It was news that on Monday, there were no reported shootings or stabbings in New York City. Maybe the inactivity of Congress (a different breed of criminals) is setting an oddly positive example.

This morning, Joe Scarborough, on “Morning Joe,” pretty much retroactively endorsed Jon Huntsman for president. And most of the other panelists chimed in. Huntsman, he said, had the most conservative governing record of the Republican candidates, solid foreign policy credentials, and a much-needed populist streak.

But, they agreed, in addition to running a bad campaign, his downfall was that he was also compassionate. To win the nomination, you needed to be angry, vitriolic–and Huntsman wouldn’t play that game. (Plus, Huntsman was a moderate, believed in climate change and evolution, and had worked for the Obama administration–reasons why I was anxious to vote for him, but which sunk him with the Tea Party base.)

Scarborough also, several times, derided what he called the “right wing entertainment complex” for contributing to the Republican defeat. He was obviously referring to conservative radio (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity) and FoxNews in general. Romney had to pander to these media, running so far to the right that he alienated a large chunk of the electorate. And Scarborough alluded to ways coverage of the campaign by the right-wing media was confusing and often obsessed with trivial matters. In addition, I would add, the Tea Party is as much a media creation as a grassroots movement, and once created, it took over the party’s message (and has cost them the Senate).

I got a kick out of a comment from war historian Thomas Ricks, who was at FoxNews Wednesday morning after the election. He wrote on his blog, “There clearly was some head-scratching going on. Like, ‘Hey, perhaps the Republican Party shouldn’t have dissed women, Hispanics, the poor, and the rest of the electorate so much?’ I wonder if the jig is up for Fox: On election night, they looked like they couldn’t decide whether they were a political party or a news network.”

This right-wing entertainment complex definitely obsesses with stereotypes. Whenever they refer to latinos, they see only illegal immigrants–not Americans who live next door, at every economic level, and work in every aspect of the economy. When they talk about blacks, they seem to see only the ghetto. When they talk about single women, they see Sandra Fluke and “Sex in the City,” sex-obsessed women who crave birth control and abortions…as opposed to the quite ordinary single women you and I know. To appeal to these groups, the candidates and the right-wing media must get beyond these stereotypes…but I’m not sure the Republican base will let them.

Now, interestingly, lots of Republican voices are savaging Mitt Romney and his campaign, especially after Romney’s simplistic excuse to donors that people who voted for Obama were basically bought off (that certainly wasn’t the case with Obama supporters I know). Scarborough was incredulous that his party had nominated “Thurston Howell III,” referring to the millionaire on Gilligan’s Island who was clueless about ordinary people.

I agree with the comments being made, and hope the Republican Party can get its act together. It’s the party I grew up with, but which has renounced moderates like me. But power still resides with angry white people who take their cues from the right-wing entertaining complex. When the Republican primaries roll around in another three years, I suspect–and lament–that little will have changed. The moderate voices we’re hearing now will not prevail.

I’m a big fan of “Morning Joe.” It’s a show that political movers-and-shakers watch (as opposed to “Fox & Friends,” which incredibly still draws more viewers–a sad commentary on conservatives), and a show on which politicians like to appear. I think all of the Republican primary candidates showed up there (though I can’t remember Mitt Romney). Although Scarborough’s conservatism is front and central, everyone gets fair treatment, and Scarborough has no qualms about criticizing his Republican colleagues. It may be the only show on a commercial network where people can spend 20 minutes discussing a serious issue, with no spin and no ads.

“Morning Joe” seems totally out of place on the increasingly liberal MSNBC, but it could never exist on the highly partisan FoxNews. Every political player of every ideology wants to come on the show, and the list of guests every day is impressive. For me, it’s must-see TV…at least, until I need to go to work.

As we all know, everything important in life, including the fate of the world, revolves around the NFL.

Consider the “Redskin Rule.” When the Washington Redskins win their last home game prior to Election Day, the incumbent party wins. When the Redskins lose, the out-of-power party wins. Thus, since the Steelers beat the Redskins in a Monday Night Football game in 2008, Barack Obama won the election.

This has held true for 17 of the past 18 presidential elections–72 years! The only exception was 2004, when George Bush won re-election without a corresponding win by the Redskins.

Why did The Fates allow an exception? Truly a mystery deserving of scrutiny.

And there was scrutiny, resulting in a revision to the Redskin Rule. It’s about the popular vote. When the Redskins lose in their last home game before the presidential election, the party that lost the previous election’s popular vote wins. This would account for Bush’s 2004 victory. Thus: the Redskin Rule is 18 for 18.

Anyway…the Carolina Panthers beat the Redskins yesterday. Which means: Romney will win the election. If you’re the superstitious type.

Ed Stetzer, the Southern Baptist researcher from LifeWay Christian Resources, recommended this post by John Blake on CNN’s Belief blog. It’s called “The Gospel According to Obama.” As Stetzer said, “You won’t agree with it all, but I think you will learn something from it.”

I found some fascinating insights, particularly in regard to the American black church. We have caricatured Rev. Wright to death because of a few stupid statements, and shamelessly implied that everything true of Wright is true of Obama. But there is much more to Obama’s faith than these caricatures, and there is much we evangelicals can learn from the black church.

We white evangelicals are pretty insulated and, to be blunt, legalistic. We think the American evangelical experience is the ultimate and only true expression of Christianity. Anything else is non-Orthodox, compromised, and possibly heretical. People outside the United States don’t have a proper understanding of Christianity, so we send missionaries and conduct conferences to show them how to do it right. To enlighten them.

But that is such a shallow, paternalistic view of the faith.

In particular, we reject anything with “social gospel” attached to it. That stems from a 1950s-era backlash–not entirely a bad thing–against the mainstream Protestant church, which had sorely neglected the salvation message. But we have swung too far in the other direction. A good deal of Jesus’ message was social in nature, and we can’t discount it. The black church, to its credit, has never discounted it.

Years ago, I was part of the organizing committee for the first joint convention between the two main religious press organizations, the Evangelical Press Association and its mainstream (“liberal”) counterpart, the Associated Church Press. I don’t think it went particularly well–our two groups were very different. And yet, I learned a lot. I remember when an ACP person gave a prayer, and I thought, “Why don’t we evangelicals pray about those things?” There were other things they emphasized which I found eye-opening, in a good way–issues of justice and compassion that we evangelicals just don’t focus on.

Likewise, in attending a service at an all-black church many years ago, I discovered expressions of the faith that were foreign to me, but which I realized were totally valid.

We evangelicals think we’ve got it all figured out. But there are holes in our gospel.

And so, read John Blake’s article with an open mind–not a partisan mind–and see what God teaches you about aspects of the Christian faith which are missing or unstressed in your evangelical tradition. It’s quite a long article, but puts a lot of religious issues into context. I found it insightful.

A quote near the end says, “What’s interesting is that these values, associated with Obama and the black Protestant tradition, are now also the values of a growing number of white evangelicals.” That is what I’ve seen, and it’s a healthy thing.

This is quite enlightening, and troubling–a bunch of Republicans giving their candid criticisms of Mitt Romney.

My biggest problem with Romney is that he doesn’t seem to truly believe in anything. The man has no core. He has changed his views on so many issues, so many times, that–well, how can you NOT consider it deeply troubling?

How can we know what we’re getting as President? Which Romney will take the oath of office?

If his views are so squishy, why wouldn’t he change his views again as President?

Correction: there is one thing Romney believes in steadfastly: Mormonism. On that he has not wavered. So the only thing he’s truly committed to is a false religion.