Third Party Watch, a website devoted to coverage of alternative political parties and their candidates, announced that they have been acquired by reactionary wingnut fundraiser Richard Viguerie.

This diary is really at least five diaries. But alas, I have no time to thoroughly develop them! But a little more time than the short items in the Front Pate Open Threads. I do these once or twice a week at Talk to Action, but don't usually crosspost 'em here. But for those who want to take your minds off of Super Duper Tuesday for a few, here is a bit of a diversion, but not too far..

Table of Contents:  Conservative movement entrepreneur Richard Viguerie ISO a rightwing man on a white horse to save the day (or where have you gone, John Wayne?); How the Heritage Foundation got religion; Why "the family" is an issue in the culture war; Jim Wallis whiffs again; Janet Folger founds a pro-Huck front political committee; What the religious right is up to in Texas; And Ben Stein's stealth marketing campaign for his pro-creationism documentary film.

Details on the flip:

Kos  writes about richard viguerie hating on huckabee

Mike Huckabee's victory in the Iowa caucuses is bad news for the Republican Party.

"Mike Huckabee is a Christian socialist. He is a good man, but with a Big Government heart. He is the most liberal of all the Republican presidential candidates on economic issues.

"Huckabee's approach to every problem or perceived problem is to pass a law and launch another government program. If you like President George W. Bush, you'll love Mike Huckabee.

"If, on the other hand, you're a limited government conservative in the grand tradition of Robert A. Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan, you will want to redouble your efforts to make sure Huckabee doesn't win the Republican nomination. Four years of a Huckabee presidency would ensure that there wouldn't be a penny's worth of differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on economic issues.

Richard Viguerie is one of the architects of the conservative movement, pioneering the use of direct mail to raise money and rally the troops. He's the first in what will be many conservatives to trash Huckabee. From Viguerie's email list:

Mike Huckabee's victory in the Iowa caucuses is bad news for the Republican Party.

"Mike Huckabee is a Christian socialist. He is a good man, but with a Big Government heart. He is the most liberal of all the Republican presidential candidates on economic issues.

"Huckabee's approach to every problem or perceived problem is to pass a law and launch another government program. If you like President George W. Bush, you'll love Mike Huckabee.

"If, on the other hand, you're a limited government conservative in the grand tradition of Robert A. Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan, you will want to redouble your efforts to make sure Huckabee doesn't win the Republican nomination. Four years of a Huckabee presidency would ensure that there wouldn't be a penny's worth of differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on economic issues.

"Much has been made of Mike Huckabee's strong stance on social issues. In the 1970s, we conservatives had two legs on our stool—economic responsibility and a strong national defense—but that wasn't enough to win many elections. It wasn't until we added the third leg to our stool—social issues—that conservatives were able to win elections consistently.

"Now Huckabee wants to go back to a two-legged stool—social issues and defense. He would saw off the economic leg. That's a recipe for disaster for the Republican Party. Economic and traditional conservatives would stay home in droves, turning the country over to the Democrats.

"Conservatives in New Hampshire and the other early primary states had better wake up, and make certain the Huckabee victory is confined to the subsidized ethanol fields of Iowa."

Note that the CHAIRMAN of the Republican Party refused to mention Huckabee's name when commenting on the race. It'll get ugly. As I wrote a few weeks ago:

Huckabee isn't a corporate con -- he isn't even a millionaire! -- and he certainly isn't a neocon. His foreign policy would actually be predicated on liberal ideals of respect, trust and cooperation -- poison to those who get their foreign policy from Soldier of Fortune magazine T-shirt ads: "kill 'em all and let god sort them out".

He's a theocon, the very people who empowered the corporate cons and neocons the past two decades by their tireless on-the-ground activism while the others kept their fingernails clean in their Wall Street and think tank corner offices. Now that the theocons are threatening to take ther turn at the helm of the GOP, it's amusing how the rest of the -cons in the GOP are suddenly less than thrilled and willing to play ball.

What was already a steady campaign against Huckabee is about to become a full-throated assault. And the theocons will ultimately realize what the rest of the party thinks about them. They are supposed to be cannon fodder. Nothing more.

ThinkProgress speculates this morning that President Bush will give a recess appointment to James Holsinger, his bizarre and wildly homophobic nominee for Surgeon General.  For the White House, Holsinger's quackery and desire to "cure gays" not only makes him a very attractive successor to the disagreeable Richard Carmona.  More importantly, a recess appointment in the face of overwhelming opposition from the Senate Health Committee helps President Bush "ensure that I am relevant."  It's just another part of George W. Bush's strategy of maximum confrontation guiding the remainder of his enfeebled presidency.

The Council For National Policy (CNP) is the nerve center of the evangelical political movement. The "religious right", the "Christian Right", whatever you want to call it—their de facto leaders belong to the CNP. Members also include people who aren’t necessarily associated with the evangelicals; there is significant crossover between conservative and GOP leaders and the CNP. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney represent only a few of the prominent American politicians that have addressed CNP conventions, courting their support. (continued)

Today's New York Times reports that former Solicitor General Ted Olson has emerged as President Bush's leading choice to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.  That Bush might tap the controversial Olson, a key player in the 1990's Arkansas project targeting Bill Clinton and the man who helped win the 2000 Florida recount at the Supreme Court, should come as no surprise.  It's just another part of George W. Bush's strategy of "maximum confrontation" guiding the remainder of his presidency.

Email blast to Richard Viguerie's email list. For those of you who don't recognize the name, Viguerie is considered one of the fathers of the modern conservative movement.

Defenders of Thompson Just Like Defenders of Bush
by Richard A. Viguerie

The defenders of Fred Thompson's troubling record have not attempted to explain, mitigate, or refute any of the concerns expressed in my article, " Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson."

Rather, they've attacked the messenger.

That's exactly what President Bush's political appointees--Peter Wehner and William McClay--did in response to my article in the Washington Post, " Bush's Base Betrayal" and my book, Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books, 2006).

That's an additional warning sign that Thompson may be a lot like Bush. Remember when Bush was running, a lot of good people thought he was a conservative.

Boy, were they taken in!

We've got to make sure we don't go down that road again--not with Thompson or anyone else.

Bush is not a conservative? Expect more of that as Republicans try to excuse the stench emanating from their party by blaming it all on a somehow not-conservative Bush. In any case, it's still funny how "Bush" is being used as an insult by one of the conservative movement's leading lights, and how the (lazy) GOP Savior is getting the full brunt of it.

The rest of the email in the extended text.

When prospective GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson auditioned at a meeting of the secretive, far right Council for National Policy, he didn't have to wonder which buttons to push. The CNP has, since 1981, been a key conservative movement leadership network, dominated by the religious right. As a man who entered electoral politics as moderate, he has been at some pains to establish his conservative bona fides. Just today, as a matter of fact, Richard Viguerie, one of the founders of the CNP issued a press release denouncing Thompson, warning:

...Thompson may be a lot like Bush. Remember when Bush was running, a lot of good people thought he was a conservative.

Boy, were they taken in!

We’ve got to make sure we don’t go down that road again--not with Thompson or anyone else.

James Dobson, writing at the religious right news site, World Net Daily, declared:

"Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."

The former New York Mayor is not the choice of early religious right strategist and direct mail entrepreneur Richard Viguerie either.  

"If the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani as its candidate for either president or vice president, I will personally work to defeat the GOP ticket in 2008."

    Counterintuitive, maybe, since Gonzo and the bill to get out of Iraq aren't directly related.
    But, after the questions/answers

1. Can one persuade Bush to be decent? Prob'ly not;

2. Should Pelosi and Reid back down like doormats? Hope not,

    one looks at the broader issue of political power. Can Repub power be weakened as a whole vis-a-vis Democrats? (Or, can Dems' power be strengthened) Yes, in many ways.

    One of the most visible would be by getting rid of Gonzales (which even Richard Viguerie supports, he the famous direct-mail conservative honcho). Impeaching Bush or Cheney would be much harder, but "decapitating" much of the Administration's domestic mojo by tossing Alberto may give Congress Repubs enough stomach pain that they might not block Dem plans for timely withdrawal from Iraq.

    When the Bushies are on the ropes, an easy knockout (?) like booting Gonzo could be helpful with other stuff like prevailing on Iraq. It's that simple.

"There must be some way out of here..."

Four prominent conservative thinkers are set to launch a campaign "to restore checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the Executive Branch," arguing that, "since 9/11, the President has acquired too much power."

On the opening day of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC -- longtime conservative movement leader Richard Viguerie sounded a theme he has articulated for a year: The GOP is not conservative enough; and after six years of controlling all three branches of government, the party has clearly betrayed the conservative movement -- including the religious right -- that made it all possible.  
 

I think it's the GOP's turn to get derailed by a third-party candidate in 2008.  It seems "leading conservatives" (however one gains that distinction, exactly) don't think the Republic Party candidates are right-leaning enough.  Not one spic joke out of the lot of 'em.  

So, these aforementioned "leading conservatives" gathered today at a big Conservapalooza of some sort and declared that they would be withholding support until the GOP candidates started disparaging more Mexicans, gays, women, and poor people.

When I wrote my post on Webnut Welfare yesterday, I did not realize that author Matt Stoller had the answer staring him in the face.

Conservative firebrand Richard Viguerie, one of the fathers of the modern conservative movement:

The underlying message in this State of the Union Address was directed toward the Democrats: In effect, we can work together--let's make a deal. The underlying message directed toward the conservatives was: You have no place else to go.

Among the other omissions in the President's speech:

• He did not acknowledge any mistake in pursuing the liberal, big government policies that have driven the Republican Party from power on Capitol Hill.

• He did not announce any changes in personnel in a conservative direction.

• He did not announce that he will veto any increase in discretionary spending.

• He did not call for the downsizing or elimination of any government programs.

• He did not call for eliminating the corporate welfare shelled out to big business.

• He did not announce that he will veto any legislation that contains 'earmarks.'

• He did not launch a serious war on the institutionalized government corruption between big business, their lobbies, Congress, and the Administration.

• He did not announce any significant initiatives to protect traditional moral values.

Accordingly, conservatives must continue to declare their independence from the Republican Party. We must act as a Third Force in American politics, seeking to draw both major political parties to the Right. Conservative principles and goals take precedence over partisanship. We will support Democrats and Republicans alike when they do the right thing, and oppose Democrats and Republicans alike when they do the wrong thing.

Conservatives like Richard Viguerie don't have the balls to truly pull away from the Republican Party, and good luck on that "pulling Democrats to the Right" thing. The Harold Fords of the Democratic Party are not exactly ascendant.

It was pretty amazing how social conservatives got zilch out of this SOTU address. But as we saw earlier today with Musgrave and Allard refusing to pursue a Hate Amendment this year, it's clear they've realized that the divisive and hateful "moral" agenda of the Christian Right is electoral poison. With the escalation of the war in Iraq, they've got enough problems on their hands.

And therein lies the dilemma of the crazy right. They can continue to whine that the Republican Party has abandoned them while still voting for them, they can support obvious panderers like McCain or Romney (the way they supported Bush), they can sit things out, or they can start a third party.

Not a good place to be.

Senate Bill S.1, Section 220, has been defeated by an amendment to the bill a week before its passage.

Mark Fitzgibbons, on behalf of Richard Viguerie, a "conservative figurehead and writer", head of GrassrootsFreedom.com as well as chairman of American Target Advertising, decried the bill in a press release entitled "Congress to send Critics to Jail" in terms that screamed "Liberals PAY ATTENTION!":

In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but
isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time,  on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress.
...

"Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American
citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's
internal corruption problems."

[emphasis mine]

• PRNewsWire.com

Too bad the blogging community just got punk'd.

There's a story coming out of rightblogistan (see, for example, Richard Viguerie's take) that's raising some disturbing questions about S 1 - the senate lobbying reform bill.  Apparently, Section 220 of this bill may require that any group that talks politics to an audience of over 500 people (and tells them to contact Congress) would have to register as a lobbying organization, and meet some very burdensome requirements.  Vitter and Bennett (oi!) are launching an effort to scrub this section of the bill.  But here's the thing: I'm not a good enough legal scholar to test the validity of the Republican argument.  So, I figured this would be a good question to put before the community.  Any legal scholars around here know if there's anything to these claims?

More below the fold....