LIBERADIO(!)

This is no JFK moment, but neither was the divisive farce America witnessed yesterday from the least principled politician possibly ever to attempt the presidency in my lifetime of voting eligibility.

I was raised in a household where my father was an ex-Catholic and my mother was an occasionally observant Jew. As a child, I enjoyed celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah long before I was aware of how much strife organized religion had caused and would continue to cause the country and the world over. I know the Hanukkah blessing in Hebrew, and I know the story of Judah Maccabee. When I’m able, I still help trim the tree after Thanksgiving. And to this day, I celebrate both holidays with my family. But I do not have a Christmas tree up at my own house, and I do not practice either religion that informed my heritage. And apparently, I do not belong in Mitt Romney’s America.

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

Romney, against the wishes of some of his advisers, and presumably in an attempt at a counterpoint to the surging Mike Huckabee (a Baptist minister, a true Christian in a conservative America where truth – conservatism, Christianity, conviction – is of utmost importance), in Iowa, South Carolina, and elsewhere, decided he had to magick away his Mormonism, like the political prestidigitator that he is. “Yes,” he says, “I know how to say Jesus and offer generic biblically-based platitudes.” “And yes,” he continues, “secularism is the greatest evil the world has ever known. You and I, my Christian brothers, must stand together and affirm our (we know that Jews and Muslims and Buddhists will come around and just admit that we all have the same) God in this godless realm.” Romney’s speech was not only patently offensive to non-believers but to practitioners of non-Christian religions as well. Religious tolerance does not entail a proclamation of your beliefs about Jesus Christ without being followed by a question: “What are your beliefs? For without knowing them, I cannot challenge my own.” But no spirit of inquiry is present in Romney’s convenient, spotlight-harvesting address.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.

And besides his intolerance, Romney betrayed a willful ignorance, as well. He was incredibly off-base in his juxtaposition of the Founding Fathers with keeping “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance or “in God we trust” on our currency. These were latter day (pun intended) devices of the Christian right of this country put into place during the Red Scare and the height of McCarthyist anti-Communist tendencies because the Communists were *gasp* atheists. Our original pledge and our original currency didn’t explicitly seek to use our state rituals and apparatus to force nonobservant citizens to observe.

Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

And, ultimately, Romney didn’t even do anything to persuade me or anyone else that Mormonism is a religion worth considering a part of the mainstream. What, after all, is the deal with the golden plates? How are the doctrines of faith in this church sufficient to prevent it from being considered a cult, more like Christianity than Scientology? What, after all, is religion? When should it be recognized and respected rather than ridiculed and repulsed?

I fully recognize that there are going to be people of faith fully uncomfortable with my open skepticism and secularism. And I will have to point to my track record as a person of peace, of tolerance, and principle – a person who shares the “American values” Romney outlines – in order to be convincing that I have a moral code. I recognize this as a serious and legitimate challenge.

I think one of the greatest debates that can ever happen and will ever happen is the uncomfortable relationship between church and state. I’ve had many variants of this discussion through the years, and I know that I will have more. But Romney isn’t interested in exploring this issue thoughtfully; he’s interested in a wink and a nod to the religious right, attempting to wolf his way into their midst with his speech of lambcloth, all the while provoking the ire of a considerable minority of Americans like me. Romney’s speech should be seen for what it is: cheap, unprincipled pandering to a base that Karl Rove has successfully convinced all Republican candidates they need in order to get elected: 4 million evangelicals. If The Barna Group is right, and atheists make up 10% of Americans compared to the 8% that are evangelical, where is the pandering on my behalf?

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t begrudge Mitt Romney his right to run for president as a Mormon. Or to practice his religion. I don’t begrudge anyone those rights. What I resent is Romney’s cynical attempt to portray himself as a man of faith who is *wink* one of you while setting himself apart from me, the godless heathen, who seeks stronger protection for the rights of someone like Romney than he clearly does for mine.

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

But my religion is not secularism, as Romney accuses me and other non-observers of practicing. My religion is the Constitution of the United States of America. I can’t think of anything more patriotic or inclusive.

So even though I’m pretty certain in which primary and for whom I’ll be voting on Feb. 5th, I still decided to read Mark Halperin’s The Undecided Voter’s Guide to the Next President: Who the Candidates Are, Where They Come from, and How You Can Choose.

Despite criticism from Media Matters for America Smackdown correspondent Elbert Ventura regarding Halperin’s Drudge-like obsession with leading the Gang of 500 by its nose while overseeing ABC’s surprisingly influential tipsheet The Note until earlier this year (leaving The Note a shadow of its former self) when he moved to Time, I basically had my political coming of age on a steady diet of Halperin through 2003-2004 during the previous presidential election cycle. With rare incisiveness combined with even rarer wit, he (and his merry gang) frequently had me laughing out loud, occasionally with the mere titles of each day’s Note. I remember

With this book, none of Halperin’s wit is to be found. But his addiction to politics (stronger by orders of magnitude than my own, I imagine) is on full display as he lovingly creates mini-hagiographies of each candidate. He creates thumbnail portraits of each candidate replete with detail but never damning or warning. That said, it is definitely a must-read for anyone choosing a candidate. Much more is made of each person in favor of the parties each will hope to represent, and I think that’s a strength in a voter’s guide. I try never to approach a race with a single letter (D or R or even I) looming large in my mind before I vote, preferring to know exactly what I’m getting (through careful analysis of a candidate) rather than a rough idea (through review of a platform nearest the level of office for which I’ll be voting). If I voted in Texas, where the Republicans have proclaimed America a Christian nation in their platform, I might think differently. But Halperin’s book serves as a reminder just how important analysis is when voting, and he does a thorough job reviewing the personal, political, and policy backgrounds of each candidate in a volume slim enough that one could easily read it straight through before Feb. 5th (or even Jan. 3rd if one is looking to fundraise before the Iowa caucus).

It’s difficult to discern Halperin’s internal biases, although he paints stereotypical visions of Clinton as triangulator and Obama as inexperienced. There’s definitely a chance I, as a reader, am more sensitive to critical portrayals of the candidates I like. I didn’t find his description of Hillary flattering, but maybe creating one would itself be unfair. I think the most surprising entry might be Edwards’s in terms of Halperin’s giving him the benefit of the doubt in terms of his loss of control of his public image (which Halperin certainly helped in the Note era). The book was published just slightly too late to avoid wasting space on Brownback, and, for some reason, Halperin included Fred Thompson as a top-tier candidate rather than including him among “More Republicans,” to which Mike Huckabee is relegated.

The thing I understood least by the end was the subtitle’s implication: “how you can choose.” There was no closing remark, no afterword. The book offered no summary guidance. It’s much more genuinely an “I report, you decide” volume, as it should be. For those still playing spin the bottle, I heartily recommend this book

I started reading The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 around the same time. It’s a much denser volume, and older, written when Halperin was still heavily betting on a Clinton-McCain showdown.

Donkey Tonkin’
(With apologies to Hank Williams)

If you are sad and lonely Tonight
And have no place to go
Just come to see us baby
And bring a little dough.

And we’ll go Donkey Tonkin’, Donkey Tonkin’
We’ll go Donkey Tonkin’, honey baby
We’ll go Donkey Tonkin’ round this town.

We’re goin’ to Nashville Palace*
To the Palace fair
If you go to the Palace look around
And you’ll find me there.

And we’ll go Donkey Tonkin’, Donkey Tonkin’
We’ll go Donkey Tonkin’, honey baby
We’ll go Donkey Tonkin’ round this town.

The TN House and Senate
Their Caucus, yeah, no doubt
Are having a sweet fundraiser
And we are steppin’ out.

Yes we’ll go Donkey Tonkin’, Donkey Tonkin’
We’ll go Donkey Tonkin’, honey baby
We’ll go Donkey Tonkin’ round this town.

Chuck Mead, the Governor, and other surprises
All inside so you won’t freeze
Food, drinks, fun, and dancing
$25 single/$40 for you and your squeeze

Yes we’ll go Donkey Tonkin’, Donkey Tonkin’
We’ll go Donkey Tonkin’, honey baby
We’ll go Donkey Tonkin’ round this town.

*Nashville Palace, 2611 McGavock Pike, 6:30 p.m