Church electioneering ignored

This is what's frustrating about the Democrats - and about the Obama administration in particular. They have to be forced to enforce the law, because they don't want to make any waves, even when it comes to people who hate them with a white-hot passion.

OMG, we can't require churches to follow the law! What would they think of us if we did that? How are we going to get the right-wing to love us if we actually enforce America's laws?

The separation of church and state - one of the bedrock principles of America's secular democracy - used to have widespread support in both political parties (admittedly, more in theory than in practice, even then).

But these days, Republicans have become hysterically opposed to the whole idea (almost as eager for a theocracy as the  Taliban, it seems), and Democrats are too cowardly or too inept or just too Christian to stand up for it, either.

Look, if you want to engage in political campaigning, you can certainly do so. We have freedom of speech in this country, so have at it. However, you can't get a tax break for politicking, not legally, at least.

So make your choice. If you want to push religion, then you can stay tax-free. (I don't like that either, but it's the law.) If you'd rather push your political opinions, then you have to use after-tax money. How hard is that to understand?

Right-wing churches have become more and more brazen about violating the law, because they know that Barack Obama - that Muslim atheist communist who hates white Christian America - will do absolutely nothing about it.

Well, Obama makes a great doormat. It's astonishing that someone who is hated by right-wing Republicans so fiercely, so intensely, so hysterically - and someone who is such a great campaigner, too - can be so desperate to appease his political enemies.

It's not just when it comes to religion, either. Cenk Uygur is convinced that President Obama is going to give up everything we won in this election, not because he's inept, but because he doesn't really want what he claims he wants.

Of course, Democrats are inept, too. As Uygur notes, Republicans would be claiming from the rooftops their clear "mandate" for every single GOP policy if they'd won the election (let alone if the polls were also on their side). What do Democrats do? They pooh-pooh the whole notion that they've got a mandate at all.

Sure, polls show that 60% of American voters - even many of those who voted for Mitt Romney - want taxes to be raised, especially on the wealthy. Oh, but Democrats aren't going to actually believe that, are they? And they're certainly not going to take advantage of it! Why, that would hardly be fair to their Republican friends...

So, will Democrats give away the farm after their resounding electoral victory? I guess we'll see. But I wouldn't be at all surprised. Being a doormat is habit-forming, I suspect. After a few times, when you lie down and just let Republicans walk all over you, both sides start expecting it.

I do have a better opinion of Barack Obama than Uygur does. I don't think it's deliberate. I just think he's a typical Democrat. But I guess we'll see. He's repeatedly frustrated me in his first term, but now he has another chance:

(Tom Toles)

Will Barack Obama actually use that leverage, or chicken out again? Will he declare an election mandate? And will he act like he's got a mandate, too?

He's had almost four years to learn that Republicans will never love him and never compromise on anything they're not absolutely forced into. It shouldn't have taken him anywhere near that long to learn it, but if he still hasn't learned that, I'm going to be madder than hell!

... I won't regret my vote, though. As frustrating as the Democrats can be, they're not anywhere near as bad as the Republicans. Think of it as the lesser of two evils if you wish, the choice was and is still critically important to us all.