How loverly. We've got a Democratic candidate trying to out-woo the right-wing evangelical audience of a "fiercely partisan, antiabortion, economic reactionary," Rick Warren.
This is where Obama takes the Democratic party, a direction where we're vying against the likes of John McCain for votes to the Right of James Inhofe.
Obama, who on a previous visit described Saddleback Church as "my house," showed an ease on its stage, relying on his comfort with the language of evangelical Christianity - and citations from Warren's own writings and policy proposals - as he attempted to establish a personal bond with the flock through its minister.
***
"I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis," Obama said. "I know that I don't walk alone."
(emphasis added)
Jews, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and Rastas: Fuck off.
Meanwhile, would you like a little of where "Pastor Rick" is coming from? Fred Clarkson at Talk to Action quotes a letter Warren sent to a quarter-million pastors just before the '04 election.
But for those of us who accept the Bible as God's Word and know that God has a unique, sovereign purpose for every life, I believe there are 5 issues that are non-negotiable. To me, they're not even debatable because God's Word is clear on these issues.[emphasis added] In order to live a purpose-driven life - to affirm what God has clearly stated about his purpose for every person he creates - we must take a stand by finding out what the candidates believe about these five issues, and then vote accordingly.
Here are five questions to ask when considering who to vote for in this election:
- What does each candidate believe about abortion and protecting the lives of unborn children?
- What does each candidate believe about using unborn babies for stem-cell harvesting?
- What does each candidate believe about homosexual marriage?
- What does each candidate believe about human cloning?
- What does each candidate believe about euthanasia - the killing of elderly and invalids?
By emphasizing these issues, and these alone, as the non-negotiable litmus test issues, he was clearly tilting his letter in favor of Bush over Kerry, whom he stressed have "VERY different" views, but that God is "clear" about them.
It is worth noting that Warren has been an insider with the Bush White House, participating for example, in White House organized conference calls with Religious Right leaders, notably on the failed Harriet Miers nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What are Democrats thinking? That they can squeeze a few votes out of the religious right without endangering their souls? Or are they deliberating courting one of the most conservative pastors and church memberships in the country because that's the direction they want Democrats moving in? Don't they have any idea how dangerous this tactic is?
This isn't Jimmy Carter 30 years ago when it was a matter of evangelicals being comfortable with a sort of liberal, and they didn't expect much more out of him than his silence on certain issues (which they got). This is a fairly far right coalition, politically savvy and led by a ruthless, opportunistic, right-wing redneck pastor. They are going to want something for their support. They're going to want A LOT.
Next to his love affair with Corporate America, Obama's courting of a group that only 4 short years ago wanted to see all liberals and progressives rounded up and shot, is the most troubling aspect of his candidacy. Making nice with evangelicals for the purposes of a single campaign is not justifiable in terms of the energy it take for the few votes it may win or the potential backlash unless the long-term strategy is to move far enough to the Right to win them as at least semi-permanent Democratic supporters and activists.
That was Michael Deaver's strategy for Reagan and the "Reagan Democrats". So the Republicans are copying the old Soviet regimes and the Democrats are copying the Pubs' copy in a watered down version centered on toadying first to corporate interests and then to the Fallwell base of the GOP?
This is two steps further toward the far right than Clinton. It's like dancing a reel on the edge of a cliff. Enough already.
Comments