AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > August > 01 > Entry
Has the Democratic Party embraced an anti-fundamentalist Christian stance?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Barack Obama has been trying to reach religious voters - but is caught in a quandary of his party’s own making. Since the 1980s, the Democrats have unfortunately made the “religious right” a bogeyman, a scapegoat for America’s problems. Not surprisingly, secularists have flocked to the Democrats’ banner and religious folks (with the exception of black churchgoers) have left it. And as the Democrats’ constituency became less religious, the party naturally began to champion more social policies that ran counter to traditional religious values. Which only fed the cycle. As a result, in each election since 1992 if you were a white Protestant who regularly went to church, and you voted Democratic, you were in a small and lonely minority (about one out of five in 2004).
In the 1992 Clinton-Bush election, among those rarely or never attending religious services, three of four supported Clinton - the same ratio supporting Kerry 12 years later. According to a July Gallup poll, those who don’t identify with a religion and feel it isn’t important support Obama overJohn McCain 65 percent to 26 percent — a ratio of 2.5 to 1.
Studies show that ardent secularists have become as large and loyal a Democratic voting bloc as organized labor. In a report by Baruch College/CUNY Professors Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio, in the 2000 Bush-Gore election both unions and secularists “comprised about 16 percent of the white electorate, and both backed Gore with two-thirds of their votes.”
The problem - and the reason for Obama’s dilemma — is that many in this voting bloc are what political scientists call “anti-fundamentalists:” their political motivation is intense resentment of the religious right. In their eye-opening report, “Prejudice for the Thinking Classes: Media Exposure, Political Sophistication, and the Anti-Christian Fundamentalist,” Bolce and De Maio show that nearly one in five white non-evangelicals “hold intensely antagonistic feelings toward Christian fundamentalists” and conclude, “one has to reach back to pre-New Deal America[‘s] political divisions between Catholics and Protestants … to find a period when voting behavior was influenced by this degree of antipathy toward a religious group.”
With such unfortunate perceptions embedded in a core constituency and its trajectory of anti-religious policies, the Democratic Party has an uphill battle to make people of faith feel welcome.
Rebuttal
Do liberals really envision a far right “bogeyman?” Nonsense. Bogeymen are imaginary. I was thinking of this issue recently while boating in New Hampshire, and conjured up the very real faces of Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson floating in the water below. Talk about scary. Then I heard the voice of conservative editor Paul Weyrich, saying again as he did in 1980, “We are talking about Christianizing America….”
Was I ever glad to snap back to 2008, where the Christian Coalition’s polarizing crusade has lost a great deal of steam, capped by the surprising rise of John McCain. Barack Obama has a hard time reaching religious voters? Any talk about personal faith sends confident McCain into blinking, blank-stare overdrive.
Meanwhile, quite a few evangelicals are rethinking their voting options. Forget about what happened back in 2004, forget about mainline Protestants—a recent CNN poll shows that 30 percent of white evangelical voters are planning to pull the lever for Obama, and they’re voting Democratic for some very faith-based reasons. Sure, if antipathy towards a woman’s right to choose and gay equality are what float your boat, it’s smart to dock elsewhere. Yet for evangelicals concerned with stewardship of the earth, poverty and homelessness, genocide and war, there’s plenty of reason to join “ardent secularists” and others in a search for common ground.
This year, some fundamentalists will sit out Election Day, confused and disappointed in their party. In that way, they’ll resemble moderate Republicans in recent years, forced to cede political power to a faction they find utterly misguided. In fact, for real “intense resentment of the religious right” look no further than the moderate half of the GOP. Liberals and Libertarians alike shiver when government is propelled by a religious crusade. Yet we don’t dwell on “bogeyman” fears, and for Christian conservatives to conclude that antipathy towards their kind drives Obama’s support is too self-centered by half. Desperate desire for change spurs us to action, not bitterness. How defensive do you have to be to deny that our nation is struggling, like a rapidly drifting boat miles from shore, storm clouds sweeping the sky?
So deal with your persecution complex later, folks. It’s time to grab some oars.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this
Andrea - criminey - why go back to the 1980s and 1990s … try just this year with Huckabee’s quote about changing the Constitution to be “in God’s standards”:
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
Shaunti - the fact that someone like Huckabee lost so badly in the primary season pretty much shows that people of faith aren’t particularly welcome in the GOP, either.
By Truth
August 1, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this
Another religous topic.
Yes, the majority of White Christians vote Republicans. But the majority of Black Christians vote Democratic. That about sums it up.
Snidley Bullcrap
I wasn’t talking about old actors that became politicians. I was talking about a state of the art Hollywood Trained top tier Politician. A Politician. Get it? A person who is planning on living off the public dole for the rest of their lives. A person who will do or say anything that will buy him another term of power. A lawyer. A liar. A person with ties to the sleaziest people in the country. A Barbara Striesand approved, baby kissing poser.
You can disagree with anything Mccain says, but no one can deny that Barrack Obama is the slickest, most polished politician to ever come on the scene. Put him in front of a teleprompter and 10,000 of his closest friends and memories of past great speech makers come to mind.
Unfortunately.
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
Shaunti -
in fact, the former head of Bush’s faith-based initiatives even went on the record saying that this administration mocked evangelicals:
“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ridiculous, out of control, and just plain goofy,” Mr Kuo wrote, according to MSNBC television, which obtained an early copy of the book. In particular, he quotes Karl Rove, the president’s long-serving political adviser and mentor, as describing evangelical Christians as “nuts”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/14/usa.midterms2006
high horse. you should really get off of it.
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Good Friday morning to you!
did you ever get around to seeing The Station Agent??? I may have to put you on “ignore” until you do! (how’s that for punishment?)
what about Casino Royale? you were going to wait to watch it with the GF - have you, yet???
By Gale
August 1, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
Back to religion and politics? Can we get off this?
By Truth
August 1, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
USinUk
In particular, he quotes Karl Rove, the president’s long-serving political adviser and mentor, as describing evangelical Christians as “nuts”.
You keep posting single sentences that Republicans have said, but you have no problem with obvious life decisions that democrats have made. I wish Republicans could live up to the standards you set for them. Too bad those amazingly high standards are not expected of members of your own party.
By JokesOn
August 1, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
Shouldn’t both parties be anti-extremist?
The extremes should not be considered the norm.
By Ike Onyiliogwu
August 1, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
It is true that the democratic Party has become home to everything that is anti reigious: secularist, atheists, hollywood and their cohorts. But the Republican Party has its own problems as well. The disdain displayed towards Mike Huckabee by economic conservatives was revealing. It was terrible and actually hateful. It showed that evangelicals are just used by Republicans to win elections. Thats all.
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
Truth -
I wish Republicans could live up to the standards you set for them. Too bad those amazingly high standards are not expected of members of your own party.
I don’t set the standards for the GOP - THEY do each and every time they call the Dems godless (implying that GOP stands for God’s Own Party) and say that Dems have no family values. Sorry, but if they’re going to stand up there claiming that THEY stand for the family and THEY stand for religious values then THEY need to live up to it.
By JokesOn
August 1, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this
It is true that the democratic Party has become home to everything that is anti reigious: secularist, atheists, hollywood and their cohorts.
I would argue that the democratic party is also home to religion. It is just that it has the same rights as all the other groups you listed. But, is it considered by zealots an insult to have the same rights as those listed.
Where as the republican party gives it special rights.
Democrats = inclusive, and republicans = exclusive.
By Gale
August 1, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
OK, after my first reaction. I feel Shaunti tries to paint non-church-goers as amoral, uncaring, liberal elitists. It is very far from the truth. Many non-church goers simply do not find relevance in a church. It has nothing to do with faith or morality. I do not happen to be Christian, but I have no problem with the idea that many Christians receive comfort in a church environment. Unfortunately, I also see mega-church environments that appear not much more than another social network, not that there is anything bad there. But I think it isn’t really about faith. My issue. I try to not judge as it is not in my experience set.
I think both parties have been wrong to pander to religious groups. I think they do so because of the same reason they pander to any group; money. Those groups put a lot of money on the table. I wish they would pay closer attention to the lifestyles in the world’s theocracies. I do not want to live where my world is ruled by the predominent religious leaders. The problem with “ammending the Constitution to God’s order” is that it would be an interpretation of “order”. Whose interpretation?
We would do much better to remove religion from political elections. I will determine a politician’s worth by his or her votes, not by what they say in a campaign speech. Huckebee was an anomoly on the stage. He is a preacher and did not profess to be anything else. I doubt he expected to receive the nomination. He was making a point. How much money was behind a doomed campaign to allow him to do that and where did that cash come from? (I don’t really want an answer.)
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
Back to religion and politics? Can we get off this?
Gladly!!
So, today’s Washington Post had a story about a scientist being investigated for the 2001 anthrax attacks - he committed suicide just as investigators were linking him to the attack:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080100404.html?hpid=topnews
Now … why were people planting stories that bentonite was found in the anthrax (it wasn’t) in an effort to link Saddam to the attack way back in 2001?
“Four well-placed and separate sources told ABCNEWS that initial tests detected bentonite, though the White House initially said the chemical was not found.”
who were these 4 people? who did they work for? were they linked to Cheney and/or Rove? and, more to the point, why is ABC news still covering for them???
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92270&page=1
By Truth
August 1, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
USinUk
I finally watched Casino Royale the other night. I never did see the last of it. I dozed off. I am working too much. The TV show folded. I thought it would. But the producers have had to work out a deal with the locals at the Inn so they are paying me to finish that episode. I think it will be sold as a DVD in the gift shop. I don’t care. Pay me.
GF says thank you for pointing out the sponsor thing for her sister. A hospital had already looked into hiring her so they just got the HR person to write a letter. That’s not really a sponsorship, but they are hoping that will help. GF is really tired of her family. They are good folks but they stay at her house, even though they own a nice house. They just like being downtown. They haven’t lived here long and they are driving her crazy.
She is considering taking a job in Miami. Unfortunately, she would do very well in Miami. She speaks fluent Spanish, (better than English) She has never been there. If she goes to interview for that job, it’s bye bye Ukrainian. That would be a shame.
On a job from 10AM on. Have a good weekend.
By Yurtle_the_turtle
August 1, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Andrea…
sorry to dissapoint you, but your left-leaning friends (Socialists/Communists) ARE bitter. That is why you vote the way you do. It’s not change you seek, but change from religion. What your ideaology doesn’t recognize is that country was founded on Judeo/Christian theology and your kind has been chipping away at that for years. You fear religion relgiously. Isn’t that ironic??? And oh, by the way….your “open minded” liberalism isn’t open at all. The most bigoted, hateful people I know are all Liberal and Left. Your party is closed-minded, anti-christian, and hateful. Part of the reason your “team” is so hateful is that you have no moral basis to show kindness or love as you’ve, for the most part, abondoned religion and love. Nice party!
By TC
August 1, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
With this election, I feel we are seeing a leaning away from fundamentalist Christianity in national politics. That is for three reasons: 1) Democrats: Democrats like Obama and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine are demonstrating strong, life-long commitments to service in government originating from Christian faith and by their leadership Christianity’s role in our nation is shifting: if Jesus were around today, would he likely be more concerned about gay marriage or poverty? Would Jesus be more concerned about abortion or torture? Would he be more concerned about immigration or social justice and equality? Duh! 2) Republicans: Republicans are pulling away from fundamentalist Christians for two reasons: A) Romney was a nearly ideal Republican candidate except he was Mormon, which made him un-nominatable in the Republican Party because of knee-jerk fundamentalists. That left McCain the only one standing and as we are seeing, McCain is a very poor standard-bearer for the party. B) Mike Huckabee very logically merged his Christian message with a populist economic message. That is very sensible given demographics of fundamentalist Christians and will be embraced enthusiastically by them soon. But populist economic policies are the polar opposite of what affluent Republicans could tolerate. (I think the chances of Huckabee-like leaders spinning off a third party is very high.) 3) Fundamentalist Christian leaders have begun to realize and state very clearly that the Republican Party has suckered them. There have been plenty of opportunities to outlaw abortion but if that actually occurred, where would that leave the Republican coalition? Fundamentalist Christians have done the grunt work of pulling the Republican cart because of a couple of carrots being dangled in their face. It would not make sense to allow them to reach the carrots. I apologize, but faith of any kind does cause the vast majority of people to be gullible. On the national political stage, fundamentalist Christians have been very gullible.
By John C. Snider
August 1, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
Secularists hold these “intensely antagonistic feelings” not against religious people in general, but only toward the fundamentalist evangelicals who have been trying to shove their integration-of-church-and-state agenda down everyone else’s throats. Repeated polls and studies have shown that the most reviled group in America is not evangelicals - it’s atheists! This revulsion is fueled by religious bigots who spread the lie that not believing in a god means you have no morals whatsoever. Which is complete baloney. If there’s antipathy in this country towards evangelicals as a whole, it’s because the well-meaning evangelicals who believe in separation of church and state have stood by (if not enabled) their busybody brethren who try to make everyone live the way they want to live, and who want to destroy and pervert the Constitution.
www.AmericanFreethought.com
By Copyleft
August 1, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
The opening question has a punctuation error—a missing comma.
Has the Democratic Party embraced an anti-fundamentalist, Christian stance?
Answer: you betcha. I’d certainly HOPE so, since fundamentalists are dangerously extreme, hateful loons like the types who attacked us on 9/11. I note with pleasure that even the Republican Party has distanced itself from these losers.
What they have to do with “Christians,” however, is anybody’s guess. Christians are welcome in both parties.
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
Truth -
I finally watched Casino Royale the other night. I never did see the last of it.
what do you think of the new Action Man Bond? okay, I think he’s dreamy, (I don’t expect you to have quite the same reaction) - but isn’t Daniel Craig a kick-a$$ Bond???
glad I could help your GF’s sister - while a letter isn’t quite the same as an H1 Visa, it should at least help! good luck to her!!
She is considering taking a job in Miami. Unfortunately, she would do very well in Miami. She speaks fluent Spanish, (better than English) She has never been there. If she goes to interview for that job, it’s bye bye Ukrainian.
um, hello South Beach! you can always head down there for a visit and a few shots of Cuban Coffee (more proof that there is a god and he loves us).
sorry to hear about the ghostie show shutdown - something else will come along, though!
have a good weekend.
By Gale
August 1, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
bentonite. Thanks for the suggested shift. I’ll go read that article. Although it sounds like a bit of conspiricy by war profiteers, it would be good to get the goods on it. The damage is done though. Thanks to the misinformation and bad planning, we have almost completely destabilized the mideast. I remember reading a gap sheet title in the grocery years ago that the anti-christ would come in this period in the mideast. Hmmm, metaphorical perhaps. (not serious here).
Truth, CA is still a good option for the nurse sister. Spanish is good there and it is a lot farther away than Miami.
By T
August 1, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
So that means Republicans are against the separation of church and state? Well, no wonder no one can come to a common ground and actually do something productive.
By Archie
August 1, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
My response to the topic question is no the democrats have not adopted a anti-christian stance but perhaps they are anti fundamentalist. You can be religious without being fundamentalist. You don’t have to have God on the money in order to pray. ACLU members do attend church and some democrats have a conservative value system. Some people are simply more progressive with their views.
By JokesOn
August 1, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Has anyone seem the documentary “Why we fight?”
It tries to explain how imperialism’s ripples are still (subconsciously in many cases) motivating US decisions.
By NYer
August 1, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
Were those last posts to me yesterday some kind of joke? Were you tired or something? They didn’t make much sense although they did give me a chuckle.
You started by posting a challenge looking for enemies who have endorsed Obama. That was a pretty low bar. Instead of acknowledging that the challenge had been met, all you had to say was something pithy about how Hamas is probably looking forward to talking to somebody else. (And if you want to say you’re friends with MoMo, that’s your deal, not mine).
Second, you say that Soros hasn’t donated much and take Truth to task for being wrong. Then, after I post a bunch of stuff that anybody could have found with two minutes of research showing that you were the one who was mistaken, you feign incredulity that somebody like Soros would use their money for political influence. Classic.
To be able to so dramatically shift positions from “Soros doesn’t do that” to “Do you really think he’s the first person to pull that crap” so quickly leads me to believe you missed your calling as a politician - or at least as a female boxer with the bobbing and weaving.
To be clear, I wasn’t making a value judgment about Soros per se - merely debunking the inaccuracies. You may have read more into my post than was there. For the record, his political views don’t offend me; some of them I would agree with and some I would not. But you have to admit, the guy comes with his fair share of baggage.
Enjoy your weekend and loosen the grip on those pearls.
By gemology1010
August 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
This is a very funny discussion to have. Any smart or observant person could tell you that it is true; the Democrat Party is anti religion. All you need to do is look where the candidates of either party campaign and what groups they have an audience with. Their words also condemn them to this truth. “rural people clinging to their guns and their religion” (Barak Obama) Look up some of the comments made by Bill Maher, John Stewart, Keith Olberman about religious figures in america. Don’t tell me that their audience is not 100% democrat. (There is an exception of course Democrats love Black Liberation theology and WAHABBI ISLAM!) Those are religious groups that the Democratic party do not harrass.
By Copyleft
August 1, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Exactly, Archie.
Anti-Christian? No way. Anti-fundamentalist? Definitely, every time.
There IS a difference, folks.
By Too Funny!
August 1, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
It showed that evangelicals are just used by Republicans to win elections.
Gee.. Ya think? Well, what other uses do they have? HAHAHA! HAHA! Loyal sheep. HAHAHA!
By Gale
August 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
TC, I like the bit of sanity in the WWJD ideas. And I like your carrot idea. It makes sense to wave that morality issue under the noses of voters you want to manipulate while never letting them have it. It keeps money flowing. I was personally hoping the gay marriage issue would not surface during this election cycle. As much I would like to marry my partner, I think it is distracting from more important issues.
USinUK, the new Bond is terrific for the ‘early Bond’ image. I love the rough edges, blunt instrument, bad boy attitude. Judy Dench is a great M as well. I do miss Q though. I was reminded that Moneypenny was missing in Casino Royal. Do you know if she had not yet appeared in the books?
Yurtle, I agree that most American culture for many years has been based in the Judeo/Christian, western culture. Times change. Our country and indeed much of global culture is changed. Many new peoples have populated our country. Our understanding of those peoples’ values has hopefully broadened our perspectives so we can live more full lives. At the same time, we have come to understand that we, in our ferver to bring the “word” to primitive peoples, have destroyed many valuable and perfectly good Moral cultures by insisting their way is all wrong. I think we are growing to be a better people. Narrowing our focus limits us.
By JokesOn
August 1, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
I love the “but the first settles were christain” position. If the first settler was a red headed, one-eyed hermaphrodite with a limp, would people that were similar have increased rights?
By Truth
August 1, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
USinUK
I like the new Bond a lot. i would prefer a little less sloppiness, but he does wear a tux correctly. I told my kid before his Prom to be James Bond in the tux. While the other guys have their shirt tails out as soon as the picture is taken, be like James Bond. Be completely relaxed in your tux but don’t take the tie off until you are ready to undress. His GF went on and on about how good he looked at the end of the night.
The movie was great and I loved the fact that they not only used a new Aston Martin, but they had an older DB-4 as part of the plot.
As I had told you, a lot of true “players” look for married women. They are both looking for the same thing. His weakness for married women would have never played with Sean Connery.
Too bad about the show. I have more work than I can do. It’s those unreliable ghosts. Screw em. We gave them a chance for stardom. I was amazed that the producers stuck with it as long as they did. We had half a complete series and not a single true weirdness. Just a bunch of old houses and crazy people talking about visions. I am looking for that show in the Caribbean. I worked on one back in the early 90s. I need to produce my own, but ideas are a dime a dozen. Do you know any of those Lymies that wants to dump about a million into a show about Islands?
My GF’s gams were made to live in Miami. Wrap-around skirt. Big flower behind the ear. Viva, Viva!! Damn. I hate it. But I couldn’t try to talk her out of it. She would love it so much.
I would never try to keep the relationship going. She wouldn’t be down there a week before someone would grab her. A visit would be no fun. She hasn’t even decided to go on the interview, yet. I believe she will.
Via Con Dios, my Darling. I don’t want to think about it.
By fervor
August 1, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
“Liberals” don’t walk into churches during children’s plays and open fire on the congregations. The church was targeted for it’s perceived “liberal” stance. I think the Unitarian Universalists are the most, New Testament oriented of all denominations.
Feldhan is a fool, always has been. Her column in this paper is exclusively to draw ire and letters - hence readership.
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
NYer -
Good Friday -
after I post a bunch of stuff that anybody could have found with two minutes of research showing that you were the one who was mistaken, you feign incredulity that somebody like Soros would use their money for political influence. Classic.
First of all, I cited Federal filings (found via the link I posted). You cited a watchdog group (with no link). I could do the “my source can beat up your source” thing, but didn’t feel like getting into that kind of pi$$ing match at nearly 10:00 GMT.
For the record, his political views don’t offend me; some of them I would agree with and some I would not. But you have to admit, the guy comes with his fair share of baggage.
they may not offend you, but BOY do they get under Truth’s skin (and that of pretty much everyone else on the right). as for baggage, I don’t think that anyone can make that kind of money by being a Boy (or Girl) Scout.
You started by posting a challenge looking for enemies who have endorsed Obama. That was a pretty low bar.
As for “Mo” Qadaffi, we’ve restored diplomatic ties with Libya and no longer consider them terrorists (Lockarbie? what’s that?) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799651/
Instead of acknowledging that the challenge had been met, all you had to say was something pithy about how Hamas is probably looking forward to talking to somebody else
actually, I wasn’t being pithy - the US hasn’t been thought of as an honest broker for peace in years. we need a leader who is actually involved in the peace process and who is actually willing to listen to both sides to broker an agreement.
By Gale
August 1, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
JokesOn. Did you ever read “The arrogance of Power” by MacNammara if I remember correctly. It talks a lot about American imperialism and how it effected our foreign policies.
gemology1010, You should not pay such attention to media sound bites. Many people say dumb things when faced with the craziness of a campaign rally. Politicians on both sides say things that will be offensive to someone. Pay attention to the voting records.
By Mara
August 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
Sorry, Shaunti. We Democrats may be the party of Church/State seperation and a safe haven for “secularists”, (that boogeyman of the right), but that doesn’t stop the religious from seeing how they’ve been duped and rejecting the annointed Republican candidate.
According to Beliefnet’s God-o-Meter, even conservative Christians don’t have as much of a problem with Obama as they do with McCain. Heck, even Hillary did better than McCain…
“GodTube.com has announced that despite the recent sweeping victory for John McCain, a stunning new GodTube.com poll reveals that if McCain wins his party’s nomination, Christian Conservative participants would rather vote for one of the two Democratic candidates.”
“With a slim 9.1% support for McCain, Obama has become a viable choice for many Christian Conservatives with 26.3% of the Christian vote, up 8% from last week.”
“Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton showed no increase in the GodTube.com poll this week maintaining her 19.6% of the Christian vote while Republican candidate Mike Huckabee increased his lead 30% last week, leading the GodTube.com poll by 45% of the overall Christian vote.”
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
Gale -
USinUK, the new Bond is terrific for the ‘early Bond’ image. I love the rough edges, blunt instrument, bad boy attitude. Judy Dench is a great M as well. I do miss Q though. I was reminded that Moneypenny was missing in Casino Royal. Do you know if she had not yet appeared in the books?
Daniel Craig is just yummy. Think about the first 15 minutes of Casino Royale - could you picture Roger Moore doing any of those stunts? Even Sean Connery? And I want to BE Dame Judi Dench when I grow up. I’d be happy paying to watch her read the phone book.
We were talking about the dearth of Moneypenny last night - going by IMDB, neither Moneypenny nor Q are in Quantum of Solace either. BUT the CIA agent that was in CR will be back.
By JokesOn
August 1, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
JokesOn. Did you ever read “The arrogance of Power” by MacNammara if I remember correctly. It talks a lot about American imperialism and how it effected our foreign policies.
I will have to check that out. The documentary I mentioned follows those same lines though and I believe was referenced.
Interesting stuff though.
By Mary
August 1, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
As a Pro-Life Christian and a Democrat, I can tell you with certainty, I AM NO LONGER WELCOME IN MY PARTY.
By Snidely Buttright
August 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Tooth, you say that I can disagree with anything Mccain says, but no one can deny that Barrack Obama is the slickest, most polished politician to ever come on the scene? HAHAHA!!
Only a celebrity of John McCain’s magnitude could star on blockbuster television shows like ‘24’ and appear in big-budget motion pictures like ‘The Wedding Crashers’. These are not little campaign commercials or staged news interviews, but major Hollywood productions; which is no surprise, given that he’s pals with Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lorne Michaels.
Only big celebrities like John McCain own seven homes, date Brazilian models, marry blond heiresses worth $100 million, attend Virginia’s elite “old boy” Episcopal High School, forget the last time they pumped their own gas and wear $520 black calfskin Ferragamo loafers.
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Truth -
The movie was great and I loved the fact that they not only used a new Aston Martin, but they had an older DB-4 as part of the plot.
I’m not really one for cars (does it have 4 wheels? is it safe? will it get me there? fine.). BUT. If I ever won the Euro Lotto, I’d be sleeping on the curb outside the Aston Martin show room to be there when it opened. My god. those are some FINE looking cars.
I would never try to keep the relationship going.
you forget - my hub was living la vida London when we met - never say never when it comes to the long-distance thing. it’s not easy, but sometimes it’s worth it. (and I know what you mean - he was meant to wear a Saville suit …)
Do you know any of those Lymies that wants to dump about a million into a show about Islands?
criminey - if they’ll produce Big Brother year after year, I don’t know why they wouldn’t.
By Gale
August 1, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
Do you know, Judi Dench does the new voice over at Disney’s Epcot Spaceship Earth ride. My partner thinks the text got dumbed down, but I love her voice. She is a simply fantastic actor.
By JokesOn
August 1, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Mary,
As a Pro-Life Christian and a Democrat, I can tell you with certainty, I AM NO LONGER WELCOME IN MY PARTY.
Why so? As I know it, Obama’s personal beliefs are pro-life and christian. He simply knows it is not his place to legislate that belief.
By Gale
August 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
Snidely, What I hate about slick politicians with lots of money is not the many homes, expensive haircuts and shoes; it is the way they try to convince us little people that they are ‘just like us’ and come from humble families. Puhleeze!
By Phillip
August 1, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
When your religion becomes partisan, your church will live and die by the success or failure of the party to which it is attached.
As the grandson of a Baptist minister, I have witnessed first hand how Christianity has been hijacked by these so called fundamentalists, many of whom are simply Republican political operatives. It’s the GOP who went after this neanderthal constituency (the most extreme fundamentalists) and in close presidential races used them to win. By playing to the least common denominator of ignorance, their goals (such as to “cleanse” society of gay people) are so repugnant to modern voters that now the Democrats are actually benefiting from it.
However, it’s not the downfall of the GOP that concerns me, frankly they are getting what they deserve. I am most concerned about good Christians who have sold our souls and joined our church to this declining political party. Now as the Republicans are losing young people by huge margins, so is religion.
Somewhere along the way, and as wrong as wrong can be, “GOD” was replaced with “GOP.” That, my friend, is not the fault of the Democrats.
By NYer
August 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
Everything I found on Soros was through Wikipedia. And to be fair, I tried your link and nothing came up.
I disagree with some, probably even many of Soros’ views, but I don’t find them offensive. Same with anybody else - his views are what they are - in my mind they aren’t made more offensive or distasteful just because he’s rich. He leans very much to the left side of the aisle; fine with me.
By Mara
August 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
Bill Maher, John Stewart, Keith Olberman…Don’t tell me that their audience is not 100% democrat.
why did I get a quick picture of some guy with his fingers in his ears screaming “La-la-la-la…” at the top of his voice? LOL!!
gemology1010 may not want to know, but to pretend that ONLY Democrats watch these shows is as silly as insisting that ONLY Republicans watch Drew Carey, Jay Leno, and Shepherd Smith.
By Gale
August 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Interesting post, Phillip. Thanks for your perspective. I had a good friend in Michigan who was a Baptist minister. He was a very tolerant person. I never did hear him say anything about politics. However, I remember even then he was planning to leave preaching to pursue counselling because he was distressed by what his congregation wanted to hear on Sundays. Perhaps it was the beginning of that poitical movemnent.
Mary, I disagree that your party does not want you. Your party particularly wants your money. Obama was heard to tell someone, “We don’t need them to attend, we need their checks.” What no one outside the fringe groups wants is to have a morality issue shoved down their throats as legislation. Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and marital infidelity do not have a place in the election of the president. There are much more important issues facing our nation and our world.
By Copyleft
August 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Mixing religion with politics… hey, what could possibly go wrong?
(Keep the stakes and firewood handy, everybody.)
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
Mary -
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
is THAT the sign of a party that has left you???
take off your hair shirt and you’ll realize that there are LOADS of pro-life people in the Democratic party (just as there are loads of pro-choice people in the GOP).
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
NYer -
I tried your link and nothing came up.
that one is primarily a database - type in Soros, George at the top and you’ll get a list of his donations.
now do you understand what I was saying about Hamas and Qadaffi?
By Billy
August 1, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
Mary — You are most welcome in the party. The party platform, however, is that a woman has the right to choose an abortion. I don’t know anyone that really likes the idea of abortion. One thing is certain, however — the policies put in place by the GOP lead to increased unwanted pregnancies. The best way to limit abortion is to keep it safe and legal while helping people reach a point at which they feel comfortable raising a child.
Does your party want you? Sure. Will you vote against your party if the only way its candidate’s beliefs differ from yours is on abortion? That is the real question. My high school environmental club sponsor was a huge tree-hugging (like me) teacher. After the GOP took control of Congress she asked me about a shirt I had disparaging Gingrich and Helms. “Two Rights Are Wrong”, I believe it was. She said that while she didn’t know much about Helms she kind of liked Gingrich. I asked her how, as a big environmentalist, she could like Newt and his fellow “revolutionaries”. Her answer? She really is against abortion. So, yeah, you might feel out of place. But if abortion, as an issue, is paramount to all others, then maybe the Democratic Party isn’t right for you…
By Eric
August 1, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
Andrea is right on this one … a vote for Democrat does not imply anti-religious fundamentalism, but a vote for actions that bring about positive change for all (which can be motivated by religious and/or secular values for the civic good).
By NYer
August 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
I always understood what you were saying. But you asked a very simple, straightforward question, which is what I answered. You’ve now moved into trying to qualify, to varying degrees, the answer you got from me.
I think Hamas is an enemy, and I think a majority would agree. (To your point, it doesn’t necessarily mean you do or do not engage them in dialogue.) Reasonable people can disagree whether Mo is still an enemy - renouncing nukes and removal from list of terrorist nations certainly doesn’t all of a sudden qualify him as a friend (in my book).
By DemoChristian
August 1, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
As a Christian who also happens to be Black, I am often appalled by the pseudo-righteousness of “so called” Christians who are quick to pigeonhole someone as “godless” because they are affiliated with a particular political party. I personally balance some liberal ideals with conservative ideals, however I tend to vote Democratic, simply because of the fact that I know that the Conservative movement in its current form is totally counter to my minority identity.
There is a reason for separation of Church and State in our country, and you only have to look at the countries that we are in opposition with to see why that is necessary.
So called “Evangelical” Christians can sometimes be the worst; highly judgemental and self-righteous.. and often bigoted. They proclaim faith in Jesus Christ who in the truest sense of the word, was a liberal. Yet, they only love those who are like them and subscribe to their way of thinking, whereas Christ immersed Himself first and foremost amongst those who were not at all like Him, and urged love of thy neighbor and one of His foremost imporant commandments.
It is true that most Black Christians vote Democratic, and I’m sure it’s for the same reason that I stated I do. God in Christ had no respect for the politics of the world, hence His crucifixion. Politics are inherently sinful, and therefore since God hates sin I’m sure He endorses no one political party over another. So it would behoove all you so called “Christian Conservatives” to separate your “religion” from your politics and learn how to see things from a true spiritual perspective. Nobody’s perfect, so get off your high horses. In the end you know you will have to answer to God for it. That is unless, you are only pretending to love God. I personally know it’s possible, as I hold vivid images of KKK past and present quoting scripture to justify it’s hatred against other peoples.
By kimberly
August 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Does the new law in Georgia allowing us to carry firearms on MARTA and into restaurants apply to churches as well? Can we expect more good Christian Republican Conservatives like Jim David Adkisson to come in all Yosemite Sam with guns a’blazin’ to shoot up churches they deem “too darned liberal?” (Hey, something has to be done about them, right?) Perhaps Ms. Feldhahn will enlighten us in next week’s column.
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
NYer -
But you asked a very simple, straightforward question, which is what I answered. You’ve now moved into trying to qualify, to varying degrees, the answer you got from me.
what I asked for was a link (which I didn’t actually get, but I’m taking your word for it) - Truth, while I love sparring with him, is often long on assertions, short on backup (case in point - “Soros has donated millions to the Obama for America campaign” - sure, if by “millions” you mean $2,100). All I was asking for was a link, an article, something that proved his point.
you may not agree with me, but ya gotta acknowledge that I almost always provide evidence of what I say.
anyhoo - like I said, I went with what you said (despite no links) but questioned the “enemy” status of Qadaffi. Hamas are a legitimately elected government - recognized? no, but they are legitimately elected. why shouldn’t they say they would rather see Obama in office than someone who jokes about “bomb-bomb-bomb Iran”.
By Brad Bishop
August 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
The unfortunate part about the whole liberal/conservative ideals is that, generally speaking, they both want to control you, just in polar-opposite ways - all based on their beliefs. Both of these groups lack the vision of freedom.
Your traditional conservative wants to limit what you can do based on their beliefs. You end up with do-gooder laws for anti-drugs, no alcohol Sundays, limits on where adult-oriented stores may go, etc.
The liberals will traditionally do the same sorts of things using the same tactics (most of this is all sold under ‘protect the children’) but with different demons that must be conquered. You end up with heavier taxes on what you earn, limits on what you can do with your land, taxes / tax breaks that try to influence how you spend your money, litigation for not doing what they wanted you to do, etc.
The unfortunate part of both of these tactics is that neither has anything to do with freedom. It’s all about force. Someone doesn’t think you should buy beer on Sunday while someone else doesn’t think you should buy an SUV.
They both fail to win over anyone’s hearts or thought process. They don’t even try.
What you end up with is with mediocre politicians pandering to this nonsense and no real differences between them.
I’m for freedom. Yeah, we need laws so that there are consequences for killing each other, theft, etc. but don’t try to protect me from myself or use children or old people as the excuse for your ‘feel-good’ laws - on either side.
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
NYer -
interesting … once you get past all the “worldnutdaily” links about Hamas and Obama, you find this little gem:
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/04/hamas-unendorses-obama-after-speech-to-pro-israel-lobby/
Hamas promply unendorsed Obama, a Christian who has had difficulty dispelling a rumor campaign suggesting he is a Muslim and that his advisers have a pro-Arab bent.
“Obama’s comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the U.S. administration’s foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters in Gaza.
“The Democratic and Republican parties support totally the Israeli occupation at the expense of the interests and rights of Arabs and Palestinians,” he said.
“Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win,” Zuhri said.
As for our friend in Libya: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/12/gadafy.obama?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
The Libyan leader, Muammar Gadafy, has reinforced his reputation for plain and provocative speaking by suggesting that Barack Obama is a black man with an “inferiority complex” and might behave “worse than whites” if he becomes president of the United States.
Gadafy’s striking non-endorsement of the Democratic candidate focused in part on Obama’s pledge of “unshakeable” support for Israel, which caused dismay, if not surprise, across the Arab and Muslim worlds last week.
“Obama’s announcement that a unified Jerusalem should be the eternal capital of Israel and that he will support it with $30bn during the next 10 years has disappointed our hopes and that of the Africans,” Gadafy said in a speech marking the evacuation of the last US air base in Libya shortly after he seized power in a coup in 1969.
so. that pretty much takes care of that. wouldn’t you say?
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
Getting back to my earlier post about the mysterious people linking the anthrax attacks to Iraq …
this article from Slate should also make one wonder WHICH government official was warning Richard Cohen about an anthrax attack … and why:
The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2186766/
who was linking the anthrax attacks to 9/11 and why? the two attacks were ENTIRELY different (9/11 being designed to take out as many people as possible, the anthrax letters targeting specific individuals).
By NYer
August 1, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
I’ve never tried to post a link before. Perhaps this will work.
[http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=George_Soros]
so. that pretty much takes care of that. wouldn’t you say?
I would.
By Gale
August 1, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
USinUK, In the anthrax issue, I wonder if you are seeing different reactions to posed threats depending on the groups involved. People involved with anthrax are scientists. Those who were looking at air traffic security were possibly buearocrats.(sp) As I recall, the think tanks had come up with many potential attack scenarios. Maybe anthrax was seen as more likely, given our disbelief that anyone would fly a plane into a building.
I would expect the folks in biowarefare to be strung a bit tight. Meanwhile, nobody seemed to care that foreigners were learning to fly jumbo jets, but didn’t care about learning to land.
By Copyleft
August 1, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
Leave off the brackets; the auto-formatting should take care of it when it’s just a URL.
By NYer
August 1, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
thank you, Copyleft.
By Mara
August 1, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
actually I believe that you put the word you want to represent your data inside the brackets like this [word you want to represent data] and immediately after the second bracket, you parenthesis-URL-parenthesis.
this is what it should look like:
word you want to use to represent data
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
NYer -
great link, ballotpedia. it’s interesting, though - click down a bit and you’ll find that the assertion Soros is said to have donated $14.5 million to ACT. comes from this organization: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/
sometimes ya gotta look at who is doing the talking. :-)
By Bruno
August 1, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this
Howdy bloggers—Hope everyone is doing well.
Democrats = inclusive, and republicans = exclusive.
a vote for Democrat does not imply anti-religious fundamentalism, but a vote for actions that bring about positive change for all (which can be motivated by religious and/or secular values for the civic good).
If it were only that simple, JokesOn and Eric….In my experience, there are good and bad people in both parties.
The unfortunate part about the whole liberal/conservative ideals is that, generally speaking, they both want to control you, just in polar-opposite ways - all based on their beliefs. Both of these groups lack the vision of freedom.
Brad, I think your statement rings closer to the truth.
Best wishes to all.
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this
Mara -
yay! I’ve long wanted to know how to do that … you are Magic Woman!
take the rest of the week off.
By Bruno
August 1, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
The only general characterization of Dems/Repubs that I’ve found to be true in my personal experience is that Dems usually look for and support centralized solutions to societal problems while Repubs typically favor individualized efforts to solve problems. Only a generalization, of course….
By USinUK
August 1, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
Because Mara is my new hero, here is something fun for the weekend.
I’m off to make dinner
Have a great weekend!!!
By Mara
August 1, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
UsinUK - daquiri to you, too :^) You all have a fab week-end, m’kay?
Here’s a nice link to a very funny Joke for Friday
enjoy. Tootles…
By ButtlessSnideLeft
August 1, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
Here’s a nice link to a very funny Joke for Friday
I am glad I noticed that that was The Onion because it almost sounded believable. LOL
anticipating that next we might learn that water does not boil at 212F, rather a SupremeBeing willed it to change states.
By sandi
August 1, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
“…nearly one in five white non-evangelicals “hold intensely antagonistic feelings toward Christian fundamentalists”…” My goodness, why would that be? Could it be because ignorant christian fundies want to make laws for all of us based on their 2,000 year old book written by illiterates? Because they base their lives on folk tales written by men who knew less about the world than a 5th grader does today and they want to force everybody to base their lives on that? Because of the fundies stupid moral superiority stance? Because anyone with a basic history education sees what happened in the past when religion and politics joined hands?
By JokesOn
August 1, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this
Hey Dog,
Democrats = inclusive, and republicans = exclusive.
a vote for Democrat does not imply anti-religious fundamentalism, but a vote for actions that bring about positive change for all (which can be motivated by religious and/or secular values for the civic good).
If it were only that simple, JokesOn and Eric….In my experience, there are good and bad people in both parties.
What I am explaining, for example, is how you and RF where no longer accepted as a conservative by “the real conservatives” on the board because you disagreed with them on certain topics.
Where as the liberals on the board do not ostracize a person that believe in pro-choice. In short, with us or against us.
Is it representative of each and every repub, no. But, do not expect to feel welcome if your beliefs differ from theirs.
Heck, if you go by the actual definition of of conservative, I am one along with most of the recent democratic presidents actions. Those words almost mean nothing now, including being “christian.”
By RF
August 3, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
Okay, I have to point out the lunacy in Shaunti’s “argument” here. First, the fact that fundamentalists see criticism of their beliefs as an “attack” is laughable. The holes in their arguments are too easy to point out and difficult to defend. Anyone who doesn’t drink the Kool-Aid, so to speak, becomes a feared enemy that must be eradicated at all costs. It’s the fear-mongering and lack of reason many exhibit, along with the bullying arguments and attacks they make that make fundamentalists so often the target of criticism. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen folks.
Also, fundamentalist strategy relies on fear and the “you’re either for us or against us” mentality. I love this speech from the movie The American President:
He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections
That about sums up the McCain campaign, IMO. That worked for the fundamentalists after 9/11, during the 50’s, and in Puritan New England. What they don’t understand is that fear only motivates people so long. After a while, even some of the most diehard among them get tired of being afraid. As I said last week, I’m fed up with the feeding of fear from the evangelical left. It’s a tired message that just isn’t working anymore. We all fell for it after 9/11, and even liberal ol’ Hillary voted for war with Iraq while politicians crossed the aisle to join the republicans. Where are we now? Trillions in debt, fighting an expensive no-win war, paying out the nose for gas, losing homes due to predatory lenders—whose practices were tolerated and even supported by this administration—and we’re tired of it all. If they could, they’d put scarlet letters on anyone who isn’t white, middle-class, and attending the local mega-church on Sunday. Look at people like Archie, who can’t speak of his real social beliefs in church. He’d be kicked out and branded a sinner like I was. How many churches are there right now that aren’t considered too liberal that mix races? Not many, I’ll assure you. Fundamentalist practices have encouraged racism and ignoring of any social issue that doesn’t promote the white, heterosexual power structure. They’re scared to death that they might actually have to treat other groups with dignity and equality. They talk about it, but do they live it? Not really. Get a group of Southern Baptists together and see how long it takes to get them talking about poor minorities and gays. Usually it comes up within five minutes. That narrow-mindedness is wrong, counterproductive, and certainly not biblical. But they think it’s okay because they can find a verse in the Bible to support every idea they have.
If fundamentalists and left-heavy conservatives feel “attacked”, maybe it’s because the rest of us are done listening to messages of hatred and fear that manipulate christianity to support them. We’re tired of God being used as the excuse to hate. We’re tired of hearing “love thy neighbor….well, only so long as he looks like you, believes like you, and is married to the opposite sex.” We’re done with talking about helping others and equality while we keep blacks uneducated and poor and deny rights to gays at every turn. We’re tired of saying “yes we care” while people live starving within the shadows of our cathedrals of worship. If that makes them feel attacked, so be it. Paranoia feeds itself and in the end only causes much quicker that which is feared. Maybe instead of trying to make Obama look bad, McCain ought to try making himself look good. Why can’t he visit world leaders and talk to them? Oh that’s right, he’s spending his money for advertising so he can win votes by making us afraid.
Fundies aren’t viewed as the “bogeyman”. The reality is they view others that way. And they’ll tell you that if you listen to them long enough.
I close with this:
We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you’d better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I’ll show up. This a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up
Have a great week all. The kiddies come Monday, so I’ll likely not be in to visit very much for a while.
By AGF
August 3, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this
Wow RF - that was long rant about fundies. Are you maybe just a little bit stressed out with the kids coming back tomorrow? Speaking of holes in arguments - your arguments are so full of holes I could call your diatribe a “sponge” - but since most of what you said doesn’t hold water, I can’t do that.
The irony of your post is that you tell us that fundies aren’t being portrayed as the bogeyman, and then you make several inflammatory statements that use a wide brush to paint fundies as - you guessed it - the bogeyman.
I am a fundie and PROUD of it. I resent almost everything you wrote because most of it doesn’t represent me or my conservative Christian friends. I am not sure if you wrote the post listed above, or you borrowed it from some website. I would be willing to bet that my church and its local association (filled with hated fundies) has done more for poor people and minorities in our community than any club you or your liberal friends belong to.
And if we do make disparaging statements about the poor, it’s because we actually KNOW them. We live in the same community they do. We know where they live and how they live. We have seen them make poor decisions over and over again.
We drive by the government housing projects as we drop our kids off at school to see poor folks standing outside in their PJ’s putting their kids on the bus. We see these same kids getting on the bus wearing expensive clothes and shoes while talking on the cell phones or listening to their Ipods. We go into their homes to see big screen TV’s hooked up to a satellite, all the while asking for money to pay for groceries.
Our association sponsors a local free food bank and clothing store. The people that run it tell me that the same people come in every week. The story is always the same - no job, no husband, lots of kids to feed. And before you call me a racist, these stores are frequented equally by whites and blacks, because in the community I live their are just as many poor whites that have made bad decisions as their are blacks.
And, unlike what you posted, these examples are things I have personally seen or stories I have heard from reliable people. You on the other hand, have posted some garbage you read on some website like Slate. I doubt you PERSONALLY KNOW 10 fundies that fit the descriptions you gave in your rant.
And speaking of the Presidential election – these are serious times. Times that require someone to lead the nation, not someone who looks great while reading a teleprompter and promises “change” and says “yes we can”. McCain may not be the man I want, and I don’t believe he is the man we need, but I can promise you he will be a significant upgrade from Obama.
By USinUK
August 4, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this
McCain may not be the man I want, and I don’t believe he is the man we need, but I can promise you he will be a significant upgrade from Obama.
I don’t think that a man who calls his wife the c-word is an upgrade.
Nor do I think that a man who thinks it’s acceptable to make fun of an opponent’s child is an upgrade.
To further RF’s and AGF’s use of Aaron Sorkin’s wonderful writing: “For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, and although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I’ve been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character.”
ANYone who would call his wife the c-word and ANYone who thinks that a child is an acceptable target for ridicule is completely lacking in character and honor.
By Truth
August 4, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this
Citizens suffering, Democrats take 5 weeks off.
Without even considering any legislation that will relieve our gas pumps woes or the economic downturn, Ms. Pelosi orders that Congress adjourn for 5 weeks.
Pelosi said yesterday on ABCs Sunday morning political show that the energy crisis is too important to have people mislead about it, so she wouldn’t allow discussion on the issue. It was so important that they all went home without acting. Brilliant, dems!!! Obama’s election will empower these idiots and will offer no resistance to their fascist governing.
In almost every election, at this time the dems are usually ahead by 15-20 points. In this one, some polls list McCain as leading. Obama is very slick and incredibly polished, but this old humped over war horse is leading or close in every poll. No wonder Obama doesn’t want town hall meetings. Obama, like most liberals, like to preach and preachers don’t like to answer questions.
I have complained about the Congress / Obama connection for weeks. Sunday morning political shows are now saying the same thing. The Republicans haven’t even started ads about Congress … yet.
Stand by, dems. Your party is about to blow another election.
By Truth
August 4, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this
Snidley Bullsh*t
If I thought you were smart enough to understand what I was talking about when I said that Obama was a State of the Art Hollywood / Washington politician, I would take the time to answer your nonsense that McCain is the slick politician between himself and a Chicago mob lawyer.
By Copyleft
August 4, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
Oh, just post a link to Ann Coulter’s or Newt Gingrich’s latest whine and be done with it, Truth.
Quit pretending you have any ideas of your own.
By USinUK
August 4, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Without even considering any legislation that will relieve our gas pumps woes or the economic downturn, Ms. Pelosi orders that Congress adjourn for 5 weeks.
um. Congress ALWAYS takes August off. Pelosi isn’t doing anything new.
By Truth
August 4, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
USinUk, Copyleft
You guys can blow it off all you want. i am praying the rest of your party does the same thing. This is so huge that CNN and the major three can’t even ignore it. The political show that featured this the least was FOX News Sunday.
Pelosi was on Stephanopolis and the eye batting half-wit couldn’t complete a sentence. I have never seen her so shaken. On a round table, later in the show, Judy Woodruff, (who now works for Jim Larh, the PBS liberal mouthpiece) said that she believed they did it because they didn’t want Obama to actually have to take a stand and place a vote.
THIS IS YOUR PARTY!!!! Take no stand. Avoid direct questions to whatever nonsense the dems consider their talking points d’ jour. Obama is great when he stands in front of huge crowds and reads the prompter. But he is avoiding townhall meetings like the plague because he is horrible at THINKING. Clinton ate his lunch at every debate they had. He is an empty head!!
So why do you guys think they are doing it? Are the dems really taking payoffs from the Saudis? Please don’t tell me that you believe they are doing it for the environment. There’s huge money changing hands right now. Your own people say it is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world and the democrats are making damn sure the transfer is continuing without interruption.
So why are they doing it? Dems watch polls like crazy, but 75% of the country is against them on this and they close down Congress and go home, hoping that gas prices going down will make people satisfied to pay $3.50 a gallon. So what’s up?
Totally out of character for the dems. What is going on? The smartest people in the world always say to follow the money. Follow this money and you start to smell something really bad between Congress and OPEC.
The environment. LOL!! We are all being conned.
By Vote
August 4, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Let’s start World War Three: Vote McCain.
By Mara
August 4, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
who now works for Jim Larh, the PBS liberal mouthpiece
er…I believe he meant “Jim Lehrer”, the “liberal mouthpeice” whom even the Republican shill Bush put in charge of destroying PBS called “a beacon of balance”.
“Tomlinson, armed with a dubious study of PBS shows he commissioned from a right-wing ideologue, charged public broadcasting programming with harboring a liberal bias…At the same time, though, Tomlinson singled out PBS’s flagship news program, the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, as a beacon of balance, telling a July 11, 2005 Senate hearing: “Well, certainly in terms of the Jim Lehrer NewsHour, there is no balance problem. That is great journalism”
“…you start to smell something really bad between Congress and OPEC”
It’s always amusing to listen to Republicans trying to imply a love match between Democrats and OPEC, especially when it’s their president who goes skippingt hand-in-hand through fields of Texas bluebells with his closer-than-a-brother friend, Prince Bandar bin Sultan (aka “Bandar Bush”)
You want to connect our government to the Saudi oil sheiks? Just head on down to Texas, up to Kennebunkport, or south to Islamorada, Florida.
By Dictionary
August 4, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Jim Larh, the PBS liberal mouthpiece
Uneducated, neanderthal conservatives rarely good at spelling. Plenty of proof right here.
By lyrazel
August 4, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
Excuse me but the political persecution of fundamentalists occurred after the fall of so many evangel