Malkin's Conundrum

Earlier this evening (November 13) I attended the Independence Institute's annual banquet. It was a lovely and fun night. Jon Caldara was in top form. Unfortunately, it will probably take me a few days to get up the photographs and audio interviews, as I need to attend to a family matter. For now I want to address the most important issue of the evening: Michelle Malkin's endorsement of faith-based politics in the form of abortion bans.

Hers was an uncomfortable message to bring to the Independence Institute, an organization known for sticking to matters of economics and self-defense and avoiding divisive "social" issues like abortion. Malkin is wrong in principle. And if Colorado Republicans take her advice, they are doomed to perpetual failure.

What of those who, like me, endorse the separation of church and state and advocate a woman's right to get an abortion? Malkin said Republicans should "let them go their own way" -- in other words, leave the Republican Party.

We have left.

The result is that Bob Beauprez lost the governor's mansion, Bob Schaffer lost the U.S. Senate seat, Marilyn Musgrave lost another House seat, and candidates like Libby Szabo lost the state legislature. (See my pre and post election comments on the GOP's faith-based political disaster.)

Fittingly, the Denver Post published Paul's Hsieh's article on the matter the same day that Malkin offered her comments. Hsieh writes:

I want to let [Republicans] know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms -- positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans' embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage. ...

[T]he government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party's embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous. ...

The Religious Right's goal of outlawing abortions would violate that important right, and sacrifice the lives of actual women for clumps of cells that are only potential (but not yet actual) human beings, based on religious dogma. As a physician, I find that position abhorrent and deeply anti-life.

As Ryan Sager writes for Reason, this is a widespread trend (leaving aside the controversies over the "libertarian" label):

The Cato Institute has done excellent work over the last few years tracking the shift in the libertarian vote -- the roughly 10 percent to 15 percent of the American public that can be categorized as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Based on an analysis of the American National Election Studies, Cato found that between 2000 and 2004, there was a substantial flight of libertarians away from the Republican Party and toward the Democrats. While libertarians preferred Bush by a margin of 52 points over Al Gore in 2000, that margin shrank to 21 points in 2004, when many libertarians -- disaffected by the Iraq war, massive GOP spending increases, and the campaign against gay marriage -- switched to John Kerry.

While it is true that faith-based politics is only one of the issues driving liberty voters away from the Republicans, it is also true that the faith-based politics of Bush and McCain is of a cloth with their big-government spending. Bush ran as a "compassionate" conservative -- i.e., a religiously altruistic one -- while McCain selected the evangelical economic lightweight Palin as he himself suspended his campaign in order to rubber-stamp Bush's $700 billion Great American Rip-Off.

Malkin made a couple of references to Ayn Rand, saying she recently moved to Colorado to get her own piece of Galt's Gulch and that she has "most virtuous" selfish reasons for wanting local conservatives to succeed. I am continually amazed by how many conservatives selectively read Rand -- and understand hardly a word of what she wrote even as they invoke her works. Notably, Malkin did not quote what Rand had to say about abortion or faith-based politics generally.

Unlike Bush and McCain, Malkin sticks with liberty when talking about economic issues. She hammered McCain for supporting the bailout, pushing environmental controls, and lamenting the evils of profits.

Malkin was positively inspirational. She said the proper Republican strategy is "simple: we stand up for our principles." We don't rebrand our beliefs, "we defend them." "We lock and load our ideological ammunition." "We do not whine, we do not wheedle, we fight."

Malkin said Repubicans must oppose any new stimulus, must oppose new "windfall profit" taxes, must oppose federal loan guarantees. "If you get rid of the ability to fail," she said, "you get rid of the ability to succeed." Right on.

Republicans who endorsed the bailout suffered "ideological pollution."

But then, in an instant, the anti-liberty Malkin took the stage. She said Republicans should not "de-emphasize" or hide their "pro-life" -- i.e., faith-based anti-abortion -- stance. To do so also would be to suffer "ideological pollution." Republicans "need to stand up for life unapologetically," she said.

And those who do not share Malkin's desire to impose religious faith by force of law? "Let them go their own way."

However, as Diana Hsieh and I explain, the faith-based opposition to abortion is not "pro-life," it is anti-life. It would sacrifice the lives of actual people to fertilized eggs. I do not advise Republicans to "de-emphasize" or soften their calls to outlaw abortion: I advise them to completely reject faith-based politics and defend the individual rights of actual people.

Malkin's conundrum is the one faced by the Republican Party generally: she tries to defend and violate liberty at the same time. Her stance is fundamentally untenable. It is no coincidence that the religious right is drifting away from matters of economic liberty and increasingly interested in welfare spending, environmental controls, and of course draconian social controls.

Malkin's treatment of abortion contrasted sharply with her comments on immigration. She admitted that there are "cleavages" in the Republican Party over immigration, but also things "we agree on." Oh, you mean that there are no "cleavages" over abortion? The facts prove otherwise. Yet, for Malkin, on immigration Republicans can agree to disagree, while on abortion the nonsectarians must be shown the door. (As I have argued, it remains possible for secular liberty voters to reform a coalition with those religious voters who endorse the separation of church and state.)

As Paul Hsieh reviews, Rush Limbaugh wants to purge the Republican Party of those who decline to toe the faith-based line. Malkin offers the same advice. She wants me to go my own way. So long as Republicans insist on imposing religious faith by force of law, I remain her obedient servant.

See the collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Republicans Win One: Bradford Bests Buescher

I'm not entirely displeased to see that Republican Laura Bradford beat incumbent Bernie Buescher in the Grand Junction state house race. Back in 2005, my dad and I blasted Buescher for supporting higher net taxes and for earning a zero rating from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers.

Still, Bradford barely pulled off a surprise upset in a county that went 63 percent for McCain.

In this race, as in races across Colorado and the nation, voters were faced with a choice of two evils: political force in our private lives versus political force in our economic lives.

In a video on her web page, Bradford criticizes Buescher and Governor Bill Ritter for wanting "higher taxes" and the obstruction of drilling. "My priorities are lower taxes, more jobs, a strong economy," Bradford says. She won on economic issues.

Yet elsewhere on her page she reaches out to the religious right:

Laura supports all life: the unborn, the unprotected, and elderly, the unwanted. She believes that the constitution ensures that ---the endowed rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Laura would support the efforts of lawmakers to define 'personhood' to include the unborn. Two recent cases in Mesa County, where a baby died after it was born due to grievous injuries caused to its mother, yet charges are not able to be brought against those who inflicted the injuries. Even in states like California, the baby of Lacy Peterson, little Connor Peterson, was considered a person, and his father charged and sentenced in the cause of his death.

NARAL (The National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws) is the political action arm of the pro-choice movement. During 2007, based on a point system—points assigned for actions IN SUPPORT of NARAL, Representative Bernie Buescher received a rating of 100. ...

Laura would not support any legislation changing the meaning of marriage from one man and one woman.

Laura does not oppose, however, the right for gays to have civil unions, shared estates, medical visitation or other common rights protected for all citizens.

Laura does not support the discrimination of any person.

Notice that Bradford is not shrilly anti-homosexual, as are many Republicans; the debate over marriage versus civil unions is a fair one. And Bradford's concern over criminal penalties for those who harm a woman's fetus do not justify her broader position, for criminal penalties can be applied based on the violation of the woman's rights. While she does not recognize the far-reaching implications of Amendment 48, the personhood measure, at least she doesn't run on those implications (which is both good and bad).

The Denver Post reports that Buescher said that "Republicans attacked him for his support of Ritter's controversial mill-levy freeze that kept tax rates from dropping and on oil and gas issues. Also, he was hit for his support of Senate Bill 200, a measure that bans discrimination based on a person's religious beliefs or sexual orientation."

S.B. 200 indicates what's wrong in the standard debate over homosexuality. The religious right declares homosexuality a sin, consistently demonizes homosexuals, and aims to legally discriminate against them. The left wants to force people to associate with homosexuals in violation of the rights of property, contract, and expression -- that is what 200 accomplishes. How can homosexuals ask for the right to contract freely when some refuse to recognize the equal rights of others? The correct position is that homosexuality is fine and should be socially accepted, homosexuals should have their rights fully respected, but those hostile to homosexuals also have rights that should be respected, even when they practice those rights badly. So beating up Buescher over 200 was entirely appropriate.

From what I can tell, Buescher lost for all the right reasons. And that is another bit of good news regarding election day in Colorado.

Election Blues and Reviews II: Religious Right Loses

See also Part I: "Created Equal."

The Big Loser: The Religious Right

Liberty won another victory in that the faith-based politics of the religious right suffered defeat. I will repeat what I said on the CBS 4 webcast last night: Democrats in Colorado have not won their races; Republicans have lost theirs. (And if Democrats forget that, they will find their majority, both at the national and state level, short lived.) By hitching their party to the religious right, Republicans have driven themselves to overwhelming losses. I'll start at the top of the ballot and work down.

President: Palin Alienated Nonsectarians

As I've pointed out, John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin energized the evangelical vote at the cost of alienating independents and nonsectarian Republicans. McCain selected Palin for one overriding reason: her credentials on banning abortion are unassailable. As a result, McCain selected a running mate utterly unprepared to serve as president of the nation. McCain earned the vote of James Dobson, and he lost the votes of countless others turned off by Palin's faith-based politics and inexperience.

Notably, the Interior West split over the president. Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada went for Obama, while Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana went for McCain. The Interior West has 44 electoral votes, and they went 19 to Obama, 25 to McCain. This reveals the problem for the Interior West: we had to pick between a candidate who wants more government in our bedroom and one who wants more government in our pocketbook. Generally, the Interior West leans toward liberty -- which explains the paradox of Colorado's election results (which I'll review in a subsequent part). Both Obama and McCain are enemies of liberty on multiple fronts, so figuring out the lesser of evils was a difficult task (and one that I could not ultimately accomplish).

U.S. Senate: Udall Endorsed Separation of Church and State

It came as no surprise that Mark Udall beat Bob Schaffer; Udall maintained a consistent lead. Udall won because he convinced Colorado that he'll legislate from the center, while Schaffer will not. As I've noted, Udall wrote the most eloquent defense of the separation of church and state I've seen from any living politician. His full remarks are worth reviewing. It is that statement, above all, with which Udall earned my vote, despite my profound disagreements with him on economic matters.

A big part of Schaffer's problem is that he was hypocritical on the issue of abortion, thereby alienating both the religious right and the secular free marketers. Consider, for instance, what Schaffer's campaign manager recently told Newsweek about Amendment 48 and its sponsor:

"I do greatly respect Kristi Burton and you have to admire her accomplishments," says Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager. "But there is disagreement over whether this is the right thing to do at this time." The state Republican Party will remain neutral.

Well, the state Republican Party did not remain neutral when it passed a resolution to overturn Roe v. Wade at its state convention. And many of its candidates did not stay neutral; they endorsed 48. Besides, neutrality on Amendment 48 is hardly adequate. Now that the Republican Party has firmly and steadfastly proven its loyalty to the religious right, and expressly cast out the free market secularists, it's going to take a lot more than neutrality on a stinker of a ballot measure. It's going to take candidates explicitly and seriously committed to the separation of church and state.

U.S. House: Markey Upsets Musgrave

The big upset of the night was the defeat of Marilyn Musgrave by challenger Betsy Markey. Back in August, I was ready to declare Musgrave the winner. Yet, as I noted, Musgrave's faith-based politics played a huge role in that race. And it was repudiated.

I live in District 2, where Boulder too is located, where Jared Polis (who happens to be gay) soundly beat challenger Scott Starin. I considered voting for Starin just to protest Polis's grand central plans, but I found on his web page the abortion-banning euphemism about "Respecting the Sanctity of life." The fact that he didn't even have the guts to detail his views on the matter also turned me off.

Of Colorado's seven congressional districts, the Democrats now own five. The two Republicans, Mike Coffman and Doug Lamborn, signed the Colorado Right to Life survey, demonstrating that faith-based politics is not everywhere in the state a loser. But those seats were never in question. Neither was Musgrave's seat, so I thought; on the whole the GOP's faith-based strategy has cost them huge.

State Legislature: Hudak Beats Szabo

I live in State Senate District 19, in which Republican Libby Szabo battled Evie Hudak. As I noted, Szabo wanted to outlaw abortion and pass Amendment 48. Nevertheless, I suspected that Szabo would win because her supporters unleashed powerful attacks on Hudak, while Hudak's supporters did not take advantage of Szabo's endorsement of Amendment 48.

The outcome: Hudak eked out a slim victory.

On Monday, I received a letter from Focus on the Family Action complaining that rich guy Tim Gill spent millions electing "those favoring the homosexual agenda." And -- bum bum bum -- Gill has also funded Hudak! I think that's the sky falling. Apparently this didn't scare voters too badly. Nor is it any surprise that Gill spent his money to beat Republicans given the anti-gay vitriol coming from the religious right. A winning political strategy is not to tell successful rich homosexuals that they're corrupting the youth, headed for hell, and undeserving of equal rights. The Republicans richly deserved every penny that Gill spent to defeat them. Plus, as Ryan Sager points out, younger voters are much more accepting of homosexuals, and this year they were energized by the Democrats.

So Hudak did not just beat Szabo and her abortion-banning agenda; she beat Focus on the Family.

In my state house district, 29, Democrat Debbie Benefield crushed challenger Mary Arnold. This outcome was not a surprise.

On Monday, I wrote Arnold the following note:

Dear Ms. Arnold,

Tomorrow I will vote for your opponent because you desire to "pass legislation that would severely restrict abortions."

While I appreciate the fact that you also oppose Amendment 48, that is not enough. If Republicans want my vote, they must endorse the separation of church and state and oppose faith-based measures such as bans or "severe restrictions" on abortions. As much as it pains me to vote for statist Democrats, I deem them the lesser threat to my liberties.

Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life

Amendment 48 lost with preliminary results of 72 to 27 percent.

This is the measure that I spent most of my time trying to defeat. Diana Hsieh and I wrote the paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," and I also wrote a lot about it on my other blog.

The timing of Amendment 48 could not have been worse for Republicans, for it kept in voters' minds the simple fact that Republicans have sold their souls to the religious right. The measure caused Schaffer especially a great deal of grief. And I'm glad of that, because it drew out this issue with finality.

However, while the measure was crushed according to the usual political calculus, the simple fact is that 27 percent of the state voted for the faith-based proposition that a fertilized egg is a person. The religious right is not going away. Its leaders do not care about immediate political success; they care about imposing God's alleged will on earth.

And the well-funded opponents of Amendment 48 may have done lasting harm in claiming the measure "simply goes too far." Many on the religious right will be perfectly happy to run a measure that goes slightly less far.

Still, the resounding defeat of Amendment 48, along with the defeat of various faith-based candidates, shows that the religious right is, at this time and in this region, in retreat. And that is the best news of the election.

My Kind of Republican

Ryan Frazier favors Amendment 47, the so-called "right to work" measure, as Joel Warner writes up in an excellent article for Westword. On this issue Frazier is wrong, for reasons I've discussed, but his is a forgivable sin.

(The fact that a union thug called Frazier a "House N---" who bends "over for the white man" makes me sorry that I have to vote with the unions on this one. But I have to do the right thing even if the unions oppose 47 for the wrong reasons.)

From what I can tell based on the Westword article, Frazier is otherwise moving toward Team Liberty.

Frazier told Warner, "I chose the Republican Party because of the principles the party was founded on. This was the party of freedom. This was the party that sought the abolition of slavery. The principles of the party are relatively simple: Keep government to the lowest practical level, fiscal responsibility, strength in the free enterprise system, and protection of the rights of every individual. Man, I identify with those."

Warner also writes this extraordinary segment:

In 2006, [Frazier] stood alongside Democratic Denver mayor John Hickenlooper in public support of Referendum I, which would have allowed domestic partnerships... He's also ambivalent when it comes to pro-life [sic] issues: "I am not a fan of abortion, but I struggle with whether it is the appropriate role of the government to place itself there."

... [H]e isn't the only Republican who seems to be eschewing the state party's long-held cultural-conservative playbook. Other GOP thirty-somethings, like state senator Josh Penry and state representatives Frank McNulty and Cory Gardner, are shying away from the culture wars and sticking with fiscally conservative stances. Even prominent state Republicans like party elder Hank Brown have come out against Amendment 48 on this November's ballot, which would define a fertilized human egg as a person and therefore, many believe, outlaw abortion.

It could be indicative of a fundamental shift within the statewide GOP apparatus. After Republicans saw that their fixation on unborn babies and marriage licenses got them nowhere except out of office, they've opted for a reboot, a return to the small-government, personal-freedom ideals of old.

"I think that's an astute and correct observation," says Steve Schuck, a prominent Colorado Springs Republican and onetime contender for Colorado governor. "I am pleased that the Republican Party is moving in that direction, higher regard given to policy issues than social issues. Partly, it's a failure of them to be effective. There are so many examples of us not being successful that can be attributed to a preoccupation with social issues."

Of course, there's a big difference between being right on social issues and hiding one's wrong views about them. As far as I can tell, practically all Republicans who aren't completely in step with the religious right are doing the latter (which is why, for instance, Bob Schaffer has come off looking two-faced).

Still, Warner's notes on Frazier give me some hope that there are a few Republicans who believe in individual rights and a government limited to protecting them.

Faith-Based Politics Costs Colorado Republicans

The following article was released by the Coalition for Secular Government as a non-exclusive op-ed. It follows my article on a similar theme regarding Sarah Palin. Here I've included additional links for reference.

Faith-based politics costs Colorado Republicans

by Ari Armstrong

Colorado is known for its Western values of independence and economic liberty. So why do Republicans, the supposed champions of those values, keep getting trounced?

Republicans can blame wealthy Democratic donors, but in large part Republicans have beaten themselves by pushing a faith-based agenda of banning abortion and stem-cell research, discriminating against homosexuals, and directing welfare dollars to religious groups. They have subverted the law to religious doctrine and weakened the wall between church and state.

Republicans also have alienated freedom-minded independents and Republicans. Polls released by Pew show most Americans, and half of conservatives, now oppose church involvement in politics. As Ryan Sager shows in his review of 2005 Pew data, the Interior West holds a "live and let live" philosophy, with 53 percent of residents saying homosexuality "should be accepted by society" and 59 percent saying "the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality." [See the appendix of Sager's The Elephant In the Room.]

Yet the GOP panders to its evangelical base at the expense of political victory.

This year, Republicans passed a resolution at their state convention calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Eighteen Republican candidates signed the Colorado Right to Life survey, saying they want to ban abortion as the will of God and outlaw stem-cell medical research.

The same candidates also endorsed Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. This would lay the ground to ban all abortion except perhaps to save the mother's life, ban the birth control pill and other forms of contraception that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, and ban most fertility treatments. Women would be forced to bring a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks.

True, some of these candidates, such as Congressman Doug Lamborn and congressional candidate Mike Coffman, live in safe districts for Republicans. But Libby Szabo, a candidate for state senate in District 19, does not. Her opponents have hammered her over her answers to the survey, making sure to link her views to the GOP.

Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, the incumbent in a Republican district, has managed to fall behind challenger Betsy Markey in some polls [one and two]. Musgrave wants to outlaw abortion, and she is most well known for sponsoring a constitutional gay marriage ban.

Republican Bob Schaffer is trailing Mark Udall in the polls in the U.S. Senate race in part because of Schaffer's faith-based politics. Udall has written, "I fully support the continued separation of church and state in this country." He opposes bans on abortion and stem-cell research. Schaffer, evoking God's will, said abortion is "always wrong."

Republicans should have learned their lesson when they lost the governership to the Democrats in 2006, when Bob Beauprez touted his faith-based politics and selected a running mate of the same cloth, Janet Rowland. Like Beauprez, Rowland wanted to outlaw abortion and maintain faith-based welfare.

Yet the GOP continues to actively push its anti-abortion agenda. A recent flyer "Paid for by Colorado Republican Committee" urged recipients to vote for a presidential candidate who opposes abortion and who will appoint Supreme Court justices to outlaw it.

But some who are pro-choice across the board are fighting back. Diana Hsieh founded the Coalition for Secular Government, which issued a paper that she and I wrote titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." Diana's husband Paul wrote to Dick Wadhams, head of the state GOP, "Although I'm pro-free market, pro-strong national defense, and pro- gun, the position that the CO GOP has taken against abortion is a clear breach of the principle of separation of church and state." Doug Krening wrote to Republican officials, "I have been a Republican for my entire voting life, but cannot endorse the GOP currently because of it's explicit endorsement of religion in government."

On September 11, Amanda Mountjoy, chair of the Colorado Republican Majority for Choice, hosted a banquet with 240 participants to oppose Amendment 48. Former Senator Hank Brown told the crowd, "At the point that we give up supporting and defending individual freedom and choice, we give up the very core of this great party."

Colorado Republicans have two options. They can respect the separation of church and state and defend individual freedom and choice, or they can continue to lose and deserve to do so.


Ari Armstrong is a writer for the Coalition for Secular Government and the editor of FreeColorado.com.

AP Details Palin's Tax-Funded Church Tours

The Associated Press has published an eye-opening report on Sarah Palin's use of her office to promote religion in Alaska. The AP summarizes that Palin's "record as mayor and governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state... Palin and her family billed the state $3,022 for the cost of attending Christian gatherings exclusively..."

Palin has also used her political offices to undermine abortion rights and promote faith-based welfare, the AP reports.

The report makes more clear what we already knew: Palin vigorously promotes faith-based politics. We have every reason to expect her to continue to do so in the office of vice president -- or president.

Bailouts and the Religious Right

Originally I rejected the following comment because it is snarky and anonymous:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Stop the Bailout: Three Links":

hmmm... now, who is threatening to socialize this country the most right now? we better watch out for those faith-based groups forming during this time of economic turmoil!!

Yet the comment does raise a serious point, so I will offer a serious answer.

Is the threat coming from the religious right or the socialist left? The answer is both. I fear both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, right and left. However, I continue to hold that today's major threat is the faith-based politics of the right.

Which would most negatively impact my life: implementation of the bailout, or implementation of Amendment 48? There is no question that Amendment 48, the darling of the religious right, would be much more disastrous for my life and the lives of most Coloradans.

But there is a deeper issue here. There is no direct connection between the bailout and faith-based politics. But there is an indirect connection. Increasingly the religious right is apathetic or outright hostile toward free markets. George W. Bush, who has made faith-based politics a centerpiece of his presidency, has led the country into deeper deficits, dramatically more state spending, and entitlements that are spinning out of control. And, notably, who is pushing the bailout? George W. Bush. "Who is threatening to socialize this country the most right now?" It is indeed our faith-based president, who holds nothing but contempt for free markets and economic liberty. With his faith-based welfare, Bush has brought the religious right onto the welfare-state gravy train.

And where is John McCain, who pandered to the religious right with his selection of Sarah Palin? Oh, right -- he's pushing the bailout proposal, too. Where's Sarah Palin? Where is this Pitbull with Lipstick? Is she standing with the American people against the bailout? Hell, no. If she becomes vice president or president, is she going to stand up for economic liberty in the White House? Hell, no. She has talked about simultaneously cutting taxes and balancing the budget, but without a serious commitment to spending cuts, her talk is just fantasy.

Bush has expressed a view uncomfortably close to a doctrine of divine command. Palin has praised a witch-hunting minister who prayed to God for her political success. In general, people who believe they're in power by God's authority cannot be trusted to govern according to the principles of individual rights and free-market economics.

To invoke Ayn Rand's phrasing, we are faced by the duel threat of the mystics of muscle -- the socialist left -- and the mystics of spirit -- the religious right. The most frightening (but unsurprising) trend is the merging of the two.

How Republican Libby Szabo Lost My Vote

I live in a competitive political area, where elections are actually decided during the main elections, not during the primaries. For Colorado's State Senate District 19, Republican Libby Szabo is running against Democrat Evie Hudak. The seat is open, as Democrat Sue Windels is term limited (she's running for Jefferson County Commissioner).

I support neither candidate. I'm going to cast my vote with Hudak as the strongest possible vote against Szabo.

This local race is a microcosm of what's going on nationally. In races across the country, voters face terrible choices, with theocrats on one side, socialists on the other.

Nearly a year ago, I sent a letter to various candidates asking them to endorse the separation of church and state. While I never got around to sending the letter to the state senate candidates, Szabo has made it clear that she strongly endorses faith-based politics. Which is why I strongly oppose her.

I have been arguing for months that a major reason Republicans have killed themselves in Colorado is their unflagging commitment to faith-based politics. For the last several election cycles, my region has been targeted by mailers attacking Republicans who want to ban abortion. This year is no different, as the nearby image demonstrates. It is from a flyer "Paid for by 21st Century Colorado."

Yes, it is true that Szabo wants to "ban all abortions" and "say no to stem cell research." See her answers to the 2008 "Colorado Right to Life: Candidate Questionnaire." Following are Szabo's answers to several of the questions:

Do you advocate that the government uphold the God-given, inalienable Right to Life for the unborn? YES

Do you agree that abortion is always wrong, even when the baby's father is a criminal (a rapist)? YES

Do you support the 2008 Colorado Personhood amendment effort to define "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization? YES

Will you oppose any research or practice that would intentionally destroy the tiniest living humans (embryonic stem cell research)? YES

Will you refuse to support any legislation that would allow abortion, even if it is a 'pro-life' bill (i.e. legislation that says "Abortion shall be prohibited unless...") I will oppose abortion at every opportunity.

Libby Szabo says yes to faith-based politics. That is why I say no to Libby Szabo, and why I will oppose her at every opportunity.

My vote for Hudak should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any of her policies. "Coloradans for Change" has been circulating an effective flyer claiming that Hudak "spent $11,316 of taxpayer money as a member of the State Board of Education" on things like "expensive, chauffeured limo rides, luxury hotels and expensive meals at 5-star luxury hotels." That does indeed raise my eyebrows (and it might give Szabo a shot at winning).

But nothing turns me off to Hudak as strongly as her own campaign literature. For example, one piece claims, "Evie will invest in cutting-edge renewable energy technology..." Nonsense. I doubt that Hudak has any plans to personally invest in such technology. What she means is that she wants to force me to fund this corporate welfare.

What a choice. The "options" in the state senate race mirror those of the U.S. Senate contest between Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer. While Schaffer opposes abortion, at least he's had enough sense to run away screaming from Amendment 48 (the "personhood" measure that Szabo endorses). I'm voting for Udall for the same reason I'm voting for Hudak: both their opponents push faith-based politics. Udall wrote a particularly strong endorsement of the separation of church and state. It's the same "choice" I faced in the last governor's race, and the reason why I voted for Democrat Bill Ritter.

Maybe someday Colorado Republicans will learn that the Interior West leans toward liberty and away from faith-based politics. There are some hopeful signs. Until then, I guess I'm a Democrat by default, as much as that sickens me.