Centerfield

See what I mean, Pat. We've had this discussion before.

THis IS actually what the Rel Right believes.

Has Harris gone off her rocker? Well maybe she should waited until the last week of the election, but it seems she has NOTHING to lose.

Dignity? She lost that when she purchased that Perma-Smile of her's.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 28, 2006 02:21 PM

I have to say that this one is mild on the Crazy Katie scale. Her whole Senate Campaign has been a case study in how not to win an election. She is now so desperate that she is doing anything to get votes. I think she would spend time at Mons Venus as a stripper if she thought it would help her win the election. State Republicans are hoping anyone but Katie gets the nod. Nelson will run her over like a Mack truck.

Posted by: Jim M at August 28, 2006 02:28 PM

Cav, it's not what ALL of the religious right belivees, unless you configure RR in your head to mean, "only those religious conservatives who are so zealous that they are off their rocker."

When such issues have com up in the past, we've always been able to find religious conservatives who are very appreciative of how the proscriptions aginst establishment have protected religion. Such views are not the majority, but they are out there. IMO, the virtues of proscribing establishment would be pretty quickly revealed if we started allowing it on a widespread basis.

Posted by: bk at August 28, 2006 02:31 PM

I thought she lost her hero status when she decided to run for the Senate--against the WH's express wishes.

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 28, 2006 02:44 PM

Uhhhh... yeah:

Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate

Posted by: Mathew at August 28, 2006 02:49 PM

When such issues have com up in the past, we've always been able to find religious conservatives who are very appreciative of how the proscriptions aginst establishment have protected religion.

Agreed - there is significant literature which ties the vitality of the church in America - compared to its lassitude in Europe - directly to its separation from the state. I still haven't gotten around to reading Jon Meacham's American Gospel, which discusses the role of religion in the founding in a way that irritates both the left (who persistently try to play down the role of any kind of religion in the founding, and christianity in particular - this is what you get when you have a generation of kids who may or may not have been taught about the Mayflower Compact, in the abstract, but weren't required to actually read it) and the right (who, according to Meacham, gravely misunderstand the divisions between protestant sects at the time) in equal measure, but I've had many people tell me it's very good. Posted by: Simon at August 28, 2006 02:53 PM

Exactly, Jean. Contrary to popular opinion, the Republicans did not anoint Katherine Harris as a political hero and give her all sorts of unwarranted advancement based on her strong stand in the Florida recount. Most of the Republican Party (go take a look at Redstate, for example) has been actively against Harris' Senate candidacy. Jeb Bush has opposed her. The White House has opposed her. They've thrown up obstacles and road blocks at every possible point.

So to suggest that her latest whacky statement is something that reveals what all Republicans are secretly for is just plain, flat out WRONG. Harris is a kook. She was a kook before she said this latest stuff, and she's even more of a kook now. Republicans knew this, knew she had no chance to win, knew she would alienate a lot of people and not do a very good job as a Senator, and that's why most of the Republican leadership has been campaigning against her.

Can I tar all Democrats with the idiocy of Rep. Murtha and President Carter now?

Posted by: PatHMV at August 28, 2006 03:49 PM

Ok, my bad if anyone thought my intent was to do a broad brush smear. It wasn't.

MY recollection from 2000 is that many Republicans exalted Harris for taking a courageous stand (which she may indeed have, it's discussable). I'd quarrel with anyone suggesting that she NEVER had any hero status in the GOP. To my knowledge, the lion's share of any GOP distancing from her has happened afterward, over time. As Pat and Jean have pointed out, and I have no reason to doubt either, it's been an ongoing process of distancing. Seems to me she had some hero status at one point, which led to her greater aspirations, which led to closer vetting by the GOP, which led to her being found wanting.

Which is as it should be, basically. Right? I'll cheerfully concede that it seems reasonable to claim that any theoretical "hero card" has been long since revoked. I'll yield to the views of people watching her more closely than I.

Testimony here seems to confirm that Harris's kook status has been well out of the bag for some time. So I stand corrected. (So I'm not incorrigible, Pat!) My intent in posting was not to suggest that all Republican are kooks, it was only to note what I felt was another step in Harris's exposure. I find it an interesting story.

Posted by: bk at August 28, 2006 04:18 PM

"Cav, it's not what ALL of the religious right belivees, unless you configure RR in your head to mean, "only those religious conservatives who are so zealous that they are off their rocker.""

We're not just talking about the Roy Moore crowd here, BK. We have more than a few primary campaigns where issues like were taken out to activate people who support this thinking. It's the same thinking that says it's o.k. to have the Ten Commandments in the foyet of the Court House in the absence of any other religious icons from other faiths.

Obviously Katherine Harris is trying to boost her support from the 20's into the 30's here against an incumbent with weak approval ratings.

I would like to believe this was a single digit position or somewhere in the teens at most but when GOP candidates routinely win primaries by taking the most extreme positions on abortion and the like I begin to question this. My guess is this kind of sentiment is probably around 30% of the country, based upon the results of other surveys. For instance the one asking whether Congress was right to intervene in the Teri Shiavo affair. That was a 70-30 position against.

I don't disagree that there are plenty of religious people who have a more intellectually bound assessment of these kinds of issues, but I think there are many more who are fighting tooth and nail to bring religion back to the public square where people can be intimidated.

The larger Nelson's margin here, the better.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 28, 2006 06:10 PM

"When such issues have com up in the past, we've always been able to find religious conservatives who are very appreciative of how the proscriptions aginst establishment have protected religion."

Name one guys. Name ONE self-described conservative Republican who will make a public point of disputing the Harris point of view??? You won't get one.

Certainly, no one in the party seems very concerned about being associated with this attitude.

One BIG agenda item of the GOP is that religion should come in to the public discussion and that the Separation of Church and State is a left-wing creation of the Warren Court. Even though Founding Father's like Thomas Jefferson mentioned it BY NAME several times.

"Agreed - there is significant literature which ties the vitality of the church in America - compared to its lassitude in Europe - directly to its separation from the state."

You're mixing apples and oranges, Simon. The point isn't about the importance of the Separation, but whether those that determine GOP primary victories support the Separation.

I don't believe they do. At least not in Florida.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 28, 2006 06:25 PM

I have no quarrel with your updated comment, Brian.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 28, 2006 06:35 PM

Harris earned enough "hero" status in 2000 to be elected to Congress in 2002. She was re-elected by a smaller margin in 2004, and was already showing signs of (how to out it?) less-than-stable behavior during the 2004 campaign. She subsequently was implicated in a campaign finance scandal, and her behavior has become "increasingly erratic." She was urged to lay low in 2006. Her response was to run for Senate.

One suspects from copious anecdotal evidence that Ms. Harris is sorely in need of professional help, and I don't mean another new campaign manager. Maybe she can "do group" with Cynthia McKinney.

[My aching eyes--can you fix that open tag, Bryan?]

Posted by: Tully at August 28, 2006 06:38 PM

And I appreciate your corrigibility on this issue.

Posted by: PatHMV at August 28, 2006 06:38 PM

I still haven't gotten around to reading Jon Meacham's American Gospel,

Excellent book.

Name one guys. Name ONE self-described conservative Republican who will make a public point of disputing the Harris point of view??? You won't get one.

Cav; I hope you note your further refinement of the "selection" pool by adding "conservative Republican". (I assume you meant Christian conservative Republican) I would wager some of the neo-cons would disagree with the "sin" part. Not part of their lingo. As for Christian Republicans, an obvious choice would be former Senator Danforth (but then again he's not a "conservative Republican"). Gee, I gotta admit your selection pool make it tougher. But, if it helps you fully understand "conservative Republicans" and also "Christian Republicans" go for it. (Not going to lead to much fruitful dialogue though) Posted by: c3 at August 29, 2006 12:51 AM

Comparing Carter and Murtha with Harris is lame. She is in need of medical help. Makes one wonder about 2000 Florida fiasco. And no, I doubt the GOP will take a public stand against her remarks. Such ideology is a clear threat to our Constitution and isn't far from the position of the Mullahs and Bin Laden (replace Christian with Muslim). Frankly, her comments are pathetic given our global stand against fundementalist extremists.

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 29, 2006 09:05 AM

Cav, I wasn't speaking specifically about GOP politicians, I was speaking more generally about conservatives, especially those who've given serious thought to the separation/establishment issue. Specifically, I know I've read profiles of some conservative preachers who've been upfront in expressing concern that government getting into bed with religion would open up the faiths to government molding. IOW, that the faiths were too eager and had no idea what they were getting into, and they'd be sorry if they went too far down this path.

You're probably right that it's even more uncommon among active politicians. I have some sympathy for politicians who are shrinking violets in the face of detailed inquiries regarding their faith. I agree that it would be a good thing if separation were better appreciated on both sides of the aisle. Of course, some of the left's attacks upon the more trival instances of establishment don't help. For example, even if I agree that technically money (in god we trust) and the pledge of allegiance (one nation under god) could be construed as establishment, I don't think there's much real harm worth raising everyone's blood pressure over.

It's not much more momentus to me than the debate over whether or not Pluto's a planet...IOW, it's about half amusing and half-nuisance, and that's about it.

Simon, it's funny you mention the notion that separation has led to the thriving of faith. I was just contemplating that on my walk to the train last night. If you remove the proscription upon establishment, that seems likely to foster an unhealthy level of competition between faiths to gain that officially favored status, if such status is allowed.

I actually ran into this notion while thinking about how important some form of separation was going to be for Iraq's future. Separation helps foster the notion that different faiths may thrive independently, that there can be collegial respect for differences in approach and interpretation. So in Iraq, if each sect were guaranteed a voice but forbidden officially sanctioned dominance, that could lower the temperature. If there's a pepsi for every coke, that's good for everyone, or at least better than Coke, the official drink of the United States.

Posted by: bk at August 29, 2006 09:35 AM

"Gee, I gotta admit your selection pool make it tougher. But, if it helps you fully understand "conservative Republicans" and also "Christian Republicans" go for it. (Not going to lead to much fruitful dialogue)"

I'm not sure I fully get what you're saying, C3. Tougher on whom?? Or what?

The whole reason this issue gets me a bit riled is because I am a conservative Republican. Or at least, I'd like to think so. But ever since my transformative experience with the, "Born Again," I have to wonder if I'm the only one who'd think so.

And I fully appreciate the sentiments of folks like Simon, Pat, Tully, and BK, who exemplify reasoned analysis, and who, I think, get the Constitution, for the most part, in its proper context. But Rel Right doesn't even seem to care that much.

Theoretically, Conservatives come in a broad swath of, "colors." But lately......

It feels like if you were part of a very specific club of people (the conservative movement) and one day you went to the club house and you didn't recognize ANYONE in the room. And THEY don't know you either. You ask, "Hey, where are the Conservatives meeting." The response: "WE ARE the Conservatives. Who are YOU???"

And mine in return is, "I'm Ronald Reagan, **ther **cker, now get out of my damn club house." Then, however, you find out that a couple of the more machiavellian of your own club members sold the room to the new tenants and had learned to sing from the new hymnal in order to gain control of the club for themselves.

I can choose to claim the heritage of the club all I want, but I won't have been part of the group calling the shots for some time now.

I would like to think this sentiment discounting the Separation was held among a pretty narrow group, but I've seen things happen that keep me pretty skeptical about that.

Lest I wake up tomorrow and find that something else has changed.

Hopefully, the 2008 GOP Presidential nominating process might set things a little more straight.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 29, 2006 02:16 PM

"Cav, I wasn't speaking specifically about GOP politicians, I was speaking more generally about conservatives, especially those who've given serious thought to the separation/establishment issue."

Neither was I, BK. I think you can find scads of Conservatives who are far more intellectual about this subject, but I fear there is a growing group of revivalists. And while I doubt they'll ever win a national election, I fear that that this segment has accosted the only major party I could vote for.

I continue to be surprised by events.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 29, 2006 02:35 PM

KH is dumb as a post and crazy as a loon.

Has the woman no self - respect? She is been making a fool of herself since the beginning of her ridiculous campaign.

Posted by: Evil Progressive at August 29, 2006 04:27 PM

Cav;
My point was that the Christian Right is (as you would expect) predominately conservative Republican. Also, conservative Christian's make a large percentge of conservative Republicans... so its hard to find Religious Righties who aren't conservative Republicans and vice versa. But now after you response, I would say when asked

Name ONE self-described conservative Republican who will make a public point of disputing the Harris point of view???

You!

Posted by: c3 at August 30, 2006 12:03 AM

Ouch! Good one, Chris.

Of course, there are kooks and fools in both parties; the only reason the Dems have had a sparse record of verbal gaffs lately is because our side's out of power, and there's no swarm of reporters around to cover every drop of a infinitive.

Pat,

Thanks, but I wouldn't put either of those gentlemen in the idiot category, certainly not the way Coulter does with our friend Lincoln Chaffe. Carter, while a hapless President, studied nuclear physics, and Murtha's a shrewd old Jarhead. If he was in charge of Defense, instead of Rumsfeld, then the WH would be in a lot better shape.

Now, Mondale's promise to raise taxes, on the other hand, that was idiocy. ;-)

It's often said that a gaffe is when someone in Washington inadvertantly tells the truth; that's what Harris did. She really does believe God chooses our leaders (though I think it's a little hubristic to put herself in God's shoes.)

That said, Harris's comment doesn't help her campaign, which was pretty helpless to begin with. The smart thing to do would have been to take the WH advice, build up a record in the House and wait until Nelson's seat came up again. The sixth year's always tricky for the incumbent party, even for a candidate without Harris's baggage. That option's out right now; I doubt the Rep bigwigs are going to help her down the road after she defied them this time around. For her, this run will proably be the only run.

Right now, the Dems hate her, the Indys ignore her and the Reps are ticked off at her; the only way out for Harris is probably the Blazing Saddles defense. (The scene where all the white townsfolk are pointing their guns at black sheriff Cleavon Little, so he pulls out his own gun and takes himself hostage) She should call a press conference and announce "If I cannot raise X amount by midnight on X date, then I shall withdraw from the race." That would get back in the WH's good graces.

And the Dems would raise record amounts just to keep her in. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 3, 2006 02:18 PM