N.-backed coalition establishing a no-fly zone "is an affront to our Constitution," The Hill newspaper reported. The United States, Bartlett said, "does not have a king's army."

Meanwhile, a CBS News poll shows a full 50 percent of Americans approve of the president's handling of Libya.

Since the intervention started Saturday, U.S. Navy warships have launched Tomahawk missiles at Libyan air defenses, while American warplanes have joined other coalition aircraft in attacking military installations and some Libyan ground troops.

A U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet crashed late Monday near Benghazi, but its two crew members ejected and were rescued, the Washington Post and NPR said. Military officials said the plane apparently malfunctioned and was not shot down.

In the Senate, Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and a White House ally on some issues, said Congress should have a full debate on the objectives and costs of the U.S. role in the attacks. And Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, a moderate, said, "This isn't the way the system is supposed to work."

But earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned pro-intervention lawmakers that setting up a no-fly zone was a major undertaking that would have to begin with attacks on Moammar Gadhafi's anti-aircraft systems.

Traveling with the president in Santiago, Chile on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted Obama had consulted personally with congressional leaders on the Libyan situation. And last Saturday, Carney said Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough phoned top lawmakers "to inform them of the imminent action" about to happen. "We take very seriously the need to consult with Congress and we have been doing that," Carney said.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. But the president, as commander in chief of the armed forces, has authority to take military action in emergencies or in the face of threats to national security. Obama, who was winding up a Latin American trip Tuesday, insists no U.S. ground troops will be deployed and that leadership of the intervention effort will soon be turned over to NATO partners such as Great Britain or France.

For Rep. Dennis Kucinich, that's not enough to justify what the U.S. has done in Libya. The liberal lawmaker called it "an act of war" and said Congress should be called back from a spring recess to decide whether to continue the military action.

On the website Raw Story, Kucinich (D-Ohio) went further, calling Obama's move in Libya "an impeachable offense." The president "didn't have congressional authorization; he has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich maintained.

Kucinich noted that then-Sen. Obama argued in 2007 that "the president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Kucinich, who has twice run for president as an anti-war candidate, said he was not actually proposing impeachment proceedings but only "raising the question" as to whether grounds exist. In any event, calls for a president's impeachment -- often coming from the far left or the far right on Capitol Hill -- are not unusual. Kucinich himself sought to initiate an impeachment article against President George W. Bush in 2008, but then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi wouldn't go along with it.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Public Support for Gay Marriage on Verge of Surpassing Opposition

David Gibson — 2011-03-05T22:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Abortion, Gay Rights, Race Issues, Polls, Obama Administration, Culture, Disputations, Poll Watch, Congress, Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, 2012 Elections

Gay marriage is continuing to gain acceptance among the public -- the latest survey from the Pew Research Center shows Americans almost evenly split between those who oppose and those who support same-sex marriage.

According to the poll, conducted during the last week of February, 45 percent of Americans say gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, up from 37 percent in 2009 (and just 27 percent in 1996) while 46 percent oppose same-sex marriage, down from 54 percent two years ago, and down from a 65 percent disapproval rate in 1996.

Partisan differences remain stark, with 57 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents backing gay marriage. Only one in four Republicans support the right of gays to marry, but that is up from 15 percent in 1996.

Newly released data from the General Social Surveys (GSS) shows an even more striking shift, with a solid majority of 46 percent supporting gay marriage and just 40 percent in opposition.

As Charles Franklin notes at the Huffington Post, recent polls on same-sex marriage show approval for for civil unions, which was once considered by many to be the "safe alternative" to gay marriage, has remained flat while support for same-sex marriage itself has surged. And the rise is occurring not only among younger Americans.

"The trends here show that opposition to gay marriage is becoming a less and less acceptable position through the public more generally," Franklin writes. "It is not merely the young who are shifting views. While individual states are certain to vary widely in the balance of public opinion, the national shift is so striking and so regular that it is hard to imagine this issue will remain in doubt for much longer."

The latest shift is especially notable in that it comes as social conservatives have drawn a line in the sand against gay marriage, and just after President Obama announced his administration would no longer argue in court on behalf of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

But Republicans are ascendant in Washington and in statehouses across the country. And pollsters note that the public often reacts to shifts in political power by backing issues of the party that is perceived to be losing influence, preferring that lawmakers not go too far one way, especially on uncomfortable and polarizing issues like gay marriage and abortion.

In fact, support for legal abortion dropped from 55 percent to 47 percent in the first year of Obama's term, perhaps reflecting concerns that he would move too far too fast in liberalizing abortion rights. Support for abortion rights had since rebounded, the recent Pew survey shows, to 54 percent -- again a possible backlash against the GOP's sweeping takeover of the U.S. House in January and the Republican decision to make curtailing abortion rights and funding its top priority.

Social conservatives can take some solace in the fact that the degree of support for the anti-abortion position has remained relatively stable.

But the trend lines on gay marriage do not bode well for the conservative cause, and as Politics Daily reported, the relatively low-key Republican response to Obama's DOMA decision suggested that waning public backing is going to translate into diminishing political clout.

Indeed, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Focus on the Family's Jim Daly last week that "it's clear that something like same-sex marriage -- indeed, almost exactly what we would envision by that -- is going to become normalized, legalized, and recognized in the culture."

"It's time," Mohler added, "for Christians to start thinking about how we're going to deal with that."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

What Would Jesus Cut? Deficit Debate Rallies Christians -- and Exposes Divisions

David Gibson — 2011-03-03T22:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Religion, Taxes, Polls, Disputations, Congress, Conservatives, Liberals, Deficit, Tea Party, White House, Economy, John Boehner, 2012 Elections

"What would Jesus do?" That question has for years been a powerful slogan for conservative Christians who want to challenge Americans to conform to Gospel teachings. But now that some are applying the rallying cry to the nation's divisive budget battles, it is also exposing divisions among Christians as much as it is offering a united witness of faith -- or public policy.

Earlier this week a coalition of dozens of progressive Christian leaders led by Jim Wallis of Sojourners launched a campaign, "What would Jesus cut?" with a full-page ad in Monday's edition of Politico, and the group is following it up by sending e-mails and orange wristlets with the slogan to all members of Congress in an effort to prevent cuts for the poor and reduce defense spending.

Then on Thursday, a group of prominent evangelicals with a more conservative cast (though some signed onto both initiatives) launched a "A Christian Proposal for American Debt Crisis" that focuses on the deficit as a moral issue -- much as House Speaker John Boehner did this week -- but which also opposes the Republican-led effort to address the debt by slashing discretionary spending.

"Effective programs that prevent hunger and suffering and empower poorer members of society must continue and be adequately funded," the latest petition says.

Yet even as these Christian leaders, many of them card-carrying conservatives, push to spare the poor while reducing the deficit, they face serious internal tensions and fractures on two fronts: among themselves, on the one hand, and between these leaders and the folks in the pews, on the other.

Among the leadership, one clear difference of opinion is over what ought to be cut. Some would spare foreign aid to the poor and sacrifice more on the domestic side, while others disagree about whether defense spending should be significantly reduced. And the minefield of entitlement reform is treaded on ever so lightly, much as it is on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

At the same time, these faith-based campaigns focus almost exclusively on the issue of cutting spending and largely avoid the dreaded "t-word" -- taxes -- which has the potential to splinter any coalition.

For example, the "Christian Proposal for American Debt Crisis" launched on Thursday has only a broadly worded phrase near the end that says Congress "should remove many special exemptions, end many special subsidies, and keep the tax code progressive."

"Our general statement says we keep the tax code progressive. It doesn't say exactly how we do that," Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, a chief organizer of the petition, said on a Thursday conference call with other signatories that was organized by the liberal-leaning group, Faith in Public Life.

Sider said he would personally support a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans but acknowledged that not all of his colleagues agree with him.

Indeed, only one of the other five evangelicals on the call, Michael Gerson, former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, who is now a fellow at the ONE Campaign and a columnist for the Washington Post, responded to a question about tax hikes, and he cautioned against the idea because he said it would undermine economic growth.

Yet even modest language on protecting anti-poverty programs, for example, which are a relatively miniscule part of the federal budget, were seen as tantamount to "heresy" by Peter Wehner, writing at Commentary, about the "What Would Jesus Cut?" campaign.

Wehner's critique points directly to the other fault line facing Christian leaders advocating for the poor, namely the veritable gulf between even the more conservative activists like Michael Gerson and the believers in the pews.

As a recent Pew survey showed, evangelical Christians in particular are significantly more likely than other Americans to favor spending cuts on aid to poor people in the United States and overseas, and cuts on spending on behalf of the unemployed, environmental protection, scientific research, health care and education.

"I would say that we need an ongoing biblical dialogue with my brother and sister evangelicals," is how Ron Sider diplomatically phrased his reaction to the survey.

Shane Claiborne of The Simple Way, another speaker at Thursday's press conference, was more direct:

"I think that much of evangelical Christianity has lost the centeredness of Jesus and Jesus' heart for the poor and Jesus' Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount," he said. "We're starting with Christians because in some ways we've forgotten the 2,000 [Bible] verses that dare us and challenge us to remember the poor."

Claiborne called defense spending the "elephant in the room" that no one wanted to talk about, a reflection of the fact that the Pew survey showed that the only sectors of the federal budget on which evangelicals wanted to increase spending more than the rest of the public was defense and fighting crime.

Likewise, Gideon Strauss, president of Center for Public Justice, seemed to reject the philosophy of the tea party movement -- which surveys show is disproportionately composed of conservative white evangelicals -- when he declared Thursday that "those who disdain government and the political process dishonor God and their own humanity."

That's a powerful bit of preaching, but it's hard to see how it can affect a conversion on a flock that is in no mood to hear about shared sacrifices. Even more daunting is the task of translating such lofty principles into policy proposals that could unite Christian leaders themselves while having any chance of achieving their shared goals of protecting social programs while reducing the deficit and not raising taxes.

In the end, the Devil is always in the details, whether it's a question of the federal budget or what Jesus really meant.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pro-Choice Extremist Reportedly Arrested by FBI for Threats to Pro-Life Activists

David Gibson — 2011-02-26T21:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Abortion, Crime, Disputations, Conservatives, Liberals

The FBI in New York has reportedly arrested Theodore Shulman, a radical abortion rights campaigner with a long history of threatening pro-life activists, and charged him with making interstate threats against two abortion opponents who were not identified.

The 49-year-old Shulman was arrested on Thursday and was being held without bond at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City, according to pro-life activists who were alerted to Shulman's incarceration by federal investigators. An officer at the correctional center referred a calls about inmates to the public relations office, which is closed over the weekend.

"This is a huge relief to us that Ted Shulman is behind bars where he belongs," Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, a prominent anti-abortion organization, said in a story on the group's website. "He often posted threatening comments to our website and called me on my cell phone too many times to count."

Sullenger was not one of the two targets listed in the federal complaint, which has apparently been sealed (the FBI did not respond to requests for comment on Saturday). But she and a number of prominent abortion opponents and conservative activists -- including blogger Jill Stanek, Princeton political philosopher Robert P. George, Father Frank Pavone from Priests for Life, Bryan Kemper of Stand True Ministries, and scientist and pro-life activist Gerard Nadal -- have been frequent targets of Shulman's rants.

Nadal wrote of his relief over the "reprieve from death threats" to himself and his family in the wake of Shulman's arrest, and Sullenger and others were equally grateful.

"He was always brazen in his threats and openly identified himself, telling us not to bother calling the FBI because they would never do anything for us," Sullenger said. "Thankfully, he was wrong about that."

In fact, most stories of violence or threatened violence over the volatile issue of abortion tend to be connected to anti-abortion extremists rather than radicals in the abortion rights camp.

But Shulman is an unusual case in many respects.

His mother is Alix Kates Shulman, a feminist author and political activist who first achieved notoriety in 1972 for her novel "Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen," which drew wide coverage for its frank depiction of the sexual experiences of a young Midwestern woman who -- like Alix Shulman -- went off to college in the East. Shulman has spoken of having four abortions, "and not one was the result of carelessness." According to Jill Stanek, Ted Shulman has said two of his mother's abortions were before his birth and two were after.

For whatever reasons, Theodore Shulman -- who goes by Ted -- seemed to fixate on the issue of abortion rights and defined his activism by fierce and often extreme verbal attacks on pro-lifers that often threatened them with a violent end. He liked to allude to himself as the "first pro-choice terrorist" and started a blog called "Operation Counterstrike."

His mission statement says: "Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act on it."

In assisting the FBI over the past few years, Jill Stanek compiled more than 4,000 comments that Shulman posted or tried to post on her site over the last four years or so. One example: "I'm looking forward to watching a documentary entitled 'The Assassination of Jill Stanek'," Shulman wrote on Oct. 27 in a comment using one of his many online aliases.

Stanek told Politics Daily in an e-mail that Shulman's threats to her were not part of the criminal complaint against him.

It's not clear what Shulman may have done to push his actions and rhetoric across the line to alleged criminality. In its website report about Shulman's arrest Operation Rescue includes an audio recording of a threat to Cheryl Sullenger that the group says Shulman left on the group's voicemail:

"Hi Cheryl, I'm calling you to say you need to convert to pro-choice because your Maker is going to send an angel to gather you in very soon, and if you haven't converted to pro-choice by the time you get OFFED you will go to hell and burn!" the message says. "So quick, quick, quick -- convert to pro-choice during the few months you have left on this earth. Do it now!"

In its statement on Shulman, Operation Rescue says that threats to the group and its leader have increased in recent weeks, an increase it links to criticism of Operation Rescue from the liberal MSNBC cable host Rachel Maddow.

Last October, Maddow hosted a documentary, "The Assassination of Dr. Tiller," that examined the assassination on May 31, 2009, of George Tiller, one of just three doctors in the country who performed late-term abortions. While ushering at his church in Wichita, Kansas, Tiller was fatally shot by Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion extremist.

Maddow's show linked Operation Rescue, which led daily vigils outside Tiller's clinic for years, to extreme anti-abortion views.

According to pro-life activists, Shulman is also the subject of a federal investigation in Wichita, which could result in additional charges against him.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Gay Marriage Decision May Not Hurt Obama or Help the Religious Right

David Gibson — 2011-02-25T20:42:00+00:00

Filed under: George W. Bush, House, Republicans, John McCain, Religion, Mike Huckabee, Abortion, Gay Rights, Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin, Obama Administration, 2012 President, Culture, Disputations, Congress, Conservatives, Campaigns, Liberals, Tea Party, Barack Obama, John Boehner, 2012 Elections

When the Obama administration announced that it would adopt a matador defense on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the reaction from conservative Christian activists alternated between rage and celebration that the president had basically allowed the political right a slam dunk for the 2012 campaign.

The Justice Department declared that it would no longer argue in court on behalf of a key restriction against gay marriage contained in the law, which effectively gives gay marriage a pass from the executive branch -- and gives the religious right a debating point.

Majority Leader Harry Reid Among 'Most Liberal' Senators

Politics Daily Staff — 2011-02-25T13:50:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, 2010 Elections, Congress, Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates

New rankings of the Senate's most liberal members -- a list including Harry Reid and powerful committee chairmen Carl Levin and Patrick Leahy -- suggest moderates are fading from the scene on Capitol Hill.

Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-Nev.), who was elected to a fifth term in November, has become more liberal in his voting record in the past three years, the National Journal said in its annual rankings. The magazine had the Senate leader as the 22nd most liberal lawmaker in 2009 and 25th on its list the year before that.

Writer Ronald Brownstein said the vote ratings marked a peak in polarization in the Senate. For only the second time since 1982, every Senate Democrat last year earned a more liberal rating than every Republican -- and every Republican had a more conservative voting record than every Democrat.

The magazine monitors votes on a range of economic, social and foreign policy issues to measure ideology. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) tied with seven other Republican senators on the most conservative list.

Reid's fellow liberals include Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Vermont's Leahy, who heads the Judiciary Committee which screens Supreme Court nominations as well as other federal judicial appointments. Also tied for first on the liberal list: Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio; Ben Cardin of Maryland; Barbara Mikulski, also of Maryland; Debbie Stabenow of Michigan; Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. All are Democrats except Sanders, an independent, who caucuses with the Democats.

Seven House members shared first place on the National Journal's most liberal list -- all are Democrats, four of them are women. They are: Reps. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin; Judy Chu of California; John Lewis of Georgia; Jerrold Nadler of New York; John Olver of Massachusetts; Jan Schakowsky of Illinois and Linda Sanchez of California.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Moderates Are Not Independents, and Other Clues to Moves by Obama, GOP

Jill Lawrence — 2011-02-24T22:12:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Obama Administration, 2012 President, Independents, Liberals, Moderates, Deficit, Analysis, 2012 Elections

If you want to understand why President Barack Obama and opposition Republicans are acting the way they are, a new study provides some clues. Bottom line: Democrats need huge numbers of moderates to win national elections, while Republicans can rely a lot more on their conservative base.

Moderates are "the true presidential kingmakers," political scientists William Galston and Elaine Kamarck write in their study for the centrist Democratic think tank, Third Way. Since 1980, the pair say, no Democrat has been elected president without winning at least 60 percent of the moderate vote, accounting for at least half their total vote.

Republicans can rely more on conservatives because there are more conservatives in the electorate - an average of 33 percent in the past 30 years, as opposed to 20 percent self-described liberals. Yet the biggest share of voters by far is the 47 percent who call themselves moderates.

Using years of data from Gallup, Pew and other polling outfits, Kamarck and Galston found that moderates are akin to liberals on issues such as abortion and gay rights. But as a group they are more skeptical about the size and reach of government and more likely to believe it is not the government's job to reduce the income gap between rich and poor. They are also much more likely than liberals to favor tax cuts over public investments as a way to strengthen the economy, and they are more interested than liberals in reducing the deficit.

One of the most interesting points the authors make is that moderates and independents, often lumped together, are quite different. Most independents - 75 percent - lean toward one party or the other, and overall, the group has a "conservative tilt," Galston and Kamarck found.

The ideology gap between moderates and independents is clear at the White House level. Moderates delivered more than half their votes to Democrats in six out of the last nine presidential elections. Independents did so just once, in 2008 for Obama.

The findings illuminate the political logic behind some recent moves on both sides. Obama has signed a tax-cut bill, proposed a five-year freeze on some domestic spending and reached out to the business community. Republicans are trying to cut off federal money to public broadcasting, the arts and Planned Parenthood and (in Wisconsin) are trying to throw out most collective bargaining rights for unionized public employees.

Galston and Kamarck say the impact of moderates is muted in the political process, to the detriment of Democrats. They suggest that congressional districts be drawn by non-partisan commissions and that primaries be more open, ideally non-partisan with the top two finishers competing in the general election.

The pair also said they'd be open to primaries on a single day, to make them a more attention-grabbing event. Galston, asked about compulsory voting, said he'd like to see a few states experiment with treating voting like jury duty -- compulsory, and you pay a fine if you don't show up.

Jamelle Bouie, blogging at the liberal American Prospect, said the argument that moderates don't have enough influence ignores the content of legislation in the last two years. Citing the Affordable Care Act, which became less liberal as it moved through Congress, Bouie argued that "partisans are disadvantaged in the governing process."

That may apply more to liberals than conservatives. Partisan Republicans do not seem particularly disadvantaged these days -- House and Senate Republicans are for the most part doing their bidding. That may be because, as the numbers show, there is little downside for GOP leaders to stoke their base. By contrast, Obama and Democrats must show caution toward their liberal base or risk alienating the moderates who are vital to their coalition.

Follow Jill Lawrence on Facebook and Twitter

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Glenn Beck Meets Billy Graham, Later Blasts the Left as 'Evil'

David Gibson — 2011-02-22T22:46:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Religion, Sarah Palin, Disputations, Conservatives, Liberals, Tea Party

Controversial Fox News host Glenn Beck met quietly with the aging and revered evangelist Billy Graham on Saturday and said that after their three-hour encounter he is convinced that the political left -- including "the average Democrat" -- is "standing now with profound and clear evil."

"In sitting there and speaking to Reverend Graham, I thought, here is a man who has been all around the world," Beck explained on his website on Tuesday, apparently a transcript of comments made on his radio show on Monday. "Here's a man who has seen it all. Here's a man who's done profound good. One of the first to stand in Alabama as a white preacher and stand and say we must come together."

Obama Administration Returns to Earlier Conscience Protections For Health Workers

David Gibson — 2011-02-18T21:18:00+00:00

Filed under: George W. Bush, Bush Administration, House, Democrats, Republicans, Religion, Abortion, Health Care, Obama Administration, Disputations, Conservatives, Liberals, Ethics, Medicine, Barack Obama

The Obama administration on Friday reversed most of the provisions of controversial federal conscience-protection regulations that were instituted by George W. Bush at the end of his presidency, thereby leaving Bush's successor with a politically difficult decision that would alienate either abortion rights supporters or opponents, or both.

The Bush administration had pushed the 11th-hour regulations through in December 2008, despite President-elect Obama's vow to rescind them; when Obama came into office, he instead said he would have the Department of Health and Human Services review the rules after considering input from all sides, and Friday's decision was the result.

The new rules -- meant to protect workers from having to perform certain medical procedures if they object on moral or religious grounds -- do away with Bush administration language that was seen as so far-reaching that it could allow health care workers to opt out of a broad range of medical services, such as providing the emergency contraceptive Plan B to rape victims, assisting on infertility treatments, treating gay men and lesbians, prescribing birth control to single women, and following end-of-life directives by patients if they conflicted with a health worker's beliefs.

The HHS statement said the previous wording "caused confusion and could be taken as overly broad." In fact, the Bush language faced court challenges in at least eight states.

Friday's move generally seemed to please pro-choice groups, and while the decision was anticipated to be handed down soon, it was an especially welcome boost for abortion-rights supporters on a day when the House voted to stop funding Planned Parenthood clinics.

The HHS decision was, as expected, a compromise that leaves in place some of the newer Bush language on exemptions regarding abortion and sterilization.

But because it drops much of the Bush language, the Obama rule was seen as a step back by social conservatives.

The Obama rule largely restores the previous policy that for decades protected health care workers and faith-based institutions like Catholic hospitals whose religious or moral convictions would prevent them from taking part in certain procedures.

It also retains a threat to withhold federal dollars from institutions that do not comply with conscience protections and it keeps the Bush-era mechanism by which those who feel their rights are being infringed can appeal to the HHS Office for Civil Rights. That makes the current regulation, at least in the abstract, stronger than anything in place at any time except the last month of the Bush administration.

"The administration strongly supports provider conscience laws that protect and support the rights of health care providers, and also recognizes and supports the rights of patients," said an HHS statement. "Strong conscience laws make it clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion. Many of these strong conscience laws have been in existence for more than 30 years. The rule being issued today builds on these laws by providing a clear enforcement process."

The department also announced a new "awareness initiative" for facilities receiving federal money to ensure they understand the conscience protections and the appeal process for those who believe their rights have been violated.

Conservatives had originally lobbied the Bush administration for stronger regulations because of what they said was increasing pressures on nurses, doctors, pharmacists and medical facilities -- mainly Christian -- to perform procedures and provide services they found morally objectionable. They also argued that stronger regulations were needed in light of Obama's victory and the anticipation that he would not be as vigilant in protecting the conscience rights of health care workers. And they wanted conscience protections to cover emerging issues, such as "morning after" pills and fertility treatments and the like.

The Bush regulations that were promulgated in December 2008 could have cut off federal funding for up to half a million entities, including state and local governments, hospitals, health plans and clinics, if they did not take the initiative to certify to the federal government that they would accommodate the beliefs of health care personnel.

The new regulation still ensures that no federal money can be used to "support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law."

While pro-choice groups were pleased with the change -- Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, cast it as a much-needed victory on a day that the House voted to cut funds to Planned Parenthood -- social conservatives registered varying degrees of disappointment and outrage.

"Conscience Trampled by the Regime" was the title of a column by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a prominent voice among Christian conservatives, reacting to the administration's decision.

"Gone are all protections for those who object by conscience to abortifacient drugs and 'emergency' contraceptives, the treatment of gay men and lesbians, and prescriptions for birth control sought by single women," Mohler wrote. "In these cases, medical personnel have objected that their conscience and understanding of medical ethics do not allow them to facilitate acts and behaviors that are both immoral and unhealthy."

Mohler portrayed the move -- which actually leaves conscience protections stronger than they were during Bush's eight years in office -- as a signal that "the Obama administration is now ready to use the coercive power of the state to force medical personnel to perform acts they consider to be morally wrong and unhealthy for their patients." He cast it as "a tyrannical trampling of individual conscience by the power of the state" and suggested Christians should be prepared to face government sanctions for their beliefs.

Dr. J. Scott Ries, an official with the Christian Medical Association, an evangelical-oriented organization, also lamented the administration's rule changes. Ries said they would drive people of faith out of the medical profession and deprive the neediest of medical care that is often provided by religiously motivated health care workers.

The Catholic hierarchy, which had also supported the Bush rule, took a more measured view of the changes.

"The Administration's action today is cause for disappointment, but also offers reasons for hope regarding an emerging consensus in Washington on the need for clear conscience protections for health care providers," said Deirdre McQuade of the Pro-Life Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Catholic Health Association, which represents more than 1,200 Catholic health care systems and facilities, welcomed the regulations as vital protections for religiously-affiliated institutions like Catholic hospitals, as well as for individuals, who oppose abortion.

"In conjunction with the Catholic bishops of the United States, we were pleased to see the clarity of these federal conscience protections and were especially pleased to to see the provisions for education on conscience protection and the pathways for enforcement," Sr. Carol Keehan, head of the CHA, told PoliticsDaily.

Robert Vischer, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minneapolis who has written widely on conscience issues, saw the new rule as a mixed bag that would -- like the Bush regulations -- largely depend on how it was interpreted and enforced. And he said those who doubt the president's commitment on this issue are likely to be suspicious of his administration's preference to sort out problems on a case-by-case basis rather than through a single universal rule.

"There has been two years' worth of smoke surrounding federal conscience protection for health care providers, but it is difficult to discern exactly where the fire is when the debate plays out on the pages of the Code of Federal Regulations," Vischer wrote in an analysis at the website of the National Catholic Reporter.

"Apparently, the less said on the subject, the better," is how Vischer interpreted the administration's "punt" on conscience protections. "The problem, of course, is that Congress has never been especially astute at crafting user-friendly legislation. The implementing regulations, at their best, can provide a roadmap of the relevant legal rights, privileges, and obligations. Forsaking the opportunity to provide any sort of roadmap fosters doubt as to how seriously one takes the corresponding obligations."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Marching in Madison: Are Union Workers Welfare Queens, or Friends and Neighbors?

Eleanor Clift — 2011-02-18T21:08:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Education, Obama Administration, Woman Up, Governors, Conservatives, Liberals, Jobs, Analysis, Economy

On cable television for a time this week, it looked like Cairo had come to Madison, as up to 70,000 people demonstrating for their rights marched on the Statehouse in Wisconsin.

Fourteen Democratic lawmakers fled the Capitol, crossing state lines to avoid giving a Republican majority in the state Senate the quorum needed to pass legislation that would curb the collective bargaining rights of public employees and mandate they pay more for their health care and pension benefits.

The clash over workers' rights and benefits sparked the kind of demonstrations that the liberal capital had not seen since the 1960s, when it was a center of the anti-war movement. Protesters carried signs likening Republican Gov. Scott Walker to Hosni Mubarak, the deposed autocratic leader in Egypt, setting the stage for a broader battle between newly empowered Republican governors across the country and a weakened labor movement hampered by the perception that public employees are unfairly insulated from the worst of the recession.

Former Sen. Russ Feingold Launches 'Progressive Movement'

Tom Diemer — 2011-02-16T14:11:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, 2010 Elections, Campaigns, Liberals, Tea Party, Supreme Court

Former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, regarded as liberal but independent during his three terms in the Senate, says he is starting a "progressive" movement to support like-minded candidates and fight the influence of corporate money in campaigns.

Feingold, who was defeated in his bid for reelection in November, has rejected calls from some liberal voices to challenge President Obama as a candidate of the political left in the 2012 Democratic primaries. Instead of returning to electoral politics, he said in a new video he's forming Progressives United, a group that will have a political action committee to raise money and back candidates that "uphold our progressive ideals."

"As progressives, it's time we made our voices heard," the 57-year-old lawyer said.

Best known as co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, Feingold made it clear that countering corporate cash will be a focal point. His reform law was was undermined by last year's Supreme Court Citizens United opinion, which removed most barriers to spending by corporate and union interest on campaign advertising. Feingold called it "one of the most lawless decisions" in American history.

"Our fight is not over," he said. "Together we'll start a movement."

Feingold's organization says it will will push back against the flood of business money going largely to Republicans, and aim at "eventually overturning the Citizens United decision," The Hill newspaper reported.

Feingold, a graduate of the Harvard Law School, took a job teaching law at Marquette University in Milwaukee after leaving the Senate. He lost to conservative businessman Ron Johnson, who was supported by the tea party movement.

Watch the video, courtesy YouTube.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Keith Olbermann to Launch Show on Current TV in Late Spring

Politics Daily Staff — 2011-02-07T21:45:00+00:00

Filed under: Liberals

Keith Olbermann, who unceremoniously left his MSNBC "Countdown" show last month, has joined the public affairs channel Current TV and will host a nightly prime-time show starting in late spring.

The liberal public affairs network co-founded by Al Gore can be seen in about 75 million homes worldwide, available only on the digital tier of cable channel systems. At MSNBC, which the unabashedly liberal and outspoken Olbermann left after a storm relationship, his nightly audience was about 1 million.

In a conference call with reporters Tuesday morning, Olbermann, 52, said the new program will be "an improved, and we hope amplified and stronger, version of the show that I just did," according to the New York Times.

Having squabbled with management at MSNBC -- he was suspended for making contributions to Democratic politicians -- Olbermann said that "nothing is more vital to a free America than a free media and nothing is more vital to my concept of a free media than news produced independently of corporate interference."

In a statement, Gore said the channel is "delighted to provide Keith with the independent platform and freedom that Current can and does uniquely offer."

In addition to executive-producing and hosting the news and commentary show, Olbermann will also serve as Current TV's chief news officer.

Current TV until now has been a low-profile channel that runs series such as "This American Life." Before that, it relied on submissions from video journalists. A start date for the new show was not disclosed.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Tea Party Hero Rand Paul Favors Compromise But on His Terms

Tom Diemer — 2011-02-02T14:29:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Republicans, 2010 Elections, Congress, Conservatives, Liberals, Deficit, Tea Party

Freshman Sen. Rand Paul, an advocate for the conservative tea party movement, waxed eloquent in his maiden Senate speech about the perilous nature of compromise, the national debt and the historic argument over slavery.

Though he said there was no "moral equivalency," Paul compared the current debt debate to the 19th century slavery dispute between free states and slaves states.

Paul (R-Ky.) has been assigned the Senate desk of Sen. Henry Clay, who also represented Kentucky and was known as the "Great Compromiser," in part for his efforts to settle the nation's differences over slavery before the Civil War.

Paul has mixed feelings about Clay -- and also the art of compromise.

During his Senate orientation, Paul said a colleague asked him, "'Will you be a great compromiser?'" Paul said Wednesday that he had pondered the question long and hard. "Is compromise the noble position? Is compromise a sign of enlightenment?"

Clay, a slave owner, made compromises on the issue that were meant to avert war, but were "morally wrong and may have even encouraged war," Paul said. His estranged cousin, Cassius Clay, on the other hand, was an "unapologetic" abolitionist who broke with his more famous relative over the issue and "refused to compromise" on slavery.

"Who are our heroes?" Paul mused. "Are we fascinated and enthralled by the Great Compromiser or his cousin Cassius Clay?"

As he legislates, Paul said he would keep in mind Henry Clay's "lifelong desire to forge agreement," but also the stand taken by his cousin "who refused to forsake the life of any human simply to find agreement."

Having given fellow senators a history lesson, Paul turned to the modern-day business of trillion dollar plus budget deficits -- a prime target of the grassroots, anti-big government tea party movement. "Will the tea party compromise? Can the tea party work with others to find a solution?" The answer, Paul said, is that any deficit reduction "compromise" must be over where to cut spending and by how much -- "not where we raise taxes."

Any compromise on the deficit, he added, must include conservatives "acknowledging we can cut military spending and liberals acknowledging we can cut domestic spending." At a first-termer, Paul is not a leader in the Senate, but he will be watched as a barometer of the tea party's influence.

Paul, a libertarian who was named after the novelist Ayn Rand, is the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) who ran for president in 2008. During his Senate campaign, Rand Paul came under fire when he seemed to fudge when asked in interviews how he would have voted on the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul said he was troubled by laws that impinge on the rights of private ownership.

Watch the Senate speech, courtesy of YouTube.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Led by Inouye, Democrats Are Getting Fiscal Religion on Earmarks, Deficits

Tom Diemer — 2011-02-02T11:32:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, State of the Union, Congress, Liberals, Deficit, Barack Obama, 2012 Elections

Are Senate Democrats getting religion -- fiscal religion, that is?

Sen. Daniel Inouye, head of the Appropriations Committee, says he will enforce a ban on earmarks -- costly, unauthorized add-ons that get slipped into spending bills, often for the benefit of narrow special interests. Inouye (D-Hawaii) imposed the two-year moratorium in the aftermath of President Obama's State of the Union threat to veto special interest projects that land on his desk. Yet just last week, Inouye's colleague, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- no shirker when it comes to pork-barrel spending -- minimized the veto threat as an "applause line."

Not to Inouye. "The handwriting is clearly on the wall," he said Tuesday. ". . . Given the reality before us, it makes no sense to accept earmark requests [in committee] that have no chance of being enacted." House Republicans have called for a similar ban on extra spending that's inserted into legislation, even when the items have not been requested by federal agencies.

Inouye, first elected in 1962, is not the only liberal Democrat facing up to the peril of trillion-dollar annual deficits.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) has decided to co-sponsor a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, a longtime GOP priority. "The way I see it, American families have to balance their checkbooks, especially in hard times, and the federal government doesn't have to do the same thing," Udall told the Denver Post. "We've balanced the budget five times in 50 years and we've racked up record amounts of debt levels. It's my strong belief we have to take action now."

The budget amendment, which would have to be ratified by two-thirds of the states if it clears Congress, would allow an exception for times of war. Udall's co-sponsor is Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).

Also Tuesday, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who must stand for reelection next year in a swing state coveted by Republicans, proposed a bipartisan bill that would pinch spending on most government programs, even Social Security and Medicare. Her co-sponsor is Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

McCaskill called the legislation a "bold step" that could actually disadvantage her politically. "It has risks. If this bill is distorted and twisted it could cost me my Senate seat," she said in a speech on the floor of the chamber. "But it's a price I'm willing to pay for my country, and it's a price I'm willing to pay for my grandchildren."

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Is Murdered Gay Activist David Kato the Gabrielle Giffords of Uganda?

David Gibson — 2011-01-28T21:47:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Senate, Republicans, Religion, Crime, Gay Rights, Foreign Policy, Disputations, Conservatives, Liberals, Hate Crimes, Barack Obama, Arizona Shooting

The bludgeoning death of gay activist David Kato this week in Uganda stunned the gay community around the world and prompted Kato's angry allies to point the finger of blame at Christian-fueled homophobia in the East African nation, and at conservative Christians in the United States who have long ties to anti-gay forces in Uganda.

"David's death is a result of the hatred planted in Uganda by U.S Evangelicals in 2009," Val Kalende, the woman who heads "Freedom and Roam Uganda," a gay rights group, said in a statement. "The Ugandan Government and the so-called U.S Evangelicals must take responsibility for David's blood."

Gay activists have been furious with Christian conservatives from America -- such as evangelist Rick Warren and politicians including Republican Sens. James Inhofe, Tom Coburn and Mike Enzi -- for their support of Christians campaigning against homosexual protections in Uganda, which has a notorious record of discrimination against gays.

The critics say that U.S.-based support was especially notable in a March 2009 forum in the capital, Kampala, that featured a trio of well-known Christian pastors from the so-called ex-gay movement. They say that forum helped inspire Christian parliamentarians in Uganda to propose draconian measures against gays and lesbians, including a bill pending in the Ugandan parliament that would allow for the death penalty for some homosexual activity.

Still, that legislation is only one manifestation of widespread anti-gay sentiment in Uganda.

Campaigns to publicly out homosexuals (or accuse political opponents of being gay, whether they are or not) are common in Uganda, and last September a Ugandan newspaper, Rolling Stone (no relation to the American magazine), ran a cover story ranting against gays and including David Kato's picture under a banner urging, "Hang Them." Anonymous death threats against Kato were increasing, as they were against many out gays and lesbians, especially after he won a judgment against Rolling Stone.

So it was hardly a surprise that, in an echo of the shootings in Tucson this month that targeted Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, gay rights groups and their supporters blamed homophobia and conservative Christians in particular for Kato's murder -- much as some liberals painted right-wing rhetoric as culpable for the Arizona massacre by a gunman police believe to be Jared Lee Loughner that claimed six lives and injured 13 people, including Giffords.

"Uganda's homophobic witch hunt claims the life of a prominent rights defender," was the title of a press release on Kato from the New York-based organization, Human Rights First. In Uganda, the gay activist group Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), issued a statement calling "on religious leaders, political leaders and media houses to stop demonizing sexual minorities in Uganda since doing so creates a climate of violence against gay persons." And the popular gay blogger Joe Jervis, known as "JoeMyGod," charged that some U.S. Christians were "complicit" in Kato's murder.

Rabbis Want Glenn Beck, Roger Ailes to Stop Fox News' Holocaust Comparisons

David Gibson — 2011-01-27T13:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, Culture, Disputations, Conservatives, Liberals

A coalition of some 400 rabbis has published an open letter to Fox News Channel owner Rupert Murdoch, calling on the media mogul to discipline Roger Ailes, president of Fox News, and Glenn Beck, the cable channel's incendiary and popular host, for exploiting the Holocaust in their comments.

In particular they were upset over Beck's attacks on liberal magnate George Soros and Jewish leaders.

"We share a belief that the Holocaust, of course, can and should be discussed appropriately in the media," the rabbis write in the letter, which appears Thursday as an advertisement in The Wall Street Journal -- also owned by Murdoch. "But that is not what we have seen at Fox News."

A spokesman for the group that organized the letter initiative, Jewish Funds for Justice, said the ad cost $100,000. Earlier this month the group organized a letter-writing campaign asking Murdoch to remove Beck from the air. Soros has in the past donated to Jewish Funds for Justice.

In a comment to Reuters, a Fox News executive dismissed the coalition of rabbis as "a George Soros-backed left-wing political organization that has been trying to engage Glenn Beck primarily for publicity purposes."

Using the Holocaust and the Nazi label against one's opponents seems to have become a staple of political discourse in recent years, and that has discomfited many Jews -- who note that the analogies are wildly out of proportion to the historical facts, and that they dishonor the 6 million Jews exterminated by the Nazi campaign of genocide.

But Fox, and Glenn Beck in particular, have made Holocaust-era language a touchstone in programming.

In their letter, the rabbis note that Beck has made "literally hundreds of on-air references to the Holocaust and Nazis when characterizing people with whom he disagrees"; he compares American leaders he does not like to Nazis; and has said putting the "common good" first leads to "death camps."

But the rabbis said that the letter was sparked by Beck's three-part program in November about billionaire philanthropist Soros, who is Jewish and grew up in Nazi-occupied Hungary and is a favorite target of conservative pundits.

"And George Soros used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off," Beck said on one of the programs. "And George Soros was part of it. He would help confiscate the stuff. It was frightening. Here's a Jewish boy helping send Jews to the death camps."

(Soros has said that he hid with a Christian family to escape the Nazis, and that he was present when his so-called godfather inventoried property confiscated from Jews who had been deported.)

Also last November, after National Public Radio fired Juan Williams (who is also a Fox commentator) for his admission of bias against Muslims, Ailes reacted by telling The Daily Beast that NPR executives "are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism."

He later apologized to the Anti-Defamation League but not to NPR. Ailes had also defended Beck's frequent use of Nazi references to describe his political opponents and chalked up any opposition to "left-wing rabbis who basically don't think that anybody can ever use the word 'Holocaust' on the air."

The rabbis signing the letter include the heads of the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements as well as prominent Orthodox rabbis.

"In the charged political climate in the current civic debate, much is tolerated, and much is ignored or dismissed," their letter says. "But you diminish the memory and meaning of the Holocaust when you use it to discredit any individual or organization you disagree with. That is what Fox News has done in recent weeks, and it is not only 'left-wing rabbis' who think so."

Thursday is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, an observance established by the United Nations in 2005.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

State of the Union Winners and Losers: How Did Liberals, Corporate America Do?

Jill Lawrence — 2011-01-26T05:48:00+00:00

Filed under: Budget, Education, Gay Rights, Taxes, Social Security, Energy, Liberals, Moderates, Deficit, Unemployment, Climate Change, Medicare, Analysis, Economy

Who won and who lost in President Obama's hour-long State of the Union address? It was less of a laundry list than some presidents indulge in, but still there were plenty of signals to interpret and points to put on the board (or not).

WINNERS

Nerds and entrepreneurs. Obama talked repeatedly about how he wants to sink money not just into education, but also into biomedical research, information technology and clean energy technology. "We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair," he said.

Moderates. Obama's many signals to them included calls for simplifying the tax system, lowering the corporate tax rate, ending earmarks and streamlining the government bureaucracy. He also reiterated his support for education reforms controversial with teacher unions, and said that "we want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones." He pushed for free-trade agreements all over the world, and urged colleges to welcome ROTC back on campus now that "Don't ask, don't tell" has been repealed.

Pro-Life Ranks Growing, Especially After Philly Abortion Case, Cardinal Says

David Gibson — 2011-01-25T23:03:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, Religion, Abortion, 2012 President, Disputations, 2010 Elections, Conservatives, Liberals, Health Care Reform, Barack Obama

A day after the annual March for Life drew thousands to frigid Washington to protest abortion, the Roman Catholic cardinal who is the American hierarchy's point man on pro-life issues said he was "hopeful" that the new Congress could move ahead on measures to restrict abortion.

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston also said he believes the cultural tide is turning against public acceptance of abortion, and that the revelations of gruesome practices by a Philadelphia abortionist will add to the disapproval.

"This situation in Philadelphia is certainly sobering, and I hope the publicity will bring to mind that this abortion on demand and without much control is a horror," DiNardo said. He said a grand jury report last week, accusing abortionist Kermit Gosnell of the serial murders of infants and some mothers, could spur some movement toward regulating abortion clinics.

"Where you have these clinics you have to pay attention to what's going on," said DiNardo, who is chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities. "While this [Gosnell case] seems to be the most gruesome, apparently analogous things have happened in other states . . . So I think it will have an effect."

Ed Rendell, Former Democratic Governor, Signs On as NBC Analyst

Tom Diemer — 2011-01-25T09:37:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Humor, Governors, 2010 Elections, Liberals, Health Care Reform

Within days of the departure of controversial talk show host Keith Olbermann, NBC News announced Tuesday that former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a blunt-spoken, partisan Democrat, has signed on with the network as a political analyst.

Rendell, who recently completed two terms as governor and also served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, will start immediately at NBC News and its sister cable channel, MSNBC, the network said.

"Gov. Rendell has never been afraid to share his thoughtful analysis on national and local issues and he couldn't be a better fit for NBC News," said NBC News President Steve Capus.

Rendell, gruff-voiced but cheerful, recently derided fellow Democrats as a "bunch of wusses" for not rallying around health care reform. He used the same term last month to suggest the nation had gone soft after the NFL postponed a football game between the Eagles and Vikings because of a blizzard in Philadelphia.

Olbermann, an unapologetic liberal, announced Friday night on "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" that he was leaving his cable show, effective immediately. He offered no real explanation for his exit, and neither did NBC.

Rendell, 66, said that "the ability to have my voice heard and create an impact on the political discourse is exciting to me and is an extension of my continued commitment to public life."

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Religious Right Meets Religious Left: Two Evangelical Christians Urge Civility

David Gibson — 2011-01-24T23:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Religion, State of the Union, Disputations, Conservatives, Liberals, Barack Obama, Arizona Shooting

Two icons of the Christian right and Christian left, Chuck Colson and Jim Wallis, have penned a joint statement that calls on the nation to "re-examine the tone and character of our public debate" in the wake of the Tucson shootings and says that believers "should lead by example."

Colson, a political conservative who became active in prison ministry after doing jail time for crimes related to his work in the Nixon White House, and Wallis, who has emerged as a leader of the so-called Religious left, write that "no act of incivility can be blamed for the profoundly evil shooting" of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others, six of whom died.

But they say that "we should not lose this moment for moral reflection and renewal. We must re-examine the tone and character of our public debate, because solving the enormous problems we face as a nation will require that we work for a more civil public square."

"This tragedy reminds us that we always have a choice to appeal to our 'better angels' or our worst," they write at the website of Christianity Today, a leading evangelical magazine. "We believe that the faith community should lead by example and model the behavior that is informed by our biblical teachings -- behavior that also essential to the survival of democracy."

"God," they say, "is neither a Democrat nor a Republican."

The manifesto is the latest reaction to the shootings in Arizona and the poisonous climate of rhetoric that preceded the massacre and the equally bitter recriminations that followed. Religiously inflected language has been especially loaded, critics say.

Politics Daily

Obama Getting Heat From Left and Right for U.S. Role in Libyan Attacks

Public Support for Gay Marriage on Verge of Surpassing Opposition

What Would Jesus Cut? Deficit Debate Rallies Christians -- and Exposes Divisions

Pro-Choice Extremist Reportedly Arrested by FBI for Threats to Pro-Life Activists

Gay Marriage Decision May Not Hurt Obama or Help the Religious Right

Related Stories

Majority Leader Harry Reid Among 'Most Liberal' Senators

Moderates Are Not Independents, and Other Clues to Moves by Obama, GOP

Glenn Beck Meets Billy Graham, Later Blasts the Left as 'Evil'

Related Stories

Obama Administration Returns to Earlier Conscience Protections For Health Workers

Marching in Madison: Are Union Workers Welfare Queens, or Friends and Neighbors?

Related Stories

Former Sen. Russ Feingold Launches 'Progressive Movement'

Keith Olbermann to Launch Show on Current TV in Late Spring

Tea Party Hero Rand Paul Favors Compromise But on His Terms

Led by Inouye, Democrats Are Getting Fiscal Religion on Earmarks, Deficits

Is Murdered Gay Activist David Kato the Gabrielle Giffords of Uganda?

Related Stories

Rabbis Want Glenn Beck, Roger Ailes to Stop Fox News' Holocaust Comparisons

State of the Union Winners and Losers: How Did Liberals, Corporate America Do?

Related Stories

Pro-Life Ranks Growing, Especially After Philly Abortion Case, Cardinal Says

Related Stories

Ed Rendell, Former Democratic Governor, Signs On as NBC Analyst

Religious Right Meets Religious Left: Two Evangelical Christians Urge Civility

Related Stories