One way it’s tough to evaluate candidates for office as a voter is from looking at their personal religious beliefs.  Thanks to the First Amendment, we have a secular civil government.  That may be right or wrong, and I know some readers here would argue for wrong, but that's the way the Founding Fathers set up the system of checks and balances, and that's the way the system has worked most of the time during last two centuries. 

Personally, I don't think a person's religious beliefs are part of the equation unless they choose to make them so.  I prefer to look at their proposed policies, and the conclusions about politics and law they reach as a result of those beliefs.  A candidate's experience in implementing policies, and success in competently managing programs, are more important to me than his or her source of inner strength in reaching those accomplishments.

I don't think the topic is off limits though.  It can be very interesting, and telling, to see the labels a candidate can slap on himself in an effort to ingratiate to a specific voting block.  From my perspective, the contortionist act generally backfires.  The more a person's claimed devoutness becomes the central part of their proffered character, the tougher it becomes to see past personal deviations from that claimed faith, like infidelity, eating shrimp, and wearing white after Labor Day.

In polite company, so the saying goes, refrain from speaking about religion and politics.  The two subjects tend to roil deep ideological divides between friends and peers where none were apparent.  In the interest of political conversation, however, perhaps discussing the two topics is a worthier pursuit than silence, especially when contemplating a candidate's character. 

Does the role of religion in a politician's private life transmute into a dangerous public weapon used against his or her opponents? Or does the candidate's religion materialize into a useful tool with which to frame issues of morality, ethics, values, and judgment? 

Alternately, may a modern politician publicly avoid discussing his or her religion without engendering the mistrust of voters? 

Enter Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California's dual conversations on CNN last Saturday with both presumptive presidential nominees.

His premise at the outset of the forum is that "faith is a worldview."  I think by "faith" Pastor Warren means "Christian faith" and by "worldview" he may mean something closer to an all encompassing mission.  The self-proclaimed "values-voters" (a moniker I only use as shorthand reference, wishing it were something else) often is a one-issue voter.  Want to guess what that one issue tends to be?  The big issue probably does not need to be spelled out, but it has to do with sexuality, as do so many other socially conservative issues. 

So, does a modern presidential candidate hurt his chances of election by emphasizing a worldview that does not include his or her "faith," and more specifically, his or her Christian faith? 

Can there be an agnostic or atheist, or Jewish, president of the future United States?  Or have voters created the need for this type of forum because Christianity is the perennial elephant in the room, so to speak? 

The bombs and bullets flying within a far away autonomous region of the Republic of Georgia suggest that George Bush's concept of a global "War on Terror" should be back on the front burner when it comes to Presidential politics.

The domestic debate surrounding our war in Iraq is rightly centered on how we should go about ending things. Withdrawal timelines or pathways to victory? What is a withdrawal, what is a victory?  The candidates will refine their solutions and avoid pinning themselves down in the face of ever-changing facts on the ground. But fading fast to historical background are our reasons for waging war, the very concept of the "War on Terror"" and the precedent it sets for future conflicts.

This election cycle has essentially reduced these issues to a single catchall phrase:  judgment. One man voted for war and one man voted against the war - choose your side and move on to discussions of how to end things neatly. There seems to be a generally agreed upon notion that dwelling on the rational for war is an exercise in crying over spilled milk - what's done, is done -- now is a time for decisive leadership.

Is it fair to label John McCain's presumptive presidential nomination as tantamount to Bush's third term in the White House?  I thought about this recently after seeing a bumper sticker proclaiming the message.  The McCain camp has also taken notice of this particular line of attack on their candidate's viability.

The matter interests me because if the senator from Illinois hopes to win his bid for the highest elected office, won't his political strategists and advisors need to understand what draws an undecided voter toward Senator McCain as much as away from him? 

The bumper sticker routine, I believe, simply won't work on voters already likely to vote for Senator Obama.  These slogans attempt to discourage the undecided, as well as those leaning toward McCain.  But does this particular insult work in that vein?   

The most obvious premise of the message taps into Bush's increasingly high disapproval ratings.  Since a majority of Americans have repudiated any support Mr. Bush gained before his last term in office, the thinking goes, extending his stay would be political failure.  This idea, however, "preaches to the choir" and probably won't serve to sway voters.

I hereby declare a week long moratorium on all political news that is dispersed through the Fourth and Fifth Estate; by this I mean newspapers, magazines, network and cable television, radio, streaming video, and blogs.  I command Arriana Huffington, Kos, Slate, et al, to go on a weeklong vacation, preferably where they can get some sun. Effective, immediately, Fox is banished off the air; in fact, they will be shut down indefinitely as punishment for crimes against truth.  Imagine, a week without the smarmy presence of Sean Hannity and his ever-changing cast of airheads. Gosh, we would be free from the nasally harangue of Greta and the bottom feeding antics of Nancy as well) All right...no John Stewart for me even though everyone knows he's just a comedy show...right?

 No Glen Beck, no Katie regurgitating manufactured "facts", no Stephen Colbert coddling cracker musicians, no foolish John McCain campaign videos, no using my campaign donations to counter his nonsense, no Paris Hilton videos, though I have to say you were the high point of the week, dear. 

Two interesting articles in the Union-Tribune recently: the County Board of Supervisors wants to raise taxes to pay for increased fire protection and the City of San Diego is investigating whether it overspent on clean-up after the 2007 wildfires.

On a related issue, the state still hasn't passed a balanced budget for the current fiscal year and Governor Schwarzenegger is reportedly considering a one cent sales tax increase (temporary, yeah right) to cover the projected shortfall.

Especially in this economy, why should any voter give these leaders more money to spend? Why should the voters increase their own taxes and create a new agency of bureaucrats when the existing institutions are still trying to explain how they spent the resources at their disposal during the last crisis?

Our leaders need to prioritize their projects and do their best within their existing resources, just like every other family and business trying to make do in this economy. Admitting failure and asking for more money from the voters is not the answer.

At several recent town hall meetings, as well as the Urban League's Annual Conferences, both presidential nominees addressed relieving taxpayers' financial woes, taking time to highlight their solutions to the high cost of energy and gasoline. Just in time, coincidentally, those same high gas prices have started nudging downward in San Diego as they have been doing incrementally for several weeks. 

So, as battered consumer wallets across the country finally receive respite at the pump (San Diego's highest local average was, according to the Union-Tribune, an unholy $4.63/gallon), which of the two presidential nominees' energy plans are voters more likely to follow -- a candidate whose message embraces funding alternative fuel sources, and expanding nuclear energy and offshore oil drilling to wean the country's dependence on foreign oil, like Senator McCain's plan? Or, will voters respond to a candidate espousing tapping the nation's strategic oil reserves, offshore drilling, wiser consumer use, and imposing "windfall profits taxes" on the big oil producers, as does Senator Obama?

Serving as a backdrop to the ongoing conversation, companies like Exxon Mobile and Shell, last week posted historic, all-time high profit margins. Even for oil companies, this news sent ambivalent waves of pleasure and discord across financial circles, both because of the incongruity of the news in an otherwise weak economy, and because consumer confidence flagged, despite the huge profit margin.

Photo by Chris McConnell

Judge Larry Burns of the United States District Court of Southern California has rescued the Mt. Soledad cross (for the time being) from the clutches of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. This represents the most substantial courtroom defeat in twenty years for those seeking to have the cross removed. Most residents of San Diego want the cross to remain -- though I suspect even more are simply exhausted by the "long and torturous legal history" leading up to this latest decision. On the other hand, the Mt. Soledad controversy has served as a fascinating backyard lesson in civics and Constitutional law.

I've got two dogs in this fight. I've never known Mt. Soledad without the cross, it pleases the eye and the heart says it belongs. But I also happen to think the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause are the primary reasons the United States is the Land of the Free -- a 43-foot cross on public land troubles the conscience and the mind. And so if ever a judge could muster up the wisdom of Solomon, one would hope it would be Judge Burns. The entire ruling is a fairly entertaining read -- but here are a few choice extracts from Judge Burns' opinion.

"What we see depends on what we look for."

I can't help but think that Republicans would like to have "do overs." This is the sorriest presidential campaign that I have ever witnessed. John McCain has managed to parlay his war hero status into a political career for the last 20 years, but this time the stakes are too high. Can we really afford to have such an angry, rancorous man the White House?

His repeated assertions that Obama "would rather lose a war than lose an election," make McCain look like some sort of Archie Bunker throwback, only we knew that Archie was a sitcom character, not a candidate for president of the United States. Can you imagine if he were to carry this bilious behavior to the international arena, leading by testy insinuation. Pretty scary stuff considering the memory lapses, coupled with his computer illiteracy, in the age of global media. Does John McCain even grasp the significance of his deficiency in 21st century skills? I think not or he would never have copped to it.

By the way Senator McCain, what would  "winning" in Iraq look like? If the country is "stabilized" and they want us out, what can be gained by continuing the nightmare. Recently you have stated, " I know how to win wars."  Which war was that, sir? My own father, who served four tours in Vietnam, wore a T-shirt, at home, that read "Southeast Asian War Games Participant -- 2nd Place". So surely you don't mean Vietnam. 

How do you turn a dream job opportunity into a shame-fest of lawless impropriety and highly publicized congressional hearings?  For a clue on living that nightmare, just ask Monica Goodling, the disgraced aide to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' whose political cronyism may lead to having her law license pulled.

Way to go, Monica.  Now your namesake is twice associated with presidential disrepute.

To get a glimpse on this particular road to ruin, first, graduate from a lower-tiered law school known predominantly for its religious affiliations to the televangelist Pat Robertson and its emphasis on educating law students to "change the world for Christ." Next, get hired after only six months of prosecutorial experience to oversee the ongoing hiring of career prosecutors in the Department of Justice.  And finally, do a bang-up job of highlighting political affiliation over experience during interviews that would include legally relevant questions like "Have you ever cheated on your wife?"

Amidst televised Congressional hearings into the questionable ouster of nine U.S. Attorneys, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales omitted why he promoted someone to the position of White House liaison, while testifying he had limited knowledge of the practices taking place under his watch.  Goodling resigned last year before testifying under immunity.