The Book of Pelosi

Fun from the Bible Belt Blogger:

Maybe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is quoting from the Howard Dean Version of the Holy Bible. You know, the one that has the book of Job in the New Testament. Or perhaps she’s picked up some new-fangled, biodegradable, Australian Earth Bible, with the words of Al Gore in red. Or perhaps, as congressmen sometimes do, she’s simply decided to “revise and extend”

Here’s what Pelosi said in an Earth Day press release this week: “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children’s children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature.” the book.

Turns out, there’s no such passage in the Bible — New Testament or Old, several Christian Right activists are pointing out.

LA Times poll: McCain would beat Democrats

We already know Hillary Clinton's campaign has one foot in the grave. But is the Democrat's overall effort to take back the White House also moribund? Another shocker in a wild presidential election:

WASHINGTON -- After a sometimes bitter primary campaign, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain now presents a stiff challenge to either of his potential Democratic opponents in the general election, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The findings underscore the difficulties ahead for Democrats as they hope to retake the White House during a time of war, with voters giving McCain far higher marks when it comes to experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with the situation in Iraq.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have made ending the war a centerpiece of their campaigns. But in hypothetical matchups against either Democratic senator, about half of voters polled said McCain, a Vietnam veteran, was best able to deal with the war. Just over a third of voters polled favored the Democratic candidates on that issue.

Overall, McCain would beat Clinton 46% to 40% and Obama 44% to 42%. His lead over Obama is within the poll's three-point margin of error.

Last night, Karl Rove offered two contradictory remarks/jokes that could explain how Democratic enthusiasm is now behind the eight ball. Rove said he was certain he could get either Clinton or Obama elected, but wouldn't say how. "I only work for Democrats -- and Joe Lieberman." Lieberman is, of course, a friend and supporter of McCain; Rove is too, despite an icy introduction. But at another moment in his lecture, Rove joked that he secretly was advising both Clinton and Obama, explaining why they had turned so hard against each other.

Such a scenario would certainly bare what President Bush's former chief strategist said has become known as "the mark of Rove." "If you can't explain," he said, "Rove is responsible."

Too much credence probably shouldn't be put into this hypothesis.

How N.H. Democrats voted based on religion

From the Christianity Today Live Blog:

This was supposed to be the year the Democrats got religion. Too bad somebody forgot to tell the pollsters. One of the big untold stories of the Iowa caucus is that only Republicans were asked about their religious affiliation.

The problem isn't just that we don't know how many Iowan evangelicals voted for the various Democrats (it would be interesting to see, for example, if Edwards scored as well among evangelicals as he did among conservatives). The problem is that we don't know whether Democrats as a whole have succeeded in attracting more evangelical voters. (Usually somewhere between one quarter and one third of evangelicals vote Democratic.) I'm told we'll see some Iowa caucus poll results soon (not from Edison Media Research, the company that does most of these entrance and exit polls) that may shine some light on the religion questions.

The good news is that Edison Media Research has repented, and today's New Hampshire exit polls (via CNN [Rep | Dem] and MSNBC [Rep | Dem] )had many religion questions for both Republicans and Democrats.

Clinton, it seems, took the moderately religious (those who attend church monthly or a few times a year), while Obama took the devout (weekly attenders) and the nonreligious (those who never attend church). Roman Catholics (the largest religious group among New Hampshire Democrats, with 36% of voters in that primary), overwhelmingly chose Clinton (43%) over Obama (28%). Those who said they had no religion supported Obama (47%) over Clinton (28%), and that formed a remarkable 22 percent of Democratic voters.