Obama is WRONG

Really sorry about this yall, but rather than join the thread entitled "Obama is Right," I wanted to post this in a place where it would be read by at least some of you. When I went to www.mydd.com, and read the following by Chris Bowers, I had a definite "aha!" moment.....please read what this Tom Schaller said, and see if it doesn't make absolute sense....it's so logical, it's a wonder I didn't think of the analogy myself (yeah right).

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/28/132718/681



As an electoral strategist I respect, Tom Schaller, wrote to me in an email today:


"Imagine for a second that, after the 2000 election in which his candidate finished second, the main media narrative was that Karl Rove needed to figure out a way to reach out to, say, unmarried, professional, college-educated women of color living in cities and suburbs of blue states. He'd have been laughed out of his party and DC.

Yet somehow, conversely, the prevailing narrative that people like Obama are ratifying is that if Democrats don't bow and scrape to white, evangelical, married, non-college educated white males in the south and rural communities---well, then they're tactically stupid, myopic, and out-of-touch. (And, because women, seculars, urban-surburbanites, college grads, and minorities are an increasing share of the electorate with each passing cycle, the "jessica alba vote" is at least a growth market, whereas the bubbas are a shrinking market.)

Rove loses an election, surveys the situation, and concludes that the GOP left 4 million evangelicals off the table and they need to find and mobilize them. We lose four years later and conclude that, um, we need to talk to evangelicals. In other words, they lose and turn to their base, but we lose and turn to...THEIR base! Am I losing my mind or is this about as absurdly upside-down ass-backwards as possible?"

Chris Bowers:

Obama has not only helped close the triangle on the notion that Democrats are hostile to religion, he has closed the triangle on who Democrats should appeal to in order to win elections. This danger of this is that in a nation where the only voters who matter to both parties are conservative evangelicals, then the only legislation we will ever get will be of the sort that appeals to conservative evangelicals. This will be the case no matter which party is in charge of Congress. Thus, closing the triangle on electoral strategy in this manner completely obliterates progressivism itself.

more at:


http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/28/132718/681

Gee...wasn't that the idea in the first place?!

the comparison is a logical fallacy becasue the amount of "white, evangelical, married, non-college educated white males in the south and rural communities" is FAR greater than the amount of "unmarried, professional, college-educated women of color living in cities and suburbs of blue states."

The full cohort was "women, seculars, urban-surburbanites, college grads, and minorities" - the Democratic base.

If we were to narrow that portrait down further and just say "women of color living in cities" you probably do have a larger segment of the population than "white, evangelical, married, non-college educated white males in the south and rural communities", and Karl Rove would still be laughed out of town for suggesting that they should be the next GOP target voters.

:toast:

It was a stupid, stupid thing to say, and has cost him my support in the future.

With the leading voices of the party being this supportive to the GOP meme, the party is doomed to stay in the minority.

Obama is acting as a tool of the GOP.

We have faith. We just don't use it as a weapon and we don't let politicos use it against us.

Some of us ARE "Godless", TYVM- and we're sick of that being tossed around like it's some kind of insult, too.

I am very angry that he chose to forward that bundle of BS propaganda.

at the bush-money god like those mindless sheep.

I don't like it that they have framed this damn debate cause their's is based on freakin' delusion!

"Am I losing my mind or is this about as absurdly upside-down ass-backwards as possible?"---sums up how I've been feeling about this entire issue for a while now.


Thanks for the post, and for bringing a bit of sanity to the issue;)

Karl is laughing because he knows how easy it is to pray on these people's fears. Meanwhile, we sit with our college educations and try to figure out how to win elections.

uncertainty and the destruction of our natural resources.

The line, "Are better off today than you were 6 (or 8) years ago" would resonate with a majority of Americans.

However, I do think that Rove will stage another attack before November to scare people. Too bad that all news media aren't showing the Miami and Chicago terrorist cells for what they really are as Jon Stewart did on the Daily Show.

Stupid people probably deserve what they get, and by stupid I don't just mean the Bushbots but also those who would make the Democratic party Republican lite.

The Dem leadership doesn't make an all out, committed effort to reach out to the 40 million women who do not vote in any elections. If the Dems would take up their issues (beyond the right to choose) -- and do it in a way that touches a nerve, that could create a serious advantage for the party.

'sissies' for trying to appeal to women. Just think if the Dems really worked to provide decent Child Care in this country....say they offered Corporations some sort of little tax write-off to offer on-site Child Care. Women would faint....but the pugs would start screaming about the cost to business and how business is not a babysitter....and dems are 'mama boys.'

Have you checked out Women's Voices, Women Vote...I think it's www.wvwv.org
or it could be .com. They did a ton of work in '04. I loved them and used their ideas....but the Kerry people didn't want anything to do with their ideas. Pathetic.

I am so sick and tired of everyone cowtowing to the angry white stupid male. I am sick of all the macho crap.

academic matter for most Americans, who would be likely to either be traditional, mainstream Christians or retain its values of sexual conservatism, and in any case would surely be far more concerned about economic survival and retrieving a non-despotic government.

What an assault on our senses...politicians actually talking to everybody as though everybody had a real concern for their own welfare. I remember seeing a brief interview with a rural Virginia waitress, in her early 20's. She said she had no health insurance and that this was her greatest concern. She then said she'd vote for * because he was a good Christan. Two arguments might have swayed her. First, we could have had a strong health program based on real needs and with a fearless affirmation of the morality of failing to provide such a program. We also need to take up the pseudo piety directly and tell the truth. Where in the teachings of Jesus do you find justification for: murderous war OR deliberately forcing newborns into lives of illness by neglect of the environment to such a degree that millions are sick every year (asthma rates are doubling and tripling in the most polluted sections of the country). Kill others, poison your children...that's the Republican line. If the waitress still chooses to vote for * fine but at least the battle was joined.

I see courting the most ignorant, anti scientific, belligerent elements of society as a means of guaranteeing the death of us all through the calamities served up by government pandering to pseudo-
science and those educated by Fox News.

I have not seen Obama's statement so I can't comment on him.

I can comment on MOST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS however. Their neglect of global warming and the calamities coming our way in very short order is negligence on a scale unparalleled in history considering the stakes...the continuation of our civilization.

I actually think that a well thought out approach to society and governance based on the principles of doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves is a brilliant idea...why, it's Christian!

How about that. Anyone appealing to this audience through ignorance is pandering of political gain. Anyone appealing through the principles of mutual respect is engaged in a great expansion of human consciousness and first principals.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (NIV, John 13:34-35)

How will they know us as a political party?

cannot but believe that the situation of countless "ordinary" Americans - a number, moreover, that is surely increasing - is so parlous that they realise that voting Republican is simply no longer an option.

Indeed, I'm not sure it wasn't the case at the time of the 2004 election, when Kerry's vote could have been even larger than the figure estimated on the basis of the ascertained fraud - which was humungous, anyway.

I have tried to talk to the RW evangelicals who are my friends, neighbors, and family members about the positive impact Democrats would have on the country if we regained the House, and even better yet the House and Senate, and even better than that the House, Senate, AND White House!

These are well-meaning, highly educated, good people (not even Bubbas!), and I can't shake them. They think that Fox IS fair and balanced; that if we don't fight terrorists over there we will have to fight them here; that George W Bush DOES have a direct line to God; etc., etc., etc.

They just shake their heads when I try to talk to them and reply that they really don't like to get involved in politics!

Any Democratic strategy that tries to woo this crowd (who still, by the way, think that Clinton is the anti-Christ...I am serious) dooms us to failure.

The majority of Americans support the progressive ideals of the Party. We should be pushing these and letting the Republicans woo the evangelicals. If we don't, we just come across as the "Me too" party, Republican light, the Party with no solutions.

You are so spot-on.....there is no point in wooing these people at all. They need (psychological) to identify with the Puke Party and will continue to do so, mindlessly. The Dem "appeal" to them won't work, because they won't process what we are saying. At all. It is a lost cause to "woo" them.

paper appeal to these people, the party would be adopting positions that were contrary to the values and interests of many other people, including those who WOULD respond well to the Dem message.

nuff said.....that is the main point

Here in Wyoming, I'm surrounded by these RW evangelicals. They don't think. In my opinion they don't know how to think or question any situation. They want to believe what they are hearing on Fox News. They have been raised to simply believe what any christian person in a position of authority has told them, and not to question it. There are plenty of individuals in this country who know who to use their brains, and they are the people that we need to convince to vote. They will not be won over by Democrats, because they think that Democrats are evil.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I agree that there is no way we're going to convert the religiously-insane, but some comments made by some Democrats - mostly the supporters and not necessarily the candidates - make Christians feel unwelcome in the party.

I mean, look at this board - at the vile comments that come out of people's mouths - erm... fingers when they attempt to lump true Christians with the religiously-insane.

I share your frustrations. What's even worse for me, is that so many of the religious folks I know agree with me that Dems would be better for the world, the average American, and even them personally on economic issues. But they continue to vote based on abortion and gay marriage.

Jesus Christ could be our nominee and we wouldn't get these people to vote for us. Obama was just stupid, besides the fact that what he said isn't even true (but that's for another thread).

reason with or convince these folks. They're lost. Focus on those folks who can be made to understand the power of their vote and that their interests and that of a healthy America will not be served until there is a regime change: women, Latinos, etc. Major vote shifts could occur if we began to lay out a common sense platform that speaks to essential freedoms and the concept of "community" on all levels.

edited for spelling

I always think 'strangulation'. Freudian dyslexia?

And I imagine many others here do also.

K&R

The fundy type, anyway. The sane ones probably already vote Dem, and we have quite a few on this board even.

But does Obama think that he plays to the evangelicals, he is playing to the evangelical left who have a large population which is African American, and perhaps he thinks that he can try to appeal to both the general Evangelical base and Evangelical African Americans?

But I agree with you, Obama and alot of the leadership spend way too much time playing to the GOP base whereas they should play to independents and non-voters.....

(taking from your title)
Certainly not disagreeing with you. I think it's even more patronizing to think that the AA community dosen't know a moral person when they see one; whether he expressly appeals to their relgious side or not. I mean, the RW talkes down to the community politically all the time..this would ring true of the same attitude, underneath.

they do look through that crap all the time... cause they vote with their best interests....so you would conclude that the Evangelical Right should take lessons from the African American Evangelicals?

it's masquerading as a white/black, left/right issue -- but really it's about the "freebie" of getting millions of people marketing your message every sunday and wednesday.

needed to add that.

I think this says it all.

"In other words, they lose and turn to their base, but we lose and turn to...THEIR base!"

Democrats don't do themselves any favors by coming off as hostile or indifferent to evangelicals--not all of whom are complete idiots. There's not much you can do with the anti-abortion single-issue types, or the anti-gay bigots, or the Mexican-haters, and it's obvious that taking those positions would be both a tactical mistake and a betrayal of the core principles of the Democratic party. BUT--I think it's reasonable to talk about the OTHER issues that are of real concern to social conservatives: reducing government corruption; ending the intrusive failure that is No Child Left Behind; restoring fiscal sanity and paying off our debt to China; ending the rightwing's massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the richest of the rich; and (here's where a lot of DUers will rip me a new one) trying to address the godawful ugliness of our current media culture, and the way it commoditizes violence and sex. I'm sure there are lots of other avenues that could be explored--areas where progressive candidates can take moderate (or moderating) stands that don't violate the basic principles of the party, and don't turn them into Republicans Lite.

People who can set aside the abortion issue and focus on the other myriad issues which actually impact their lives very likely already vote with us most of the time. I know people who are pro-life/not anti-choice who vote with us. I know people who think homosexuality is a "sin" who vote with us. I know people who think that prayer in school should be mandated who vote with us. All anecdotal evidence, yes. But from working campaigns for so many years I can't imagine that my experience is unique. The people who are still out there who haven't yet voted with us and who fit in the fundy/evangelical mold are NEVER going to vote with us.


I do agree, though, that there are plenty of issues that people of all faiths or no faith can work on together, and the coarsening of our society is certainly one. I'd also add the consumerism of our society, as most sincerely religious people are troubled by the value of "things" in America.

There are tens of millions of nonvoters, and many of them have progressive leanings. If we can mobilize more traditional non-voters we can win. My guess is that appealing to the GOP base is going to turn off two potential voters for every one person it converts. Many people don't vote because they don't believe the Democrat's offer a real alternative, the party needs to show them an alternative and chasing the right-wing evangelical vote won't do that.

election. Just like Hillary Clinton, and that's probably no coincidence. Too bad. I had high hopes for him, but they didn't last long after he got into office. He saw that the DINOs had the power in the party and that's where he headed.

The teachings of Jesus and the NT are all about social justice and a large segment of devout christians have in the past voted for Dems because of this.

The change that we have seen in voting patterns of the religious in the last 20 years is not because we are not inclusive, it is becuase of the rw creating faux christian organizations, like the christian coalition, meant to turn churches into political organizations.

But so too - some people - find the idea of abortion - horrid. As horrid as anything. And though I don't agree - I think it is a tragedy. I think there is room there for Dems to push for reproductive technology with an aim to reduce the numbers of abortions. That would include a great shared risk health care plan. The point is to talk about it. And find ways. That is just an example.

I've lived in less corporate parts of Canada than "Central Canada" and there you face less advertising. Really - I'd much rather look at a picture of Jesus doing something good on a sign on the highway than someone selling me something that will make me fat & fill me with transfats and feeling guilty in the morning. It isn't as if the waves: airways.. curves in the road...are not already filled with opinion.

I'm not saying I agree with prayer in every class in school every day. But why not a 5 minute prayer during recess.. according to your god.. for those kids whose parents want it?

I mean.. why are we not looking for solutions?

To look for solutions we need to understand what is the problem.

Before the creation of the rw faux religious organizations about 20 years ago, the overwheming majority of American Roman Catholics voted Dem. Issues of school prayer, abortion and birth control didn't stop them from voting Democratic. Labor issues and social justice issues pretty much locked in that vote. Most Catholics prefered for their children to recieve their religious instruction at church and at home (or at private school) and medical decisions were left to the individual, some more liberal Catholics of course saw those decisions to be a part of social justice.

Now only about half of all Catholics vote Democratic, and the decline in those voters corelates to the rise of the influence of the politico-religious organizations that have been infiltrating mainstream American churches. Another corelation is as this unholy influence wormed it's way into churches, many churches and their leaders have twisted and perverted their ideas about morality, and the idea of social justice has been left in the ditch along with Jesus and the NT. War? Sure! Death penalty? Gotta be 'tough on crime'! Poverty? Get a job you filthy welfare queen and pull yourself up by your bootstraps!! Where is the morality in any of that tripe?

Return sanity to the definition of morality. Noone is stopping children from praying at school, but it should not be organized. I completely agree with reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, but the same people who are working overtime to outlaw abortion are also waging war on birth control. If someone doesn't like the idea of abortions, then they shouldn't have one. These ideas were fine with many devoted christians before the rise of rw political influence in the church, so what has changed besides the political influence? Nothing.

The solution, imo, is not to bow to this unholy influence on American politics and blur the line of the seperation of church and state. The Democratic platform has in modern times reflected the principles of the NT and the teachings of Jesus. The issues that you have mentioned are manufactured wedge issues dreamed up by the rw. If a person votes on "morality" issues, yet votes with the party of greed & war, then I don't believe that giving up our values and beliefs to pander to them will win them over. If that person finds that another woman's private medical decisions are more horrid than dropping bombs on small children, cutting children off of foodstamps, or denying children medical care, then is this a person for whom we should change our values or beliefs?


The solution is to strengthen our message. S.P.E.L.L. it out for them.

We can't afford that.

Please Barak, don't cave.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1526782&mesg_id=1526782

TC

in harmful ways. In my original post, and I assume in Tom Schaller's email, "Religious" does not necessarily equal "Evangelical."
"Evangelical" does not necessarily mean "Evil."

Perhaps there is a better word for those hypocritical christians, those mindless, robot-like christians than "evangelical" or "religious."

We all know some evangelicals who are good Dems because they recognize that Dem Party values most clearly identify with the teachings of Jesus. We all know many religious people who actually walk the walk and practice what they preach. It IS important not to antagonize these people.

But those quasi-pseudo-hypocritical-lock/step-robot-need a big/daddy christians are a lost cause. They will not recognize our view of Christianity or Religion no matter how hard we try to "woo" them.

And, the point that someone made: if BOTH parties court the evangelical-RW, then the agenda of Congress (beholden) will be so anti-separation of church/state, that it won't be funny.

Can't remember where I read that, but it nailed it, I think.

appropriately. If you capitalize it (except as first word of a sentence), you mean #4a, 4b, or 4c. If you don't intend those meanings, don't capitalize it.

m-w.com
1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2 : PROTESTANT
3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : FUNDAMENTALIST c often capitalized : LOW CHURCH
5 : marked by militant or crusading zeal : EVANGELISTIC <the evangelical ardor of the movement's leaders -- Amos Vogel>

the back of my mind and I will be watching what else he says.

Religion has no place in government. That being said, that doesn't mean that people cannot have a personal religion. But it should not and cannot be injected into legislation or governmental policy.

Jimmy Carter, a deeply religious man, had no problem keeping the two separate. It can be done.

Religion worn on one's sleeve is not religion - it is theater.

"Religion worn on one's sleeve is not religion - it is theater."

Sorry you don't get the blue ribbon, as that has to go to the line in the OP which said that they lose and turn to their base, we lose and turn to THEIR base. :)

... when I ran across this quote in a news article:



I immediately wrote Obama a letter recounting my own experiences in school, in which students and occasionally teachers attempted to pressure and embarrass me into saying the "approved" words.

The way I feel right now, I wouldn't support Obama for dogcatcher.

unlike a lot of Democrats who stay home. It's right to take Jesus back from the right.

to live your personal life in imitation of Him. In the way that has nothing to do with government, I can agree with you.

Fascinating.

he's another politician doing anything for votes. If Democrats cow tail to the fringe right hate mongers, I'm voting independent. Thing is, Bush never won the majority vote in any election, therefore, Obama's theories are incorrect, the majority voted against bush and his hypocritical hate messages of division and exclusion. Fix the Goddamn voting machines to stop cheating and we'll see who the public really wants to lead this country. I promise, it isn't because of religion!

vote for the Bankruptcy bill? I thought working for the poor and disadvantaged was what truly religious people did. Just how is his voting record? Roberts? Alito?

After he did that, I started to think that maybe he's just using the Dems....I mean afterall, could he get elected as a pug?

And today he spits in the face of the progressives....WTF? I am sick of these holier than thou people. Just because I don't run around with a Bible in my hand and blab about Jesus 24/7 doesn't mean I am not a spiritual person.

I think I'll go email Obama....please join me. thx.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

Now we know why Buffett is giving away all that money;)

... and he voted NO on Roberts and Alito. Please check your facts before posting.

I don't agree with his statement about "Under God" in the pledge, but have you read the whole speech? The whole thing is a faith-based defense of separation of church and state and was delivered at a conference being held by liberal Christians like Jim Wallis from Sojourner's Magazine.



And...

Sure is a different matter when you read the story instead of just the headline.

Obama and Biden and several other Dems voted FOR the Bankruptcy Bill.

My bad...just rechecked. He didn't vote for it. Sorry. 25 Dems didn't vote for it.

for a religious person but a non-religious person could never be voted as President in this country for the foreseeable future says something about the tolerance or the lack thereof the religion.

Thank you DLC. :eyes:

Ever see the fundie bumper sticker? "GOD SAID IT. I BELIEVE IT. THAT SETTLES IT." Pretty much sums up the evangelical/fundie position on anything from abortion, freedom of speech, gay rights, prayer in school, etc.etc.etc.etc. I don't think they'd feel at home in a party that relies on science, reason, logic and fairness to make arguements.

Democrats: Ass rape with lube.
Cons: Ass rape without.

With Crusades, Jihads, and all the rest, religion doesn't impress me. If W, Rove, Obama, wish to pander to the religious, that's fine.

Just show me how their Gods or prophets have ever helped the poor. Until then, I find them laughable and users, democrat or republican.

the media will treat it as insincere and pandering.

Even if that Dem goes to church more times in the average month than Bush has in his life.

They're starting to come around on global warming...to them, it's taking care of God's creation.

We don't need to "bow and scrape" or do anything different except explain how our positions are moral and the right's aren't.

We give to the poor. We heal the sick. We treat others the way we want to be treated. We even "render unto Caesar" better than they do. That's all moral, and biblically supported as well.

If Obama is just saying we should talk to these people in their language, I agree with him. We should not just write them off. If you're comfortable with the lingo, go for it. The left is much closer to following the teachings of Jesus than the right is.

Granted, the right has a foot in the door (and then some) in many evangelical churches, but nothing says we can't send churches voter guides like the right does.