Obama has made it clear that he’s highly religious. He is probably pushing faith as much as any candidate has in the past. Did you see his commercial where it looks like he’s standing at a pulpit and there’s a large cross over his shoulder?
I assume you think Obama is an honest man, and doesn’t just lie about this stuff for votes. If you believe that, you have to accept that religion is going to inform some of his decision-making, since he says it does.
Also, faith-based initiatives aren’t just for white Protestant churches. Large black churches are a big part of the black community, and Obama was a very active member on one of the larger ones. So he wants them to get more money.
The only difference is that I’m sure a bunch of you who would be spitting nails if a Republican supported this will suddenly have a come-to-Jesus moment and decide this is the best thing ever.
Nope, still irritated. I’d much rather religion was a big ol’ blind spot in government’s purview and each stayed out of the other’s way. It’s just not a make-or-break issue for me.
You’ve never read any of my postings on the Faith-Based initiative, have you? Have you even read this thread? I don’t think you know much about this issue. It has nothing to do with “giving more money to black churches,” or giving money to any churches, as such. It goes to specific programs which may be run by religious organizations but which have to meet certain criteria in effectiveness and outcomes and which are forbidden to prosyletize or discriminate in services. Churches as a whole do not benefit financially from these grants. Only their secular social programs can benefit, and those programs cannot be used for evangelical purposes. The only benefit to churches/mosques/synagogues is the actual spiritual benefit of helping other people.
There is no religious intent behind this at all. This is about the actual social services, not a religious agenda.
I’ve also been defending Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative for years (against the same kind of misunderstandings that you’ve shown), so there is no conversion for me in this.
Now, where did I say that it’s only the left that does this? When McCain picks up some left-wing talking points that Democrats have been attacked for, I’ll criticize people who flip-flop on that, too.
It just seems like an especially weird election this year. Obama is a strange candidate - he’s clearly a liberal, but he’s using the talking points that the right usually uses. This is causing a lot of cognitive dissonance, especially on the left. But McCain is also somewhat atypical for a Republican - he gave a speech the other day where he promoted immigration reform again, which the right hates. The difference so far is that I see the right heartily taking issue with him when he strays off the reservation, so much so that supporters of the right are worried that the base will stay home and refuse to vote for him.
On the other hand, I don’t hear much criticism of Obama, even when he says stuff like this that is usually automatic flame-bait for liberals when uttered by Republicans. At least BrainGlutton was willing to put aside the cult of personality and ask what the hell was going on.
I honsetly have no idea what you’re talking about with this “cognitive dissonance” thing. Could you provide an example of something that you think the left should be attacking Obama for, but isn’t?
Sam, I cannot say what I am really feeling without taking it to the Pit, and frankly, slapping down your attitude doesn’t rate wasting a Pit thread on.
But both Diogenes and I have pointed out, at length, the values of F-BIs back when George Shrubbleyou was first being criticized for them. I pointed out having been on the board of an ecumenical urban outreach getting government funds under stringent conditions back in the Reagan years. If you see any flip-flops from either of us here, it’s because you;ve been drinking too many Margaritas.
Why should they attack him for that? Most Democrats support the death penalty. Even a majority of self-identified “liberals” support the death penalty.
There’s still a great silent minority about it, which, given the herd of cats makeup of the party, makes it astonishing that no one is attacking him on it.
“Most” = more than half. If you don’t like “most,” let’s go with “majority.” A majority of the left agrees with Obama on the death penalty, so there’s no reason to expect them to attack him for it.
You know, there are a number of things I could attack Obama on. I don’t agree with all his stances. But he’ll still be a much better President than McCain. To act as if the left is in lock-step with him is ludicrous, as we’ll see in February, when he proposes some legislation that somebody doesn’t like.
Abandoning public financing? Something he claimed was vitally important to the country, and which has been a favored policy of the left for a long time?
How about his attack on MoveOn.Org for its ‘General BetrayUs’ ad, which the left loved at the time?
Or for that matter, his continually policy shift on Iraq, where now instead of calling for a timetable and rapid withdrawal (complete withdrawal within 6 months, I believe he said at one point), to a new policy of ‘gradual, careful withdrawal’? Any day now he’ll say that withdrawal will depend on ‘conditions on the ground’, which will align him perfectly with the Bush administration.
Then there’s his latest flip-flop on NAFTA, which he now thinks is a pretty good deal. That anti-NAFTA talk during the primary? According to Obama, that was just ‘overheated political rhetoric’.
There’s more where that came from. Everyone knew Obama would tack hard to the right as soon as the primary season was over. The question to be asked is, which is the real Obama? The one that went left for the primary, or the one heading to the right for the general election?
