Democrats Seriously Court Evangelicals

[maldon_road]

Democrats Seriously Court Evangelicals

...For the Democrats, it's a change in tactics as well—an audacious, if not quixotic, effort to win over a constituency that has been solidly Republican for a quarter century. Dean and other Democratic strategists hope to take advantage of deepening discontent with the GOP among some evangelicals. As a movement, conservative Christians have yet to get fired up about any of the leading Republican presidential candidates. There was a brief wave of enthusiasm for Fred Thompson, but that may be ebbing.

One of the nation's most influential evangelicals, James Dobson, wrote a scathing e-mail about Thompson, obtained by the Associated Press last week, in which he objected to the candidate's opposition to a constitutional marriage amendment and said Thompson had "no passion, no zeal." Meanwhile, Mitt Romney suffers among some evangelicals because of bias against his Mormon faith. Front runner Rudy Giuliani leaves conservative Christians particularly cold. "If the Republicans are foolish enough to nominate the pro-choice Giuliani, that will give the Democratic Party license to hunt for evangelical votes," says Land, who has been contacted by both the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns. "I don't know how successful they'll be, but at least they'll have that license."

No one expects miracles, of course. Conservative Christians started shifting to the Republicans as the "party of values" in 1979, when Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority. They were the most important bloc of voters in George W. Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004. But the movement is not as cohesive as it once was. Many younger evangelicals are worried about issues beyond the traditional struggles over abortion, school prayer and gay marriage. They're becoming vocal about the environment, AIDS, poverty and genocide—a newer set of "values" that Democrats are more comfortable addressing...

For now, the Democrats' best target may be Hispanics, the fastest-growing subset of evangelicals. They voted strongly in support of Bush in 2004, but many are now angered by the GOP's handling of immigration. "All of a sudden we're a security problem? We're the drug dealers who are destroying the nation?" says Luis Cortés, president of the Esperanza USA network of 10,000 evangelical churches....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920353/site/newsweek/

[sharkman]

This is bunk, anytime a Dem wants to they can have the pulpit of a black church. Hillary, Barak and Edwards have all done so in the last while. Blacks also tend to be more evangelical than whites.

Edited September 29, 2007 by sharkman

[bush_cheney2004]

This is bunk, anyone a Dem wants to they can have the pulpit of a black church. Hillary, Barak and Edwards have all done so in the last while. Blacks also tend to be more evangelical than whites.

That's a nice race based generalization. "Blacks" also tend to be Moor Muslim than "whites"?

Edited September 29, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jdobbin]

No one expects miracles, of course. Conservative Christians started shifting to the Republicans as the "party of values" in 1979, when Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority. They were the most important bloc of voters in George W. Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004. But the movement is not as cohesive as it once was. Many younger evangelicals are worried about issues beyond the traditional struggles over abortion, school prayer and gay marriage. They're becoming vocal about the environment, AIDS, poverty and genocide—a newer set of "values" that Democrats are more comfortable addressing...

For now, the Democrats' best target may be Hispanics, the fastest-growing subset of evangelicals. They voted strongly in support of Bush in 2004, but many are now angered by the GOP's handling of immigration. "All of a sudden we're a security problem? We're the drug dealers who are destroying the nation?" says Luis Cortés, president of the Esperanza USA network of 10,000 evangelical churches....

There is obvious disappointment among Hispanic voters of faith. They liked Bush but the Republican party's stand on immigration hurts support for whoever comes next.

As for social Conservatives, they have become increasingly restive about the lack of an evangelical running for the Republicans. While they are likely to still have problems supporting a Democrat, they could drift off to other candidates or just not turn out at the polls at all. The once a week scandals have taken a toll on the Republican faithful.

[jdobbin]

This is bunk, anytime a Dem wants to they can have the pulpit of a black church. Hillary, Barak and Edwards have all done so in the last while. Blacks also tend to be more evangelical than whites.

Do you have have citation for that? I'd never heard that figure.

[sharkman]

I didn't reference a figure. From my vast experience inside the underworld of church culture( ), it is well known that blacks tend to be more charismatic in worship than whites. Personally, I'm a little jealous about it, but there you go.

I see no one disagrees with my other comment on the Dems using the pulpit whenever they need to.

[jdobbin]

I didn't reference a figure. From my vast experience inside the underworld of church culture( ), it is well known that blacks tend to be more charismatic in worship than whites. Personally, I'm a little jealous about it, but there you go.

I see no one disagrees with my other comment on the Dems using the pulpit whenever they need to.

I thought charismatic was different from evangelical.

As far as using black churches, I don't know that I have read much about that. Is there much written about it or is that an observation you've made living in the U.S.?

[sharkman]

It's common knowledge among evangelicals. You should tune in to a pastor who's got a tv program on Sundays, T.D. Jakes. Might be eye opening.

Although this one article seems to paint a rosy picture of liberal Democrats and Evangelicals holding hands, it'll be a pretty short date when it's realized the Dems want to bring their friends abortion and gay lifestyle along.

[jdobbin]

Although this one article seems to paint a rosy picture of liberal Democrats and Evangelicals holding hands, it'll be a pretty short date when it's realized the Dems want to bring their friends abortion and gay lifestyle along.

I guess that is why it will be tough with Guiliani if he is the chosen candidate.

[ScottSA]

I guess that is why it will be tough with Guiliani if he is the chosen candidate.

Indeed.

[margrace]

Anyone who promotes religion in government should have spent the last 40 years in Northern Ireland as a Roman Catholic.

Religion is the worst promoter of hate and unrest in the world, lets get rid of it all. It is only an excuse for bigotry and abuse.

[sharkman]

Have to agree with some of that when we see the Muslim problem growing into a giant that has whole countries in Europe unsure what to do as they see rising violence and intolerance towards any speech that is not Muslim friendly.

[maldon_road]

Have to agree with some of that when we see the Muslim problem growing into a giant that has whole countries in Europe unsure what to do as they see rising violence and intolerance towards any speech that is not Muslim friendly.

Here too if you make a speech "that is not Muslim friendly" you will be accused of being intolerant.

[ScottSA]

Anyone who promotes religion in government should have spent the last 40 years in Northern Ireland as a Roman Catholic.

Religion is the worst promoter of hate and unrest in the world, lets get rid of it all. It is only an excuse for bigotry and abuse.

That had very little to do with actual religious belief, and a lot more to do with club tribalism. I doubt all that many on either side would be able to tell you how their beliefs differed from those of the other side.

Islam is different, both quantitatively and qualitatively. It's a 7th century death cult, and the bastards who blow themselves up, or riot in the streets, know exactly why they are doing it, all the apologist BS about "marginalized youth" notwithstanding.

[sharkman]

Here too if you make a speech "that is not Muslim friendly" you will be accused of being intolerant.

You may or may not be accused of intolerance(even though your comments are not), but you won't be attacked or have an Iman call for your death in Canada. At least not yet.

[ScottSA]

You may or may not be accused of intolerance(even though your comments are not), but you won't be attacked or have an Iman call for your death in Canada. At least not yet.

They don't do it from Canada. They get on the horn and get the thugs back home to do it, and then express their innocence and duly "condemn violence" while planning the next round of it.

[Drea]

Death cult?

here is a good example of the "death cult" here in the west.

Rapture Ready

If not for non believers and Jews,( thank God for the Jewish religion, which is not "fundamental" nor a "death cult") "our" fundies be just as bad as "their" fundies... they WOULD kill in the name of their god if the rest of our society allowed them religious freedom to the extent that Islam is "religiously free". By religious freedom I mean the freedom of one particular religion to run roughshod over the populace.

Jews and atheists. The only sane people on earth.

...been readin' about the original judaism... makes more sense than all the others.

[Sulaco]

Death cult?

here is a good example of the "death cult" here in the west.

Rapture Ready

If not for non believers and Jews,( thank God for the Jewish religion, which is not "fundamental" nor a "death cult") "our" fundies be just as bad as "their" fundies... they WOULD kill in the name of their god if the rest of our society allowed them religious freedom to the extent that Islam is "religiously free". By religious freedom I mean the freedom of one particular religion to run roughshod over the populace.

Jews and atheists. The only sane people on earth.

...been readin' about the original judaism... makes more sense than all the others.

Oy vey. What silliness. The chosen people, god bless them, have committed genocide several times - apparently because they were justified in doing so by God. Atheist have killed millions, but I guess they did it for rational reasons and rational philosophies rather than faith. People kill each other.

That is not to say qualitiative and quantitative comparisons cannot be made - as long as yous tart from the baselines that humans do kill each other - often en masse. And neither qualitatively, nor quantitatively, do crusading Christian fundamentalists hold sway, in the body of Christianity, to the same extent that jihadists do in Islam.

Finally - I am not sure your exemplary Christian death cult is calling for suicide bombings or jihad - rather it seems to me they are patiently waiting for god to bring it all about. See? A qualitative difference.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Sulaco

[sharkman]

No no sulaco, don't confuse people with the facts, it don't matter that they are not actually killing people or planning terrorist events, they're still a death cult DAMMIT!

[M.Dancer]

That had very little to do with actual religious belief, and a lot more to do with club tribalism. I doubt all that many on either side would be able to tell you how their beliefs differed from those of the other side.

Quite. And if they were able to tell you the differences, most here would have their eyes glaze over as they tried to untangle the minutia....there is a greater difference between presbytereanism and anglicanism than anglicanism and catholicism.

The real grievances in Northern Ireland as Scott says have little to do with religion, and a lot to do with how the pie was cut, the effects of 17th century immigration and cliques.