Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: A familiar story
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
Conservative activist Fran Eaton writes this week that after reading a USA Today op-ed by Sen. Barack Obama she concludes that he is both “dangerous” and “brilliant.” Dangerous, I assume, to the Republican cause.
If he were to wilt when challenged, he would be harmless and ineffective. But his consistent, calm responses and the confidence he displays in his own worldview is something conservatives in Illinois could learn from and incorporate into their own public discourse.
Obama took some heat after he gave a recent speech about faith, politics, liberals and conservatives. Some Democrats, particularly activist bloggers, thought he was attacking them with hackneyed conservative talking points. Obama shot back that he was misunderstood and that the initial press reports were seriously flawed. (Personally I thought it ironic that so many bloggers who regularly slam the mainstream media for getting the story wrong relied on some pretty bad MSM reporting instead of the raw text for their attacks on Obama.)
After reading the speech and then the refined version in USA Today, I’ve concluded that Obama may have assumed he could be cautious with his words and that reporters and his target audiences would understand what he was getting at. It doesn’t work that way. You have to make yourself clear and/or then you have to make sure your PR staff “helps” the reporters understand what it is you were trying to say. He did neither. So, an interesting speech about a journey of understanding became yet another intraparty wedge issue for the hapless Democrats.
But go read the op-ed and tell us what you think.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 5:20 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: A familiar story
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Usually I’d be the last to say… but this time, I am the first… Obama’s right!
Comment by Lovie's Leather Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 6:58 am
Obama balances his arguments well and does a good job educating the public.
Unfortunately, there’s no way for politicians to ignore the powerful motivation of faith with voter turnout so low. Carter initiated the latest round that has been growing ever since.
Obama should have put more faith in the Constitution as the best unification of our morality.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 7:15 am
When I heard about the controversy over Obama’s speech, I read the text at Lynn Sweet’s blog. In my opionion, much of the criticsm was unjustified. Obama is an intelligent man trying to work through the relationship between faith and politics. If anything, he was far too kind in his comments toward those who despise religion. Obama is about the only Dem at the national level who can talk about faith without sounding like he’s speaking in a foreign language. Even so, I doubt that very many religious voters will be drawn to the party through his efforts. Religious liberals are already in the Dems’ pocket, but the party’s hostility to pro-lifers will repel evangelical Christians and members of the religious right. Plus, it doesn’t help Obama that his faith however sincere would be considered heterodox at best by many conservative Christians.
Comment by David P. Graf Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 7:32 am
I read this article when it came out; I didn’t think much about it then and still don’t. To me, I am a progressive liberal who is a devout believer in the “Messiah.” I wish more Democrats would bring their faith into the public discourse because our foundational principles are based on the “sermon on the mount.” I think Democrats get a little uneasy talking about Religion because the Right-wingers get all “crazied” out with abortion and homosexuality. They, the Right-wingers, pick two of the most controversial issues in the public domain and yell, kick and scream, calling Democrats names like un-Godly, anti-christ, etc., etc. Democrats would be wise to call them what they are, “hypocrites and Pharises.” Especially when the right gets all wound up on prayer in school. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my child to be sitting in k-12 saying a prayer to “Allah.” Jesus said, “pray to my father in secret.” He was talking about the “hypocrites” who claimed to be for God by walking around town being all Mr. and Mrs. Religion who sinned all the time (you know the folks who didn’t want to help the poor or feed the hungry or heal the sick). Those folks are still with us today. I would challenge them with boldness every time (as I do when the opportunity arises). This is the point of what Obama was making to Democrats. Fight the good fight, the word of the Lord is with us. Who’s your Daddy!
Comment by SilverBackDemocrat Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 8:33 am
Funny David P. Graf, the Democratic Senate Minority Leader, one Senator Harry Reid, is pro-life.
Kinda pokes a hole in your balloon about any “hostility” — just because you make something up doesn’t make it so.
And, last time I checked, it was pro-lifers who bombed medical offices and shot doctors — that’s where your hostility lies.
Difference is, Harry Reid believes in medical privacy, that personal decisions are best left between doctors and their patients and that prevention is the best course of action. Then again, most conservative (rather than progressive) “pro-lifers” I’ve met aren’t really against abortion per se, they’re against sex.
Comment by NW burbs Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 8:35 am
Wow, now we’re getting links to Fran Eaton…things must be slow here.
Comment by Core Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 8:39 am
NW Burbs, Difference is, Harry Reid believes in medical privacy, that personal decisions are best left between doctors and their patients and that prevention is the best course of action. Then again, most conservative (rather than progressive) “pro-lifers†I’ve met aren’t really against abortion per se, they’re against sex.
Either you are an idiot or have not many many prolifers. Harry Reid being for privacy is really a way for him to shut up about the issue and keep his party happy. Most pro-shoicers I have met are not for a woman’s right to choose, but for Euginics and kiling dark skinned babies.
Comment by Rico Shakman aka Wumpus Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 9:42 am
Obama makes the same mistake so many others have made regarding religion and politics. I have read his commentary thoroughly, and he is not as smart as some think. He approaches this subject biased, and tries to use neutral language to compensate for it. Overall, he just doesn’t get it.
The “split” he is describing is real. It is not due to religion. Instead, one side of the split having had their beliefs unchallenged for a millienium, are using talking points that are as old as the millienium and so are often Biblically based.
Science supports success. We don’t even have to try to fight nature. Biology wins over politics. After millieniums, societies today have evolved to the point where a number of foundational beliefs are scientifically based, but argued over using, “thats how it has always been done” language. Progressives call this traditionalist thinking. Liberals call them conservative. Democrats call it Republican. Call it what you want, but it is just sticking to science.
You can’t build a stronger healthier society than with monogamous heterosexual marriage. We have tried everything else, and this is a big world, so if you wanted to marry a goat, you probably could during some part of our long human history. But we didn’t get to where we are today with any other form. Look around. History and biology shows us that societies have collapsed when they forgot to tend to societal basics like boring old man woman marriage sex.
We need to stop pretending that we have reinvented the wheel over the past fifty years. That somehow we have found a magic key that will undo nature and let us consume drugs, have anal sex, have fatherless or motherless families, drop our weapons, or transform criminals with big hugs - without consequences. Science dictates that everything has consequences; we cannot create a whiffle-ball world under one benevolent government. Its been tried and it has failed each time.
The other side of this “split” calls themselves different labels. They like new things. They really have a religion too, but since that label is unwelcomed to them, they don’t consider themselves religious. They often consider themselves “spiritual” instead. These folks seemed to see the past negatively. They have real reasons to do so, but have overused this viewpoint to their detriment. We have an entire generation that was raised in affluence, but lost their Kennedy when they were kids, lost their faith in the US during Vietnam, remember lynchings, bigotry, and intolerance. They were raised to believe that any form of discrimination was wrong, so are now unable to distinguish between good and bad. To them everything is gray and everyone has a right to their opinion. Unsurprisingly, they often have failed marriages, have produced few children, have a high rate of living single and promote individual rights. They often consider abortion a “right”. They have fatally fragmented biology from society. Remarkably, they often claim science as their friend, but instead believe in remarkable myths. If biology depended on them, it would be in trouble. Evolutionary-speaking, these folks are a failure and they and their beliefs will die out quicker since they have forgotten the basic reason to live - reproduce. There is a reason why we have so many Mormons, Muslims and conservatives - they breed and share their core beliefs. In turn they are more numerous to support their societal values.
So what we have can say we have is two groups; one based on proven societal and biological success, and the other guinea pigs fighting for 20th Century beliefs and a floating sense of fairness. Just as we have seen throughout history, biology will trump ideology in the long run.
Obama wants the progressives to speak religiously. It won’t happen, although Clinton was outstanding straddling that gap. Either side could start speaking in the language the other understands, but Obama is wrong in his approach, his analysis, and in his proposal.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 10:35 am
I predict that Barak Obama will be the 2008 Democratic Vice Presidnetail nominee.
He has intellect, exceptional rhetorical skills,and charisma. He could help every Deomocratic Presidential nominee if they weren’t afraid of being overshadowed by his transcendant appeal/sterling qualities.
Comment by Captain America Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 10:49 am
Obama hits it on the head. Many of us who consider ourselves on the left have our foundation in religion. I am a Christian and by faith is the foundation for many of my political positions. Look for more Democrats to begin to speak more openly about our faith and how it informs our positions.
Comment by Coloradem Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 11:16 am
Vanilla Man says - “History and biology shows us that societies have collapsed when they forgot to tend to societal basics like boring old man woman marriage sex.”
OK - name three.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 11:57 am
I am a moderate Republican and I am extremely impressed with what Obama has written. Unlike his senior counterpart Durbin who offends me on a regular basis, Obama causes me to think. I wish he was running for governor. If he supports Blago however, I will have serious doubts about his integrity.
Comment by paper bag over my head Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 12:04 pm
Wow, Vanilla Man got a new book…glad he’s here to tell us this truth of this story, where would we be without the likes of him? Better off, of course.
Comment by US Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 1:22 pm
===Plus, it doesn’t help Obama that his faith however sincere would be considered heterodox at best by many conservative Christians.
As he might consider literalists–in fact he makes that point.
Somehow the language has been corrupted to assume that the primary position of Christianity is conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. It is certainly true that Dobson won’t be jumping on the Obama bandwagon anytime soon, but he and his allies aren’t the spokespeople for all. Many evangelicals are relatively moderate and as many have pointed out, the largest growing church group—those attending megachurches–are both apolitical in politics. They are often not religiously affiliated either other than to their church.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 2:04 pm
Senator Obama made some excellents to which Democrats should look as they try to win in red counties and red states. Democrats should remind Americans that faith does guide their policies and politics. I attended an event for Senator Evan Bayh in Davenport, IA, over the weekend. He echoed Senator Obama’s points, stressing that in order for Democrats to win they shouldn’t give an inch on patriotism, national security and faith issues. Bayh then showed us a map of Indiana from the 2004 election — one blue county, the rest red (and he’s won every election there, as Secretary of State, Governor and Senator). Our party had better pay attention to folks like Obama and Bayh on these values and faith messages.
Comment by Porter McNeil Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 3:02 pm
VanillaMan, Anonymous - History has taught us that societies have collapsed when governments forget there is a dividing line between public and private, and the track record for systems of government that try dictate how consenting adults behave in the privacy of their bedrooms - Nazism, Communism, fundamentalist theocracies - is not impressive. But that is not really the point of Rich’s post.
Obama is correct, but he ignores the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Christianity in America is as corrupt now as it has ever been in our nation’s history. How many priests have to molest children, how many televangelists have to be caught up in corruption, how many political standardbearers for the far right have to have their hypocrises exposed before their congregations stop acting like sheep headed for the slaughter? Or has mass marketing reached such a level of scientific perfection - flash a few of the the right images, a hit a few key phrases just right - that we’re all just waiting for one pied piper or another to march us into the sea?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 4:04 pm
YDD, as much as you might dislike broad generalizations of Democrats as “wrong” on religion, you make a broad generalization of the entirety of Christianity based on some of the people who have been involved in it. Every religion, political party or group (in general) has had its share of people involved for their own personal gain.
Trying to say that Christianity is corrupt because of some bad people involved is not dissimilar to saying that all Democrats are corrupt because of Mayor Daley’s actions up in Chicago. I do not believe that all Democrats are corrupt or all Republicans are saints (or vice versa, for that matter), so I would recommend you consider your previous thoughts about Christianity in the face of the multitude of stones around the glass house you have constructed.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 4:21 pm
I have spoken with Senators who served with Obama in Springfield. There assessment of Obama, slick, polished, smooth, doesn’t get much done. My goodness, he barely won the primary, lost a congressional race badly, and now is getting taken to the woodshed by Madigan for not supporting the party choice for Treasurer.
Comment by Lee Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 5:35 pm
Lee, please. Obama took over 50 percent in a crowded primary. He stomped the opposition, including one guy who had been considered one of the party’s top rising young stars, the son of a prominent political family and a twice-elected statewide official (Dan Hynes). Let’s not rewrite history.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 5:39 pm
“we cannot create a whiffle-ball world under one benevolent government. Its been tried and it has failed each time.”
The lasting success of dictators and tyrants has been tried and failed each time. How many have successfully imposed themselves on others for very long without concessions.
Alexander the Great was so successful because his troops comingled with the conquered, creating a new, blended culture and biology that all could share.
Clearly nature bats last, so let nature takes its course and the philosophies without children will fade away, unless they are the teachers or there is some other survival advantage of having such people in our society. Why haven’t they gone away after so many generations of humanity?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 8:17 pm
Quick Note to NW Burbs:
Harry Reid is pro-life, but my comment was about the party and not particular individuals within the party. You’re not denying that the Democratic Party is firmly on the pro-choice side, are you? The whole point of Obama’s speech was that there is a divide between Democrats and religious people. One of those sticking points he talks about in his speech is abortion. If the Dems would be more open to pro-lifers, there’d be an exodus from the Republican party.
Comment by David P. Graf Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 9:54 pm
Quick note to ArchPundit:
When Obama talks about reaching out to religious people, he makes reference time and time again to evangelical Christians. The Dems don’t have to reach out to religious liberals. They’ve been in the Dems’ pocket for decades. And so, it is a sticking point that Obama’s brand of theology is a bit flaky from the perspective of evangelical Christians. You are right that politically we are not one monolithic bloc. And yet, I have to say that many of us do take a person’s theology into consideration. Why else do you think that Bush has retained so much of his support among evangelicals? It’s embarassing how we’re willing to go along with someone no matter what as long as he/she uses the appropriate “god-talk” language.
Comment by David P. Graf Tuesday, Jul 11, 06 @ 10:09 pm
If you’re pro-life then you favor banning and criminalizing abortion, right?
However, can you support pro-life youself without going to the draconian extreme of imposing a total criminalized ban on others?
Could you encourage more contraception and adoptions with financial incentives, moral appeals, and education? Could you tax abortion, so millionaires pay big sums, reducing demand?
Is there ANY middle ground between total freedom and total ban?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 12, 06 @ 6:31 am
Quick Note to Anonymous:
I’m probably an anomaly in the pro-life movement. I think that overturning Roe vs. Wade would not be the panacea some think it would. We forget that women were having abortions even when the practice was banned by law. Instead, I think we ought to concentrate on the prevention of pregnancy and doing what we can to encourage alternatives to abortion including adoption. My daughter is adopted. We ought also to concentrate on cleaning up our own house.
An article from a few years in Christianity Today magazine detailed how abortion is not a rare phenomenon in conservative pro-life churches. One of our dirty, little secrets is that it’s better for a couple intending to make their life’s work in fulltime ministry to have an abortion than to have a baby out of wedlock. If the woman has an abortion in secret, then their plans can continue on as before. Otherwise, it’s doubtful that any church would employ them. I’ve seen with my own eyes the grief given by supposedly loving and forgiving Christians to couples who did the right thing by their unborn child.
Regarding violence, I have a hard time squaring pro-life with killing someone else or bombing buildings. Even though one can be pro-life without being religious, for me I take to heart the Apostle Paul’s comment in the New Testament that we do not employ the “weapons of this world”.
Comment by David P. Graf Wednesday, Jul 12, 06 @ 7:19 am