You know, Lanny Davis is right. Sen. Ted Stevens, like all individuals under federal indictment, is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Ted Stevens has been indicted by a grand jury for committing seven felonies. And last Thursday, in new filings in the case, prosecutors revealed that Ted Stevens turned a $5,000 investment into a $155,000 profit through the use of an $31,000 interest-free loan that was both improper and never disclosed in his senate filings. I don't disagree with Lanny Davis about the importance of the principle of presumed innocence. But I do wonder why Lanny Davis wrote a column defending Ted Stevens in the Moonie Times. At the bottom of the column, it is noted that Lanny Davis: "...is a prominent Washington lawyer and a political analyst for Fox News. From 1996 to 1998, he served as special counsel to President Clinton. From 2005 to 2006, he served on President Bush's five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board." But it does not say that Lanny Davis, or his firm, has been retained by Ted Stevens or that Lanny Davis is being paid to represent Ted Stevens. But I wonder. Lanny Davis was probably the most high profile person that has never held public office to advocate for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Ted Stevens is a Republican. Ordinarily, Democrats do not race out to write opinion pieces in right-wing rags reminding people of the principle of the presumption of innocence when high-ranking members of the Republican Party get indicted. I don't begrudge the point that Mr. Davis is making. Ted Stevens deserves a fair trial, competent counsel, and all the civil rights that Americans have been taught to expect are their birthright. But why is Lanny Davis offering this free service to Ted Stevens? Is it really a free service? Is it possible that he and the Moonie Times neglected to disclose something here?

read more

A theme that I like to return to every once in awhile when we get news on it, is about Barack Obama and The Religious Vote.

Ever since I read this post on PoliticalInaction.com, putting for the supposition that most of the attacks on Obama by the GOP were not just race related, but religion related, I have kept an eye open to see how far on or off the money the blogger was. I believe the blogger is on the money.

The ‘ Obama is a Muslim’ LIE that arrives in the emailbox every Monday.
The ‘ Obama has a problem with the Jews’ LIE that arrives in the emailbox every Tuesday.
The entire attack on Trinity UCC and Jeremiah Wright.

All were done to undermine Barack Obama and his religious standing.

So, what do the latest polls say?

According to David Brody of CBN:

For the most part, the various faith communities of the U.S. currently support Sen. Obama for the presidency. Among the 19 faith segments that The Barna Group tracks, evangelicals were the only segment to throw its support to Sen. McCain. Among the larger faith niches to support Sen. Obama are non-evangelical born again Christians (43% to 31%); notional Christians (44% to 28%); people aligned with faiths other than Christianity (56% to 24%); atheists and agnostics (55% to 17%); Catholics (39% vs. 29%); and Protestants (43% to 34%). In fact, if the current preferences stand pat, this would mark the first time in more than two decades that the born again vote has swung toward the Democratic candidate.

Now, isn’t that interesting?

read more