Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Politico: Bush backer pens pro-Obama book (6/16/08)
The conservative Evangelical biographer of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay has moved on to a new subject: Barack Obama. And his new book, due out this summer, may lend credibility to Senator Obama's bid to win Evangelical Christian voters away from the Republican Party.

The forthcoming volume from Stephen Mansfield, whose sympathetic "The Faith of George W. Bush" spent 15 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list in 2004, is titled "The Faith of Barack Obama." Its tone ranges from gently critical to gushing, and the author defends Obama-and even his controversial former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright-from conservative critics, and portrays him as a compelling figure for Christian voters.

"Young Evangelicals are saying, 'Look, I'm pro-life but I'm looking at a guy who's first of all black-and they love that; two, who's a Christian; and three who believes faith should bear on public policy," Mansfield, who described himself as a conservative Republican, said in a telephone interview. "They disagree with him on abortion, but they agree with him on poverty, on the war."



When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I got the pointer to this from a story about "Obamacans" in ElPais.com today. Apart from the fact that the top 10 google hits for "obamacan" are from February/March so the story is about 4 months late, the journalist thought that DeLay was the biographer of Bush and now Obama. Which means this is probably not even a "foreign correspondent" (the story has no place listed in the byline) but just an internet copy job by a journalist in Madrid.

The quality of El Pais keeps going down and down... If they can be this bad about reporting on US news, can I trust them on anything else?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
there's a media-message being pushed in the States that young Evangelicals are slipping from the Christian Right and towards Obama.  Who is pushing it, and why is unknown.

I tried to get behind the verbage yesterday and all I found was little cries of astonishment by "journalists" (sic) supported by anecdotal evidence.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 03:12:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From my DKos diary:
This is wholly speculative, but if I had to guess who and why is pushing the story that the Religious Right is supporting Obama I would say that the leaders of the Evangelical movement are seeing that the Republican party is imploding and have decided to move their voting bloc into the Democratic Party. Evangelicals are not known for logic or consistency, and moreover the followers are quite gullible. This book, to be published in August and not unlikely to make the NYT bestseller list like its predecessor, might just be the last thing to push the Evangelicals (who already don't like McCain) to vote for Obama.

If this speculation is correct, the progressive netroots should get ready for a raft of Evangelicals running in the Democratic primaries in 2010.



When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 03:51:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It actually originates from a memo written by a Republican strategist predicting Obama could get up to 40% of the Evangelical vote, because younger ones tend to be more concerned with the environment and social justice than with abortion and gay marriage.  There's some evidence for it in the polls currently, as well as in past exit polls.

The logic behind it is weird and complex, but there's a logic to it, nonetheless.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 04:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now a BooTrib diary.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 03:13:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I double-dog dare you to post that on Kos!

(It's been a while since I've seen someone crucified in cyperspace.)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 03:22:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now in Orange.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 03:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And the winner of the Pour le Merite

for Bloging Above and Beyond the Call of Duty is Migeru.

;-)

(The total number of trolling, flaming, and etc., so far, is less than I expected.)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 05:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They love it.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 04:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Having read the comments ...

You have a unique definition of "love."    ;-)


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 04:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, they don't love the diary, but they love the fact that evangelicals might vote for Obama en masse.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 04:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah.  Correction noted.

Oh well.  See my conclusion re: the average Kossack's grasp of politics.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 05:14:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Daily Kos: Lazy Quote Diary: Evangelicals for Obama
Jesus is VERY logical. You just don't know him.

Head-meet-desk session, ready, go...

Then again, they have a bizarre point, of sorts. Religion legitimises narratives, and if the evangelicals are going to veer off from the bigoted side of evangelism and move towards the being kind to the poor end, that has to be an improvement.

As long as they don't try to start teaching Intelligent Design or biblical literalism in schools, it's still progress, of a kind.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 06:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So far I haven't seen anyone with a cross and nails.  Personally, I find the concept of a Theistic Deity to be an absurdity, and literalist interpretation of the Bible to be intellectually stultifying.  But most are brought to their church as small children, as the Bible recommends.  If raised in a loving family, their belief is tied into their love of family and their entire process of socialization.  I don't have any problem welcoming those who have concern for the social and ethical teachings of Jesus into a political coalition, especially if they have some inkling of the limitations of literalist fundamentalism.

To the extent that they take their cues from leaders, I would prefer that those leaders be Democrats than that they be Republicans.  I doubt that there will be enough evangelical defectors from the Republican Party for them to change the Democrats position on abortion, for  instance.  And I agree that we should take steps to make the need for abortion less common.  There may be enough defectors, however, to cripple the Republicans for a long time.

I wish that popular enthusiasm for religion in the USA were more like that common in Europe.  Perhaps an established religion in the USA would have helped accomplish that task.  If you have any suggestions as to how that wish could be fulfilled, I  would like to hear them.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 05:15:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't help but rec this comment for the use of "double-dog dare".  I haven't heard that used since I was in elementary school.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 12:11:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
;-)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you were a little hard on the Kossacks over Evangelicals.  It wasn't the awful intolerance one of them tried to make it, but I'm also not in favor of rejecting Evangelical support if it's forthcoming.  (If they want to vote for us -- great, vote for us.  If not -- oh well.  Hope for it, but don't bet on it.)  The question isn't whether or not we want Evangelicals, but whether or not we can work with some of them on a few key issues where we happen to agree.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 12:08:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have nothing against individual Evangelicals, but my issue is with the putative Evangelical voting bloc. If the Kossacks can engineer Primary challenges what prevents the Evangelicals from doing the same? If the Democratic party becomes hegemonic it's not so far-fetched that something like that would happen. Is the Democratic party invulnerable to Entryism and is the Moral Majority or however they call themselves these days not capable of it?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 03:18:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Theoretically, they could, but Evangelicals don't simply vote for people who are "born again".  Reagan wasn't "born again".  He was a divorced b-movie actor who got an erection every time someone said "tax cut".  Hell, they voted out Carter in huge numbers for Reagan, and it's hard to imagine a candidate more Evangelicious than Carter (or is he a problem since he's actually read the Bible unlike the Bushes and Falwells of the world?).

I don't think the Dems are vulnerable to a lot of influence from the Religious Right, at least not at this point in time, because those Evangelicals who do vote Dem are not of the hard-right theocrat variety.  Some Evangelicals are simply progressives, even on choice and gay marriage.  If younger ones are starting to skew that way, shouldn't that be a good thing?

Put another way: If having some Evangelicals as part of our party were to jeopardize our stand for women's rights or the rights of same-sex couples, then I'd agree that we don't want them.  But if they come over to vote for us now and then simply because they agree with us on climate change and universal health care -- well, hey, hard to argue with that, isn't it?  It's all a question of whose terms we play on.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 09:03:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, is there an Evangelical Voting Bloc, or not? (googling...)

Newsweek: The Myth of the Evangelical Voting Bloc: Megachurch pastor Rick Warren on the 2008 campaign. (Nov 30, 2007)

NEWSWEEK: How is the evangelical vote shaping up? Who's got it?

Rick Warren: The biggest myth and the biggest misunderstanding about evangelicals is that they are a voting bloc. This article that came out on the cover of The New York Times Magazine saying the evangelical vote was splintering--the guy just didn't get it, they never have been a voting bloc. They tend to vote for people, not down party lines. Evangelicals--what they have in common is not their political views but their commitment to Christ. I don't really believe in Blue and Red States. What I really see is urban values and the-rest-of-the-country values. In the 2004 election, 94 percent of Manhattan went for Kerry. What do I know about Manhattan? You can't afford to live there if you're a family. There's a preponderance of single adults, and single adults tend to be more liberal than people with families. So I don't really believe in a Red and Blue division. America is really purple, a combination of both. People think, "Evangelicals, they're all just one thing"--well, they're not.

In the 2008 race, two guys could have been the evangelical candidate, Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee, and they divided that vote in half. One drops out, and all of a sudden you have a "surge" for Huckabee.  I think people are reading the whole thing wrong. On top of that, you know what? America loves change. We love change. No party stays in power all the time.

But come on, evangelicals have traditionally voted as a bloc over the past 30 years.

Here's what the bloc is. Evangelicals tend to vote for people who claim to be born again. Every president back to Carter--Bush One didn't make a big deal about it, but he would say that. What do all those guys have in common? Nothing, except that all six of them were, quote, "born again."  It didn't matter whether they were Republican or Democrat. What's interesting to me is how much Democrats have run toward expressing their faith and how much Republicans have run away from expressing their faith this year.



When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 04:43:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Rick Warren:  The biggest myth and the biggest misunderstanding about evangelicals is that they are a voting bloc.

Rick Warren:  Here's what the bloc is. Evangelicals tend to vote for people who claim to be born again.

Mark Noll:  "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind..."

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 at 11:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: