Hey, that's good enough for me.

I've been fervent in my posts about the uneasiness I feel when GOP candidates act as if they have to cozy up to religious folk. President Bush did it with Jerry Falwell and John McCain more recently is doing it with Southern Baptists. Republican candidates place an undeserved prestige on gaining the backing of people such as James Dobson and it doesn't gain them the support they would hope for. In fact, it may turn off conservative Democrats and cost them more votes then it gains.

Think about it, who will Dobson support as if it really matters? He won't support Giuliani so that leaves who, Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee? He definitely won't support Mitt Romney. Essentially, Dobson has been neutralized and that means his power has dissipated. That can only be good for the party as we've seen those who preach have not always been the most godly of people anyway. I put Dobson on a par with other partisan groups who should have their power usurped such as MoveOn and NOW.

As a Neocon, I am a moderate on most social issues, the church is not supposed to play as large a part as the GOP has placed on it in recent years. For those who have made Neocon a curse, do a little research and see that most Neocons were liberals who changed affiliation because they think that democracy is the cornerstone to changing the world and despots and dictators are evil and should be exiled or forced out by whatever means necessary. That's a much-abridged description but take some time to look up what we think.

Dobson and his ideological brethren are fading and will continue to do so. The nation needs a leader who is not praised by those of Dobson's ilk and who will lead based on good moral tenets--whether religion-inspired or not. Let Dobson support Sam Brownback and I'll support Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson.

The AP snagged this very interesting e-mail:

"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

This should cause no great consternation in the Fred Thompson camp. The religious right folks are rallying around Mike Huckabee, but so far the Arkansas governor has not broken out of the second tier. If he does so, then the Dobson thing may matter. But for Thompson, the fact that he does in fact look like Ronald Reagan when you stand him next to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and especially Rudy Giuliani. Dobson may not like it, but he's pointedly not endorsing Giuliani either, and right now it's a two-man race.

Thompson can wait it out. Dobson will come around if it's Fred vs. Hillary Clinton. And besides this will make the libertarian wing of the Republican party gravitate toward Fred Thompson even more.

John McCain does it every time. Once I think he's settled back into the race, he goes and says something stupid, which makes me have to slam him again.

This time McCain says he no longer belongs to the Church of England but now gets with the Lord Southern Baptist-style:

HILTON HEAD ISLAND, S.C. - Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has long identified himself as an Episcopalian, said this weekend that he is a Baptist and has been for years.

Campaigning in this conservative, predominantly Baptist state, McCain called himself a Baptist when speaking to reporters Sunday and noted that he and his family have been members of the North Phoenix Baptist Church in his home state of Arizona for more than 15 years.

"It's well known because I'm an active member of the church," the Arizona senator said.

This is pandering of a high order, not quite Hillaryesque but nearing that level. At least he didn't use a fake black or fake Southern accent like she did.

As I wrote earlier, who gives a damn about someones religion? I thought we were well passed that when Catholic John Kennedy was elected and the Jewish Joe Lieberman almost was. It's a non-issue that McCain is attempting make into one and he looks idiotic doing it. Does Senator McCain think he can resurrect his campaign by trying to win over Southern Baptists? Fred Thompson will own the South and McCain can't do anything about it at this point.

Thus far, McCain has flip-flopped on immigration and his religion, what's next John, are you going to turn against the war effort to garner some support?

There's a lot being made on the web about Fred Thompson and his church-going habits. Here's how he describes it:

Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson, who has based his campaign on appealing to conservative voters, said he isn't a regular churchgoer and doesn't plan to speak about his religion on the stump.

...``I attend church when I'm in Tennessee. I'm in McLean right now,'' he said referring to the Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., where he lives. ``I don't attend regularly when I'm up there.''

Thompson said he usually attends church when visiting his mother in Tennessee and isn't a member of any church in the Washington area.

The media is writing it up as some kind of detriment to his candidacy in the South when in fact, it's not a detriment anywhere.

The biggest misconception in the media and with liberals is that a candidate has to win over the "leaders" on the religious right to stand a chance and anyone who pays attentions knows it's a lie. They are a bloc of voters who will vote on the candidate who most agrees with their views, period. Why does the MSM always feel they have to lump groups together such as the "black vote" or the "Hispanic vote"? I've never heard of the "white vote" voting as a bloc. I know for a fact that unions members don't vote exclusively Democrat because many have told me so. They may wave the banner but when they -- just like all people -- get in the booth and the curtain closes don't hit the button for Dems every time, I suspect the same can be said of Christian voters. Liberals are another story entirely but I digress.

Many on the Christian right are taking a hard look at Fred "The Tennessee Stud" Thompson, and wondering just how much enthusiasm they can muster for the man. Recent articles chronicle a clear desire for a Republican candidate who, like George W. Bush before him, will trod the well-worn path that non-believer Karl Rove cut in the ticket separating politics from religion. So, is Thompson their man?

Indeed, the subject of religion came up a lot yesterday on the campaign trail, and I'm happy to report that Thompson doesn't seem to have much of an appetite for it. From the AP:

Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson, who has based his campaign on appealing to conservative voters, said he isn't a regular churchgoer and doesn't plan to speak about his religion on the stump...

Talking to reporters later, Thompson, a former Tennesse senator, said his church attendance "varies."

"I attend church when I'm in Tennesse. I'm in McLean right now," he said referring to the Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., where he lives. "I don't attend regularly when I'm up there."

Good for him. A return to a Ronald Reagan-like skepticism of wearing your religion on your sleeve has certainly been long in coming. Still, one has to wonder a little at Mr. Thompson's rather self-assured take on his current standing with God.

"I know that I'm right with God and the people I love," he said in Greenville. It's "just the way I am not to talk about some of these things."

Funny to hear someone talk about subjects that they aren't one to talk about. And I am interested to know how he knows that he's right with God. Is that like God telling George Bush that invading Iraq was the right thing to do? Small questions, I guess. The larger issue remains that James Dobson and his throngs of hard-core Christian voters still don't have their poster-child.

A recent poll by Pew has noted that both Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, the front runners of their respective party's nomination for the presidency, are both considered the least religious of all the presidential candidates. The same poll, mentioned in an AP report, also noted that 7 out of 10 of the people polled believe it is vital that a president have strong religious beliefs.

The politics of religion played a tremendous role in the shaping of politics over the last 30 years. Jimmy Carter rose to prominence on the campaign trail as people considered him a moral man based on his being a born again Christian. The Reagan Revolution was propelled in great part to Reagan's affiliation with the Evangelicals. Similarly, to great extent, George Bush is in the White House today thanks to the support of him by a significant majority of the 70 million Evangelical Christians in the United States.

Thus, it becomes curious that the front runners for the Democratic and Republican ticket would both be the two are considered the least religious although, quite honestly, public perception is not necessarily what is accurate. Only Clinton and Giuliani truly know what their own personal faith is, but in a nation were religion plays a central role in the identity of its people, how a leader practices his or her faith will always be a central issue.