Given Alaska’s low population, there aren’t many congressional primaries held in the state today. There’s only one congressional district in the state, and just one U.S. Senate seat up for grabs this year.

Nonetheless, Alaska is getting a great deal of attention today, largely because Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee have endorsed Joe Miller, a Republican challenger to incumbent GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski. There’s a contest for the Democratic nomination to the seat as well, however, with “wireless electricity” promoter Jacob Seth Kern competing against Frank Vondersaar and Scott McAdams.

For Alaska’s at-large seat in the House of Representatives, Republican incumbent Don Young is facing a challenge from John Cox and Sheldon Fisher. On the Democratic side, there is no contest. Harry Crawford will be the nominee.

With 71 percent of precincts now reporting, the vote is as follows:

Sarah Palin, Harry Reid and their right wing allies say that a Muslim community center and mosque must not built in Manhattan because the area around where the World Trade Center used to be, because that area is “hallowed ground”.

Hallowed? I’ve been wondering what that word really means. Is it like Halloween, that holiday when people like to dress up in costumes, and grown women wear outfits like Sexy French Maid or Slutty School Girl?

If that’s what the anti-mosque crusaders mean by “hallowed ground”, then maybe they’ve got a point. Consider, for instance, this photograph taken by Daryl Lang, of the New York Dolls Gentleman’s Club, which has been built an equal distance from the September 11, 2001 “Ground Zero” as the proposed Muslim community center.

I bet there are some very hallowed costumes to be found in there.

Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times does good service this morning, informing us that a movement against religious freedom is spreading far and wide across America.

We’ve heard before of a push by Sarah Palin, Mark Williams and other prominent figures in the GOP-controlled wing of the “Tea Party” to ban the building of houses of worship in the United States of America. These anti-religious figures have argued that faith groups should be excluded from the First Amendment constitutional rights of assembly and religious exercise if they are not Religiously Correct (RC).

Why are Sarah Palin, Mark Williams and other Tea Party Republicans trying to deny Americans the right to freedom of assembly and religious exercise? What is it they’ve got against religion?

The answer is that they’re bigots.

Bigot. n. a person who is intolerant, esp. regarding religion, politics, or race

– Collins English Dictionary

Sarah Palin, Mark Williams and other Tea Party Republicans are religious bigots in the sense that they’ll support the erection of religious buildings and the conduct of religious worship services only if carried out by religions they agree with. Groups that don’t pass their Religious Correctness test are to be prohibited.

If you’re like me, you may have heard of this push to deny the constitutional rights of un-RC groups, but only in connection with the Cordoba community center, a New York City complex that will contain a mosque. Because the mosque inside the community center is not Religiously Correct to their eyes, Palin and Williams and the other Tea Party Republicans have decided the whole community center should be banned.

Palin and Williams and the Republican wing of the Tea Party would like to have us focus on the Cordoba center exclusively because it happens to be (as numerous Christian and Jewish worship centers already are) placed within three blocks of the former World Trade Center site. In Manhattan, there are thousands of buildings that are “proximate” to the World Trade Center site. That’s what Manhattan is. This proximity allows religious bigots like Bob Kunst of Shalom International to spout off like he does in the latest of his daily e-mail blasts:

The Mosque at Ground Zero, is giving the Islamic Nazis a major victory, that has nothing to do with religious tolerance, as would dividing Jerusalem be the same outrageous victory for the Nazis, and Shalom International has been protesting against and will not allow. Both of these issues are supported by and funded by Saudi Arabia, responsible for ’9/11′ and pushing the division of Jerusalem, as well as Saudi Arabia behind over 15,000 Islamic Nazi attacks worldwide since ’9/11′, that’s killed Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bhuddists, other Muslims and all ‘infidels’.

Saudi Arabia is building mosques everywhere to spread Wahabism and to put this mosque at the very sight when the Islamic world declared ‘war’ on America on ’9/11′, which is no different than the Japanese putting up a memorial at Pearl Harbor to their emperor,” or putting a disco at Auschwitz, which they have already done….

The Islamic Nazis will have their trophy at ‘Ground Zero’ with this Mosque, a permanent and arrogant attack upon all Americans, constantly.

With Muslims calling the U.S. withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan a ‘victory’ for them that will recruit very many for their ‘jihadist’ politics, the crowning Jewels will be a Mosque at ‘Ground Zero’ and to ‘Divide Jerusalem’. The only thing left will be the Vatican, which is also part of their domination politics, by the same forces alligned with Hitler in WWII and ‘Ground Zero’ the beginning of WWIII, that Obama is allowing with Iran to get its nukes it will use against Israel and America….

In Congress, I will do everything possible to make sure that this Mosque is not built at ‘Ground Zero’ and will cut off all funding to NYC that allows it. We will mobilize the Unions in NYC, not to allow this travesty to happen.”

“NYC is inviting more attacks from the Islamic Nazis by allowing this Mosque at ‘Ground Zero’.

They want you to think they’re only pushing against religious liberty and the First Amendment in New York City. But Laurie Goldman’s article establishes that moves to ban mosques are afoot across the country:

In Tennessee, Republicans politicians and Tea Party activists are organizing to ban a mosque. Why? A Tea Party activist and Republican Party candidate explains that it’s an effort based in religious bigotry: “our nation was founded on the tenets of the Judeo-Christian tradition; we have a right to defend that tradition; we have a right to defend that tradition…. we are not obligated to open our society to any of them [Muslims].”

In California, Tea Party activists, Republicans officials and Christian religious leaders picketed a mosque, protesting against the right of Muslims to worship in the state. Bill Rench, the pastor of Temecula Cavalry Church who is leading the effort against religious freedom there, says the real injustice is that “we have been called bigots, racists, hypocrites and intolerant.” “No more mosque in America,” reads a sign at Rench’s rally. Rench himself declares:

There is a concern with all the rumors you hear about sleeper cells and all that. Are we supposed to be complacent just because these people say it’s a religion of peace? Many others have said the same thing.

If the religion is Religiously Incorrect in California, Rench and the Tea Party and the Republican Party say its rights have got to go.

In Wisconsin, the Tea Party-associated Act! for America group supported Christian religious activism “against Political Islam and its threat to our way of life” by trying to ban a mosque in Sheboygan.

Back in New York State, bigots against religious freedom aren’t satisfied with trying to keep Islam out of Manhattan. They’re also trying to keep a mosque out of Brooklyn and succeeded with rallies to keep a mosque out of Staten Island.

This is a movement populated by Republicans who affiliate with the Tea Party and associate with fundamentalist bigotry against Islam. It is active from coast to coast. Its central tenet is enmity against the Constitution for its ridiculous declaration that Americans should be free to assemble and worship, even Americans who are Religiously Incorrect.

“And, ladies and gentlemen, while I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as active members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring. I have here in my hand a list of 205–a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in that State Department.

One thing to remember in discussing the Communists in our Government is that we are not dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the blueprints of a new weapon. We are dealing with a far more sinister type of activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.” — Senator Joseph McCarthy in Wheeling, West Virginia, February 9 1950

“RT @marklevinshow: The list of known members of the left-wing now-defunct JournoList listserv http://fb.me/E3icTBfz” — Sarah Palin on Twitter, July 21 2010

Dear Sarah Palin:

You have repeatedly issued declarations online asking that “Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan” and that New York issue “a decision not to allow the building of a mosque.”

Let’s make a quick check of the facts:

1. It’s not “a mosque.” The Cordoba Center will be an inter-religious community center dedicated to inter-faith outreach, open to people of all faiths in New York City. It will have an auditorium, a swimming pool, exhibition spaces, meeting rooms, stores, restaurants and a mosque inside.
2. It’s not at Ground Zero. It’s three blocks away. A lot of things are within three blocks of other things in Manhattan.
3. There are 14 Christian and Jewish churches and synagogues that are also close to Ground Zero.

Anyone who exerts herself or himself can verify these facts.

You write this week with frustration of your call to ban the Cordoba Center that “This is nothing close to ‘religious intolerance,’ it’s just common decency.” But here’s a helpful hint: if you don’t want to attract accusations that you’re engaged in “religious intolerance,” you might not want to write an essay based on arguments about “sacred ground,” and you might not want to give your essay the title: “An Intolerable Mistake on Hallowed Ground.” It’s crazy, but people might get the idea that you were using religion to be intolerant.

Also helpful on that point would be not asking New York to use its power to ban a building because it is associated with a religion you don’t like. Some Americans are a little touchy about that kind of thing; apparently it has something to do with some sort of “Amendment” thingamabob.

Sarah Palin said today of the Obama Administration: “If they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment.” Barack Obama hasn’t made a single move since he became President of the United States to ban guns. How does Sarah Palin know whether Barack Obama is not banning guns because he doesn’t think he can get away with banning guns, or simply he doesn’t want to ban guns?

In other news, Superman wrote in an editorial for the Daily Planet: “If Barack Obama thought he could get away with it, he would wrap me in kryptonite chains.”

Also, Charlie Brown was overheard commenting to Linus: “If Lucy thought she could get away with it, she would let me kick the ball,”

In a newly discovered sequel to The Odyssey, Penelope begins the story by commenting, “If Odysseus thought he could get a away with it, he would go back to Circe.”

As a matter of full disclosure, I feel that I should tell you that if I thought I could get away with it, I would take over Irregular Times and transform it into a Sarah Palin fan site.

Mediaite has tipped me off to the latest in Palinisms. In an interview with Bill O’Reilly, 2012 presidential contender Sarah Palin makes an attempt to set a new world record in sentence length:

Bill O’Reilly: So why do you think America is a Christian nation?

Sarah Palin: I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, you know, nobody has to believe me, though, uh, you can just go to our founding fathers’ early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that, um, allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our laws, and our Constitution of course essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man, they come from God, so that document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe upon our right to have, um, freedom of religion, and to be able to express our faith freely, so it’s ironic that here on the National Day of Prayer, you know, there’s so much controversy about whether or not we’re a nation that’s built on Judeo-Christian beliefs and whether or not we can even talk about God in the public square, and that’s outrageous nonsense what we’re hearing.

At first I had no idea what Sarah Palin was talking about when she referred to “our Constitution of course essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man, they come from God”. The U.S. Constitution does not contain the notion of “unalienable rights,” or of their origin from a god. In the Constitution — which is the basis of law in the United States — some rights are enumerated and others are said to rest with the people. The word “God” does not appear in the Constitution, and there are only two references to religion in the Constitution. The first reference is the declaration of Article VI that religion shall not be used as the basis for a public trust or for a person’s ascension to public office. The second reference is the declaration of the First Amendment that the government shall not be used to establish religion.

So how can Sarah Palin possibly characterize the Constitution as “acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man, they come from God”? I didn’t see the answer at first, but then it occurred to me that The Lord often speaks in mysterious ways. Now look at Article VI again:

“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

What’s the real message here? I think Sarah Palin has used the power of anagrams to find the answer, a tweet from above if you will:

“Devil? ’tis bad. O yea, the USA sure shalt require God, atrocious enfant terrible Palin. Constituent ruse: quit l’office!”

Sarah Palin is if nothing else a faithful follower.

Oh Lord, fetch a Lear jet and bendable straws
Three luxury suite rooms, it’s all for the cause
I can’t abide blue jeans; the sight gives me pause
Oh Lord, where’s my Lear jet with bendable straws?

Defenders of Wildlife is running an online campaign to pressure Discovery Networks into kicking Sarah Palin off a TV show about wildlife in Alaska because of Palin’s anti-wildlife policies as Governor of Alaska. The campaign, leading American conservatives to reasonably cry “censorship” and not saving one single actual wolf, will nonetheless fill the Defenders of Wildlife database with lots and lots of names and emails and phone numbers and addresses for fundraising purposes. When I say “lots and lots,” I mean it: over 160,000 fundraising sources in less than two days marks a big organizational success, if not any actual policy victory.

Defenders of Wildlife also features action pages that communicate directly with policymakers, possibly making some practical difference. One action page allows you to send a message to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar promoting captive breeding for Mexican gray wolves; just 49,000 people have taken action on this page, which has been around for months. Another action page here apparently channels a message to Barack Obama, asking him to reinstate endangered species protection for wolves in the American west; only 39,000 have signed on in this months-old campaign.

It’s not necessary to filter your comment through the Defenders of Wildlife website, and indeed doing so may dilute the impact, since mass communications are seen by the government as less legitimate than individual communications. You can contact the Interior Department here and the White House here.

Is it reasonable for me to see these numbers and conclude that Americans are more motivated by Sarah Palin appearing on a TV show about wildlife than they are by wildlife itself?

Among the Tea Party set, the big news this morning is that Sarah Palin has identified 20 Democratic members of the House of Representatives as targets that she’s going to make sure don’t get re-elected this November. Here’s the list she posted on her Facebook page.

Do you doubt Sarah Palin’s political power? Well, look at that graphic, then. 3 or Palin’s 20 targets have already backed down. They’re retiring! Sarah Palin has, after just one day of campaigning, defeated 3 Democratic members of Congress. Wow!

Maybe not so wow, actually. Those three Democrats weren’t defeated by Sarah Palin. Vic Snyder, Brad Ellsworth and Bart Gordon announced their decisions not to run for re-election months before Sarah Palin identified them as targets. Furthermore, Brad Ellsworth isn’t really retiring at all. He’s leaving the House of Representatives to run for the U.S. Senate this year. If Sarah Palin had any guts, she’d announce that she’s working against Ellsworth’s Senate campaign, not the open seat he left behind.

Sarah Palin might as well set 17 rust tin cans along a fence for target practice, then point to 3 more cans that were already lying on the ground, and say that she’s already part of the way toward her goal of shooting 20 tin cans down. She’s shooting fish in a barrel – fish that were already dead before she shot them.

“I don’t feel stimulated. How about you?”

– Sarah Palin, populist of the people, flying in on a private jet and commanding a $75,000 speakers’ fee to share her words with the Republican Party of Arkansas. If that package doesn’t stimulate Sarah Palin, what will?

Headlines blaze across the political sections of the Sunday papers this morning declaring the winner of the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Straw Poll for the next presidential election contest. It’s important to know what the CPAC straw poll is in order to interpret it. The CPAC 2010 Straw Poll does not represent the wishes of rank-and-file Republican voters because rank-and-file Republican voters aren’t invited to vote in it. To vote, you have to pay dues and fees, travel to attend the conference, and be motivated and aware enough to actually cast a vote while in attendance. To win the CPAC 2010 Straw Poll, you have to not only be popular with conservatives but also be able to communicate with your supporters and effectively motivate them into action.

CPAC 2010 claims some 10,000 conservative activists attended their convention; of those some 2,395 attendees actually cast straw poll votes. Here is the final vote tally:

Ron Paul: 31%
Mitt Romney: 22%
Sarah Palin: 7%
Tim Pawlenty: 6%
Mike Pence: 5%
Newt Gingrich: 4%
Mike Huckabee: 4%

The other 21% of votes were cast for contenders who got 2% of the straw poll vote or less.

Ron Paul’s win is an indication of some serious organized strength among his supporters (a strength that dismayed many other CPAC 2010 attendees). It is not at all clear that the aging Ron Paul intends to run for President in 2012, but even if he does not run he could play a significant role as an candidate-maker within the economic libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Those within the Republican Party who cannot abide the occasional heterodoxy of Ron Paul may be giving his runner-up, Mitt Romney, a very close look, with their seats assuredly locked in an upright position.

On the other hand, the regular high-profile junkets and media appearances of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich do not appear to have translated into the support of motivated, organized conservative activists. Should they be unhappy with the results of the straw poll? They should if the 2010 CPAC Straw Poll is a solid predictor of primary election success.

Can you guess the name of the candidate who came in 5th place in the 2007 CPAC Straw Poll? And can you guess what politician was overwhelmingly identified by respondents to the 2006 CPAC Straw Poll as the likely 2008 Democratic presidential nominee?

This morning, we’re asked a question:

Are you all glad you voted for Barack Obama now?

That’s a good question, and it deserves more of an answer than a “Yes” or a “No.” It deserves an explanation, and by way of explaining I’ll give my answer to a few questions that this question is not, but might seem to be, asking.

Am I happy with Barack Obama’s record in office? With a few exceptions, no. Barack Obama has continued the Bush administration’s program of expansive domestic warrantless surveillance. Barack Obama supports Patriot Act reauthorization and an expansive view of executive power that makes government less accountable to the people. Barack Obama has continued the Bush administration’s poor environmental record when it comes to offshore drilling, clean coal and endangered species protection. Barack Obama directed big bailouts to bankers and wealthy investors, but sent scant relief to Americans struggling to get by. Barack Obama took the banner of “health care reform” and turned it into a mandate that people buy health insurance without provision for an affordable public option. I do not support these actions carried out by Barack Obama. I am opposed to the Obama policy agenda.

Do I support the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012? In the abstract, no. I would either like to see a more solid liberal with strong experience like Russell Feingold or Dick Durbin run for President in a successful Democratic Party primary campaign, or see a third party candidacy featuring a liberal challenge to Barack Obama in 2012. I would actively support such a challenge in practice. But I don’t expect to see the combination of a candidate with strong experience and a solid liberal record challenging Barack Obama from either inside the Democratic Party or from the outside as a third party challenger. In lieu of that, I think the 2012 presidential election will need to be a season in which liberals keep the pressure up on Barack Obama.

Will I cast my vote for Barack Obama in 2012? To be honest, I’m not sure. There are two reasonable approaches to voting. One approach is to help the better of the two most viable candidates win, and frankly I expect Barack Obama to be a poor candidate but still better than any Republican alternative. Taking that approach, I would barring unforseen developments cast my vote for Barack Obama again in 2012. Another reasonable approach is to use a vote as a voice, an expression of support for the best model of leadership among all candidates, not simply between the two who are most viable. Taking that approach, I might vote for a Green or independent candidate for president if they presented a strong liberal policy platform and a strong personal record of leadership.

But these are different questions from the question we are asked this morning, Are you all glad you voted for Barack Obama now? Speaking for myself, I have to say yes. Independent candidate Ralph Nader had a good policy platform but represented a disastrous personal capacity for leadership. He has no executive experience, he has never held elective office and has never participated in government in a leadership capacity. His stellar lifetime record is a record as a critic, and a president is not a critic. If he won the presidency, I firmly believe the result would have been discord and disaster. In 2008, he couldn’t even manage to form an alliance with the Green Party.

If John McCain and Sarah Palin had won election, they would have done much worse than Barack Obama. Sarah Palin might have relieved us by resigning from the Vice Presidency, but can you imagine what she’d be up to by now if she’d stayed in office? John McCain is only getting older and more frail, and Sarah Palin is not fit to be President. In the meantime, while John McCain may have the experience and personal ability to lead, I find his regressive policy priorities to be repugnant.

So yes, I am still glad I voted for Barack Obama. I oppose his record in office. I’d rather see someone else in the White House after 2012. I firmly believe that these three statements are compatible.

What’s your take?

As F.G. indicated earlier today, self-avowed Republican presidential contender Sarah Palin has taken to the stage and the national airwaves, calling for a revolution. Her complete sentence:

I guess down here that’s some southern sweet tea, and you know up in Alaska, we have a smaller version of Tea Party up there, and we call it iced tea, and I am a big supporter of this movement, believe in this movement, got lots of friends and family in the lower 48 who attend these events and, across the country, just knowing that this is the movement, and America is ready for another revolution, and you are a part of this.

If Sarah Palin is calling for a revolution, the Tea Party Nation is paying her handsomely to do so. With Palin getting private air accomodations and $100,000 for her 40 minute and 20 second speech, she was paid at a rate of $41.32 per second. Sarah Palin was paid $1,033.06 just to share that beautiful thought you read above. But behind the scenes, Tea Party Nation is already rolling out the counter-revolution. The organization declares on its website that:

* it is a corporation which has trademarked the phrase “Tea Party Nation” and will sue anyone else who uses the words.

* “You can and will be banned for being a liberal.”

* “Tea Party Nation reserves the right to ban anyone for any reason we feel necessary”

* “Trashing of TPN will not be tolerated.”

* “Questions regarding TPN posted in the public forums or blogs on the site will be deleted.”

* “It is not a forum for… calls for militant uprisings.”

* “Tea Party Nation’s strict No Tolerance policy will not make exceptions… if you see such postings, you immediately report them”

While Tea Party Nation’s speakers call for a revolution for the cameras, any actual revolutionary behavior or dissent will be result in swift dismissal. That’s an interesting combination.