Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Moonie Times reports:
Evangelical Christians in Iowa, dominant in the state's Republican Party, have denied Sen. Charles E. Grassley his request for a place on the state's delegation to this summer's Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.Mr. Grassley may attend the party's Sept. 1-4 nominating convention in St. Paul, but not as a voting delegate.
With a majority of nine out of 17 members on the Iowa Republican central committee, religious conservatives made Iowa Christian Alliance President Steve Scheffler chairman of Iowa's 40-member delegation in a vote immediately after their state party convention July 12.
They're upset because Grassley is investigating financial shenanigans by a number of TV evangelists, all of whom preach the "prosperity gospel" - recognized as a fraud and a scam even by most Christians. And now that they have power in Iowa, they're punishing Grassley:
"The Republican Party of Iowa is moving significantly to the right on social issues," the just-ousted Iowa Republican National Committee member Steve Roberts told The Washington Times. "It hurts John McCain's chances to win this state."..."It's pretty well controlled now by the Christian Alliance," Mr. Roberts said. "If somebody came to me and wanted to be a delegate to the national party convention, I used to say, 'Talk to the state party chairman or to Grassley.' Now it's very simple. You go to the Christian Alliance, and they determine who is a delegate, and you have to do exactly as they say."
In recent weeks, religious activists replaced Mr. Roberts as the national Republican committeeman and also replaced the national committeewoman with pro-life advocates who also oppose gay marriage...
Political observers in Iowa saw the move against Mr. Grassley as retribution for his having tangled with evangelical pastors in his state. He initiated a Senate Finance Committee investigation of six televangelists for conspicuous personal spending.
This is nothing but good for Obama. The further the GOP in that state slides to the right, the more the middle slides to him. That's why Obama is likely to take Iowa back from the Republicans in November (every single poll has him leading; the average is more than 7 points). He's also leading in Michigan by an average of 6.3 points and in Ohio by an average of 3.8 points. McCain cannot win the election if he doesn't win Michigan and Ohio. There's no way.
Politics
Comments
" It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open ..."
- Mary Shelley
from: FRANKENSTEIN; OR, THE MODERN PROMETHEUS
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 23, 2008 10:01 AM
I would, perhaps evaluate the situation somewhat differently then Mr. Brayton has. I would opine that McCain most likely must carry 2 of the three states, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, to win the election. Obama can win even if he carries only 1 of those three states, provided that he can win 3 of the 4 states New Hampshire, Virginia, Iowa, and Wisconsin that Gore lost in 2000 (it should be noted that Gore lost Florida and Ohio in 2000 but would have won if he had carried New Hampshire). In fact, if Obama can carry Virginia, he can win by winning only 1 of the above three large states.
Posted by: SLC | July 23, 2008 10:21 AM
I remember when Pat Robertson campaigned in Iowa. The people at his rally spoke specifically about their horror of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. I wonder how much longer it will take for them to realize that there is no real freedom to participate in religion until there is a freedom to be without religion. How can there be a choice when there is no choice? And until these people realize this, do they really understand democracy?
Posted by: Kristine | July 23, 2008 10:53 AM
Democracy alone has little to do with freedom, it is a tyranny of the majority. (And depending on how the election system works in your local democracy, it's not even necessarily a majority of the population either.)
Unless by freedom you mean the freedom to do as the majority tells you to do. :)
Posted by: Andrew | July 23, 2008 11:23 AM
SLC-
I'm conceding Florida to McCain at this point; Obama has a shot at it, but not a good one. Gore won Iowa and Wisconsin in 2000; Kerry won Wisconsin but lost Iowa in 2004. This year, Obama almost certainly wins both those states. I think he also wins New Mexico. Obama currently has a fairly solid lead in Michigan, but in Ohio there is one outlying poll (Rasmussen) that just showed McCain with a 10 point lead on Monday. Not sure what to think of that.
If you look at the 2004 electoral map, here's how those states play out. Flip Ohio blue and Obama wins. Flip Michigan red and it becomes nearly impossible for Obama to win (unless he manages to flip both Ohio and Florida, which is unlikely). Flip three smaller states (Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado - all with Obama leads now) blue and Obama wins. Even Virginia appears to be in play at this point. Looking at the state by state polls right now, it's obvious that Obama has a chance of flipping as many as 7 or 8 Republican states while McCain only has a reasonable chance of flipping one Democratic state from 2004 (Michigan).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 23, 2008 11:29 AM
What are the internat gambling sites (if we had internet gambling sites*) giving as odds on Obama vs McCain? -Curiously DJ
*see Bay City Blues Raymond Chandler. Black Mask 1932
Posted by: DingoJack | July 23, 2008 11:37 AM
The vast majority of these people will never come to this realization, because in truth they value neither freedom nor democracy.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 23, 2008 12:48 PM
Actually, there is another factor in Virginia that was not present in 2000 or 2004, namely the potentially long coattails of senatorial candidate Mark Warner who, according to some polls, may be up as much as 20 to 30 points over his opponent. If Warner should win by, say 15 points, his coattails may well be long enough to carry Obama over the finish line.
Posted by: SLC | July 23, 2008 12:51 PM
"and also replaced the national committeewoman with pro-life advocates who also oppose gay marriage..."
Any odds the replacement chairperson has a penis? After all, the ultra-right do seem to fear women having anything resembling power - it's agin' the bah-bull...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 23, 2008 1:20 PM
Ed, when you look at polling to consider the possible electoral map, remember the item on vast differences in poll numbers between those polls done the traditional way (phone calls on land lines) and done focusing entirely on cell phone users (many of whom have long since given up land lines). There was a comparison poll, and if I remember correctly, the latter's number jumped over 15 points in favor of Obama.
Posted by: gary l. day | July 23, 2008 4:57 PM
Whenever I read about these prosperity gospel nuts it makes me thankful to be a Christian living in Canada. Canada certainly has its faults....I recognize that. In my evangelical Baptist church if the pastor suddenly started to preach prosperity gospel he would risk losing his job. I think perhaps the root of the problem in the States is an inability for some Americans to draw a line between what their culture teaches and what the bible says. I am reminded of story that was told in Harpers magazine by a professor of religion. He was teaching a group of American students about the history of early Christianity. A young woman put up her hand and said " I know this is going to sound really stupid but I always thought that Jesus was an American".
Posted by: Cheddar | July 23, 2008 5:27 PM
As a former Republican (for 46 years) I'm appalled. But as an American, I'm delighted. In taking control of the Republican party in Iowa, they are certain to limit their chances in any general election. In short they've captured control of a ship that will surely sink, but boy will they be pure!
Posted by: Keanus | July 23, 2008 6:00 PM
Ah yes, Jesus was an American.
That explains it then.
I sat next to an American evangelistic Christian on a trans-Atlantic flight once, and (wanting to avoid discussing religion) asked him who the 4-5 greatest US presidents were. His answer was "Jesus Christ".
Posted by: John Monfries | July 23, 2008 8:29 PM
Kristine - thank you for making that comment.
It is amazing that biological evolution has raised neurological function to a point where abstract conceptions are experienced as "feelings" within primates and other creatures, to the point that belief in "God" [which I see somewhat the same as that love a dog holds in it's eye for it's owner] is a product of such biological evolution. Perhaps when just a bit more is known about neurogical perceptions of "godliness" it can be shown phylogenetically that this has an evolution and if the main religions would just then accept that, all would be good. (Rotflmao - I hope.)
Posted by: marc buhler | July 23, 2008 9:19 PM
I remember an interview with Ralph Reed in which he said, and I'm paraphrasing, that activists are the ones that win. They're the ones that are moved to act, and they get to make the rules that the rest of us get to live by. Moderates, by their very nature, are moderate. They aren't moved, or as envigorated as activists. So while activists may not be a majority, and in fact can be a small minority, they're far more motivated. That's why the flat Earth bible thumpers we made fun of 30 years ago, have this baffling level of influence, and strong lip service from politicians these days. The people that stand in church babbling to themselves and waving their hands over their heads (I'm not talking about mainline Christians)have power way out of proportion to their numbers.
Posted by: soboco | July 23, 2008 10:45 PM
Grassley represents the moderate wing of the Republican party--something that was much more prominent in the 1970s. The power of ev-fundies is beginning to wane in Iowa.
As my senator, I write letters to him to complain about his positions on lots of issues (mostly economic). But now is the time to thank him for exposing the charlatans for what they really are.
Posted by: hje | July 24, 2008 12:23 AM
It should be said that one reason the Christian RIght has power at all has to do with a long-standing neocon strategy of making sure government does not work.
Think about it: if your philosophy is "government can do nothing right" you aren't going to hire people to important posts who are qualified and make the agency or agencies work right. That would disprove the thesis right there. So you hire, oh, I dunno, a horse lawyer to run FEMA.
That done, service levels drop, and people complain. And they start to agree that government doesn't work. After all, you underfunded and then hired people to run whatever agency it is into the ground.
The religious right now has an opening. You see, when you destroy all the things provided by a society that make people's lives a little easier -- everything from parks to schools to the guy at the state clerk's office processing your license -- then the only organizations left are private. And that means churches, mostly, because they are the only ones organized enough and big enough to do certain things. But they can't do an adequate job either because they have their own limitations.
But the churches have something that government agencies don't-- they can give people a sense of belonging, ownership, what have you, stuff that is more important to people who haven't got any options.
It also reinforces things like patriarchal family structures because if, for instance, university education is closed to all but the rich, then the opportunities for people who need to get out are less. That usually means women, and minorities. If you are never going to go to college, then wife and mother is what gets left to you if you are a woman, for instance, as living independently is made more difficult.
This is a bit oversimplified but it's the basic reason the Christian right also bills itself as small-government right. Think about it: close off the opportunities for as many people as possible, and what kind of social structure gets reinforced?
On the other hand, if university education (for instance) were free and public, and child care is available to poor people, the situation changes.
The Christian right, however, ha started to run into problems because that kind of thinking is just mean, and nasty, and it's a bit hard to square with Jesus a lot of the time. Especially when your own constituents get hurt. That's one reason the heart of the Progressive movement was in the Midwest, by the way. Religious people who took things like loving thy neighbor seriously got seriously mad at the then-equivalent of prosperity gospel.
Some things never change...
Posted by: Jesse | July 24, 2008 7:27 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | July 24, 2008 8:45 AM
http://www.willhill.com/iibs/EN/buildcoupon.asp?couponchoice=PO407741
Obama 4-11
McCain 2-1
Posted by: Donalbain | July 24, 2008 9:29 AM
Thanks Donalbain - Wow short odds on Obama, or am I reading this incorrectly*? -DJ
*I wonder if any mathmatical type can convert this into the likely two-party vote. ☺
Posted by: DingoJack | July 26, 2008 4:10 AM