For those of you who may have been wondering why I did not contemporaneously cover the unsanctioned pseudo-debate billed as the "Thanksgiving Table Forum" held at the First Federated Church in Des Moines, Iowa …

The “debate” was not an official Republican event and was hosted by the Family Leader, an evangelical Christian organization that urges members to first consider their religious views when selecting candidates.

Personally, I do not like evangelical presentations – usually with introductory hosts who speak in the slow cadence of enlightened preachers instructing their wayward flock; complete with the dramatic gestures, pauses and elevated exaggeration of individual words, with some words sometimes repeated for effect. Especially when the hosts try to be humorous and quote Charlie Sheen’s signature phrase “WINNNNNING.”

It should come as no surprise that Mitt Romney, the consistent front-runner and a Mormon was not present. Neither was the other Mormon candidate, the consistent tail end of the pack, Jon Huntsman. This is understandable because many evangelicals do not believe that Mormons are Christians – and those that do, tend to look at them as a wayward sect. Without Romney, the presentation became less a debate and more a presentation of the candidates before a special interest group. So I sort of wonder about the inclusivity of those who do not parrot the story line?

And there was the evenings moderator, Frank Luntz who portrays himself as a “word doctor” and spinmeister. A celebrity pollster whose appearances on “dialed response” segments of television shows leaves one questioning the pre-conditioning of his “sample” audience. Personally Luntz reminds me of a young Dick Morris, not exactly a compliment.

“This is for me, probably the most important day of my life because I want it to be one of the most significant days of your life. I want you to learn more in the next two hours more than you have learned in this entire campaign. I want you to understand what’s in these people’s hearts, not just the sound bites. I want you to understand their worldview so you will know what to do come January third. And I have so much faith in you. There is a reason Iowa goes first. And it is because of you. And what you know.”

Knowing something about Luntz’s background, I doubt that this was the most important day of his life and that the phony sincerity grates on me as much as the feigned piety of many evangelical preachers. This is the man who demands his client’s “stay on message” and use “pre-tested” words and phrases to convey their political message. So much for knowing the hearts of the candidates. But he is an accomplished performer.

It is not that I am not religious or recognize the importance of religion in living a moral, productive life. It’s just that the fake sincerity and the obvious condescension of those who believe themselves to be morally superior drives me crazy.

Comments …

Red Flag: Luntz invited a self-described member of the Occupy Wall Street movement to be the first speaker in return for not interrupting the proceedings. Amazingly, the well-spoken unidentified individual started by relating that he was a senior citizen from the state of Nevada and was “bought with a great price. I belong to the Lord Jesus Christ and he is my Lord.” The speaker went on to mention Ron Paul and explain that the Federal Reserve is a private foreign dominated bank whose owners are anonymous. And then goes on to hope that the Federal Reserve will be part of the debate. Why do I believe that this was a Ron Paul plant? And obviously not a member of the young OWS rag-tag groups we see loitering in various cities.

Red Flag: Michelle Bachman makes a point of pouring water for each of the seated male candidates which apparently reinforces her “family” values but speaks volumes about someone who would be the President of the United States and the appearance of subservience to a male-dominated political culture.

In the opening question, the profession of faith and personal commitment to God makes we wonder if these people are not personal and political hypocrites, willing to say or do anything to gain the trust of the audience.

Red Flag: Rick Santorum mentions his participation in a technology venture so that people would not be subject to “filth” coming from their televisions. Sounds suspiciously like faith-based censorship to me. I don’t want any group censoring what I read, listen to or watch. So how would this man use the Federal Communications Commission? Possibly in unintended ways. Santorum was immediately called out by Ron Paul who explained about liberty and opined that law cannot reflect the morality of the people. Rightfully points out it should be a matter of self-determination rather than the government who should be responsible for what is presented.

For those who want to attend a lecture, there is Newt Gingrich explaining the world in an academic way that stresses history.

Red Flag: Amazing how much Texas Governor Rick Perry sounds like George Bush when he speaks of faith and government. While it may offer some measure of personal comfort, I do not want the nation’s Commander-in-Chief to hesitate to take action while they agonize over the religious implications of what they may need to do to protect our nation, its citizens or our allies.

Kudos: Ron Paul seems to be a breath of fresh air in the discussion. “You want to legalize liberty. You don’t want to designate what your beliefs are going to be because someone might abuse it.”

Red Flag: Michele Bachmann appears to step over the line in pandering to the audience. “I think the greatest amount of censorship in this country today is in the pulpits of our churches. Because we have a law that limits pastors for what they can say about politics in the pulpit. That’s not the American way.”

Herman Cain claimed that a lot of the intimidation of pastors comes from the tax code.

We exempt religious institutions from paying taxes in order to preserve the separation of church and state. Perhaps we should ask these churches which have grown tremendously wealthy under this exemption, if they wish to renounce the exemption to become just another forum of political discourse?

Kudos: Herman Cain puts it succinctly: “Freedom without responsibility is immoral.”

Kudos: After one hour of values-related platitudes, Rick Perry started the first substantive conversation. Mentioning the 10th Amendment and getting Washington D.C. out of the state’s business. Mentioning education and ObamaCare. Mentioning that “our foreign policy budgets need to start at zero.” And at Frank Luntz’s urging: for every country including Israel. Unfortunately, he then veered off to note that China is aborting 35,000 children a day is immoral, is wrong and has to stop.

Red Flag: Santorum: “The laws of this country should comport with that moral vision. Why? Because the law is a teacher. If something is illegal in this country because it is immoral and it is wrong and it is harmful to society, saying it is illegal and putting a law in place teaches. Laws cannot be neutral. There is no neutral Ron. There is only moral and immoral and the law has to reflect what is right and good and just for our society.”

The scary part of Santorum’s proposition is that it is up to people like him to decide what is right and wrong -- and then codify it into law.

Kudos: Newt Gingrich calling our the Occupy Wall Street crowd. “All the Occupy movement starts with the premise that we all owe them everything.”

“They take over a public park they didn’t pay for to go nearby to use bathrooms they didn’t pay for…to obstruct those who are going to work to pay the taxes to sustain the bathrooms and sustain the park so they can self-righteously explain that they are the paragons of virtue to which we owe everything.”

“We need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, ‘Go get a job right after you take a bath.’”

I am going to beg your indulgence. find that I cannot watch the rest of this charade and have heard enough. I have no interest in their personal stories beyond what has been previously published.

It appears to me that these are conniving, sanctimonious, pandering politicians who have tailored their answers to the audience. Many make good points – but they are the same points that have made in the previous ten debates. Granted they did not have a religious connotation, but it appears that I can decide for myself what is morally right and wrong and do not need to attend this particular lecture.

My only conclusions are that Newt Gingrich has a professorial recall of history and is sometimes funny. Ron Paul appeared to articulate his case well and did not seem to veer deep into the weeds. The rest were ho-hum and Romney did little or no damage to himself because he chose to campaign in New Hampshire rather than participate. Huntsman was not missed in the least.

Bottom line …

With little respect for the opening host, it was not winnnning, it was borrrrrrrrring.

I would like to take a cheap shot at the turkeys that appeared on the stage. If this is the best and brightest among us in the GOP, we are truly in trouble as we face the fight against increasing progressive socialism.

And if there is anything for which I am thankful, it is that this presentation was not broadcast by the mainstream or cable media.

-- steve

Reference Links …

The Debate (3-hours)