February 7, 2008 | 11:18 am

Calling it quits: In Romney’s words

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

Romney did indeed pull the trigger in a speech to CPAC a few minutes ago:

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I would be making it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,” he said.

“This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I’d go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country,” he said as the crowd exclaimed, “No, no.”

“I will continue to stand for conservative principles; I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism!”

February 7, 2008 | 10:29 am

Romney to quit presidential bid

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Only two nights ago, Mitt Romney promised his presidential campaign would continue on. But it won’t.

Mitt Romney is suspending his Republican presidential bid, sources are telling CNN and Time magazine’s website.

He is to make the announcement in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

Romney was far behind in delegates after John McCain swept winner-take-all states in the Northeast and also won California and other big states on Super Tuesday.

But even as he huddled Wednesday with key advisers at his Boston campaign headquarters, a spokesman insisted that Romney was in the race for the long haul.

It was a rough run for the former Massachusetts governor. But is this it? Will Mike Huckabee call it quits too in hope that John McCain will extend the VP spot to him?

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 7, 2008 | 9:35 am

Orthodox rabbi: Vote pro-family or don’t vote

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It looks like James Dobson has a philosophical sympathizer in Rabbi Yehuda Levin, who on Monday urged Torah Jews to cast a no-vote in protest unless a pro-family presidential nominee comes forth.

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the US and Canada (UOR), also known as Agudas HaRabbanim, issued a video statement Monday in which he called for Jewish Americans to avoid voting for a candidate “whose position is in any way antithetical to our Torah based morality.”

Specifically, Rabbi Levin said, “Candidates who support abortion on demand, the toeiva agenda, liberal attitudes towards pornography of any sort - are antithetical to our way of life and it is forbidden to support or vote for them.” The “toeiva agenda” is generally understood among religious Jews to refer to the homosexual lobby’s legislative and social causes.

Adopting an uncompromising position, the UOR head advised, “If one has to vote in an election or primary where both candidates are anti-Biblical family values, G-d forbid…. let the voter cast a write-in protest vote, but do not compromise by voting for the ‘lesser evil.’ If we value the purity and holiness of our children and grandchildren, we dare not compromise.”

Levin is founder of Jews for Morality, which by its name states what he thinks of Jews on the whole. One of my colleagues has taken to calling Levin “the fatwa rabbi.”

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 6, 2008 | 7:44 pm

Willie Nelson: WTC imploded on 9/11

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

A friend just sent me this link:

Straight talking American icon Willie Nelson today told a national radio show that he thought the twin towers were imploded like condemned Las Vegas casino buildings, as the country music superstar forcefully voiced his doubts about the official 9/11 story.

Agreeing with host Alex Jones that he questioned the official story, Nelson elaborated, “I saw those towers fall and I’ve seen an implosion in Las Vegas - there’s too much similarities between the two, and I saw a building fall that didn’t get hit by nothing,” added Nelson, referring to WTC Building 7 which collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11.

“How naive are we - what do they think we’ll go for?,” asked Nelson, pointing out that his doubts began on the very day of 9/11.

“I saw one fall and it was just so symmetrical, I said wait a minute I just saw that last week at the casino in Las Vegas and you see these implosions all the time and the next one fell and I said hell there’s another one - and they’re trying to tell me that an airplane did it and I can’t go along with that,” said Nelson.

Nelson is not the first celebrity to question the veracity of the terror attacks. As this press release notes, Ed Asner, Rosie O’Donnell, Martin Sheen, James Brolin, David Lynch and others have questioned what happened that day. There was also that Ron Paul newsletter about the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

But my favorite 9/11-conspiracy theory is that held by Eric Cartman, who believes the World Trade Center wasn’t generally brought down by the Jews but by one Jew, his 9-year-old pal/nemesis Kyle Broflovski. But, as Stan states at the end of that episode, 9/11 was in fact perpetrated by “a bunch of pissed-off Muslims.”

Duh.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 6, 2008 | 6:40 pm

‘Covering Islam remains a struggle’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Terry Mattingly at GetReligion just posted part of a discussion he had with Andrea Useem, the freelance journalist who runs the site ReligionWriter.com (and is a proud God Blog groupie, I might add). Their discussion focused on the challenge of reporting on Islam, to which Useem is a convert.

Then, of course, there is the ultimate issue: Whether or not to link Islamic beliefs with acts of violence. How can reporters cover the facts — the terrorists themselves trumpet their faith — without implying that this interpretation of Islam is “normal” or “right” to millions of other Muslims? This was a major concern, both to me and to Useem.

It’s crucial to remember this fact — there is no one Islam.

  ReligionWriter: In Jimmy Allen’s 2007 update to Bridging the Gap (text here), Allen lamented that most editors did not see 9/11 as a religious story. But in a way I agree with the editors: Is calling 9/11 an Islam story like saying the Virginia Tech massacre is an Asian-American culture story?

Mattingly: To leave out the religious content of the lives of the bombers would be strange. Let’s look at an example in Christianity. Remember the man who lived out in the woods in North Carolina after blowing up abortion clinics? He had been thrown out of several different very conservative religious groups, and was living as a kind of Christian loner. Yet the press continued to identify him as a Presbyterian. First of all, there’s like 15 different Presbyterian churches: which the heck denomination do you mean? He doesn’t strike me as a PCUSA kind of guy; the world is not full of PCUSA bombers. But for that matter, the world isn’t full of PCA conservative bombers either. In fact, the PCA had thrown Rudolph out — the Orthodox Presbyterians had thrown him out. If you want to accurately describe Rudolph’s life, you end up saying, “Here is a man who said he acted on strong religious motivations, yet the religious groups he was involved with threw him out, and here is why they said they did.” . . .

There, once again, is a debate that has to be covered. You can’t say Eric Rudolph blew up abortion clinics because he was a conservative Christian. You can’t say the guys flew the planes into the towers because they were conservative Muslims. There are too many other conservative Muslims who disagree with them. But the question for journalists is: What are they disagreeing about? And where are the conservative Muslims who will stand up and critique Osama’s interpretation?

I know this struggle, and I’ve tried to tease out the American brand of Islam with stories like this one. But it’s difficult to separate Islam from violence when young American Muslims say their religion justifies suicide bombings or a father is accused of killing his daughter for not wearing the hijab (that was in Canada, but it’s close enough culturally).

Killing the infidel is, of course, not the chief focus of Islam. As despicable as some of the murderous Muslims of the Middle East are, they do not represent Islam to me. I’m led to believe that they are, like so many opportunists throughout history, simply using the endemic religion for political gain.

So how can journalists report the fact that there is variance in Islam—and it’s typically peaceful in the States—when media tend to focus on the dramatic over the mundane, on outrageous actions over everyday interactions? And are we giving most Americans the wrong impression?

4 Comments — Leave your comment

February 6, 2008 | 3:31 pm

Voters given ‘invisible ink’ pens

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

There is no religion angle to this story, an occasional phenomenon on The God Blog. But you’ve got to read this:

When it comes to election shenanigans, Chicago has been accused of just about everything.

But invisible ink?

Twenty voters at a Far North Side precinct who found their ink pens not working were told by election judges not to worry.

It’s invisible ink, officials said. The scanner will count it.

But their votes weren’t recorded after all.

“Part of me was thinking it does sound stupid enough to be true,’’ said Amy Carlton, who had serious doubts but went ahead and voted anyway.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 6, 2008 | 12:29 pm

Clinton and Obama split California Jews, too

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Jews, who made up 5 percent of California’s Democratic vote, split between Hillary Clinton, who got 47 percent, and Barack Obama, who got 49 percent. Clinton once had a significant lead over Obama, but the Illinois senator made a strong run in the past few weeks.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 6, 2008 | 9:56 am

Clinton and Obama split religious vote

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It seems the Clinton campaign’s concerns were either premature or a ploy to lower expectations because she won California handily, and for both parties a long fight appears to be in order. I asked last night how religious voters would chose between the two Democratic candidates considering Barack Obama has been better at infusing religious language in his speeches and, partially as a defense, has emphasized his Christian beliefs.

Well, on Super Tuesday they split the votes. Here is the analysis from preeminent religion and politics scholar John C. Green, via CT Liveblog:

Sen. Obama has clearly done very well among black Protestants, and that’s changed the equation. If you go back to the polls last year that showed Sen. Clinton way ahead, one of the reason was she was winning the black vote by a large margin and that doesn’t seem to be happening. White Catholics are really important to the extent that Clinton can hang on to them. One of the tasks for the Obama campaign is to find a way to reach into Catholic community. There’s quite a struggle over white Protestants. It appears that Clinton has an edge there as well, so a challenge for Sen. Obama. I see a pretty fierce struggle going forward and religious groups will be part of the mix.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 6, 2008 | 12:11 am

Bob Knight’s foul mouth

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I saw this compilation of great Bob Knight moments on Sportscenter last night. My in-laws are Hoosiers, but I’m a Bruin, and therefore have no place in my heart for other college basketball programs. Knight was a great coach, always good for a laugh (“that would be an insult to Mickey Mouse”) and, more than any other college coach in history, a win. But he lacked the character—most people do—granted the Wizard of Westwood, “the greatest coach of the 20th century” and a mighty fine Christian too.

The montage left out a few choice soundbites from Knight’s career, some of which were included in this Sportscenter Top 10 from when he got his 800th win. My favorite is No. 8, when he referred in a press conference to journalism as “one or two steps above prostitution.”

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 5, 2008 | 6:49 pm

Clinton’s hold on California slipping *

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Polls in more than half of the 24 states holding primaries or caucuses today are still open, but Barack Obama has already surprised the Clinton campaign with a dominant win in Georgia (that’s based on returns from about 10 percent of the precincts.)

It’s almost inconceivable that Hillary Clinton could struggle in her home state of New York, but her campaign suggested today that they’re no longer confident about a big win in California.

“We’re confident we’re going to win a diverse mix of states today, but the results are going to be close and inconclusive due to the proportional allocation of delegates under the Democratic Party rules,” said Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications advisor. “We do expect to maintain the overall lead in delegates tomorrow when we wake up that we do today.’‘

Clinton’s strategists said they could see the fight going through March and possibly onto the convention floor in Denver in August—great sport for political junkies but a test of nerves for the candidates. And even if Obama gets more delegates today, Clinton’s advisors said her lead among “super delegates’’—party leaders and elected officials who are free to vote as they choose—would still give her the overall lead. But that would just add to the perception that she’s the mainstream choice, and fuel Obama’s contention that he’s the candidate of change.

So how did Clinton lose her dominant position in California, a state she once led by 16 poll points?

Wolfson: “Sen Obama has put considerable resources into the state. He’s had large rallies, he’s had great surrogates coming out to urge his supporters to vote…. Much to their credit the state is close. I don’t think we’re going to know who has won California until very late into the night. That’s just the way politics is. The election wasn’t 30 days ago. It’s today. And as of today it’s very close.’‘

How much of this has to do with the fact that Obama has been winning the war of religious rhetoric is unclear. Christian Democrats split their votes in Georgia between the two. By tomorrow we should have a better understanding.

* Updated: The surprises just don’t stop. Shortly after I posted this, Clinton was forecasted the winner of Massachusetts, despite Obama have received the endorsement of most of the Kennedy family.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 5, 2008 | 6:15 pm

Dobson won’t vote for McCain ‘as a matter of conscience’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Early Super Tuesday results are in, and Sen. John McCain is a getting a little more competition from fellow Republican Mike Huckabee then expected. McCain will likely still receive the lion share of delegates because he’s got the edge in the delegate-rich states of the Northeast, Illinois and California. And true conservatives like James Dobson aren’t happy about that. Here’s what the founder of Focus on the Family said today on the Laura Ingraham Show:

I’m deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime.

He went on a little longer, but you get the gist. I’m not sure which evangelicals Dobson speaks for, but that group doesn’t include me. Two weeks ago, Time pondered whether the political clout of “the ultimate evangelical alpha male,” as GetReligion called him this evening, has faded.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 5, 2008 | 4:39 pm

What Daniel Pearl stood for

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Judea Pearl reflected in the Wall Street Journal last week on how the murder six years ago of his son, journalist Daniel Pearl, changed the world.

The shocking element in Danny’s murder was that he was killed, not for what he wrote or planned to write, but for what he represented—America, modernity, openness, pluralism, curiosity, dialogue, fairness, objectivity, freedom of inquiry, truth and respect for all people. In short, each and every one of us was targeted in Karachi in January of 2002.

This new twist of killing journalists for what they represent has changed the course of journalism as well as the rest of society.

It was through Danny’s face that people came to grasp the depth of cruelty and inhumanity into which this planet of ours has been allowed to sink in the past two decades. His murder proved that 9/11 was not an isolated event, and helped resurrect the age-old ideas of right and wrong, good and evil. Moral relativism died with Daniel Pearl in January 2002.

0 Comments — Leave your comment