Atheist for Vice President?

I was under the impression that one of the least likely sorts of people to be elected president were atheists. And I am quite certain that of the large percentage of Americans who hold this view, it is conservatives who would tend to be the loudest in their anti-atheist President viewpoint.

S.E. Cupp, the well-known conservative atheist, blogger, frequent Fox guest, and author, has over 120,000 followers on twitter. Earlier today, Ann Romney hinted that various women are being considered as running mates for Mitt Romney in the upcoming election.

[Stay with me; I tie this all together shortly.]

Apparently, S.E. Cupp has been receiving more than a few (possibly semi-serious) twitter write-ins for Romney's VP pick. We needn't belabor the fact that she is too young to serve in that capacity--that isn't my main issue here. This is my main issue: a tweet from her around 9pm EST, which read as follows:

“@secupp: Wow, appreciate all the write-ins for my veep appointment, but I'm not old enough. Or anything else enough.”

My main issue is that she's an atheist, her followers tend to be conservative, and I would assume that anyone writing her in for a VP nod would be conservative as well. Are they just sycophants?

Do they really believe she'd make a good VP? Have they forgotten her atheism? Are these merely open-minded, outlying conservative types who want to see someone young and energetic as a contrast to the rather staid Romney?

I have to lean toward the more sycophantic, joking types here. I don't say this to insult her intelligence or as a personal attack on her (again, age notwithstanding)*. I say this because it would indeed be a tremendous indication of progress if we were to see a decent percentage of Americans seriously consider electing an atheist to high office.

Somehow, nice as they might be, I don't see the write-in tweets to Ms. Cupp as being part of such a leap forward in our society.

On the other hand, given Romney's rather hamfisted campaign to date, his lack of specifics on almost anything remotely thorny within his own party, and of course his refusal to run on his major public sector accomplishment while also dodging real conversation on his major private sector accomplishments, perhaps some voters are looking for anything--even an atheist--to energize the base.


*I am on record as being of the opinion that her atheism isn't genuine, having read much of her writings and listened to a significant number of her interviews and appearances over the years. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but knowing and having associated with hundreds of atheists over the years, she is (to me) uniquely and suspiciously outside even the widely varied norms I have observed.

She spends an enormous amount of time, for example, defending the Christian right, almost totally ignoring its libertarian & liberal sides. She is perfectly willing to tolerate, and even assist in, the erosion of separation of church and state at all levels. She occasionally appears as a sort of generic talking head on programs that don't specifically mention her atheism, but many of her appearances and interviews, and definitely her book, make it clear that she is on those shows because she is an atheist; it informs the reason for her appearance in the first place ("and now, an atheist's viewpoint").

In every case, her presentation of atheism is flawed, illogical, and suspiciously cuddly with right-wing religious ideologies.