-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/07/obama-to-expand-faith-based-initiative.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Or maybe not.
You have been a staunch and vicious advocate for the policies of Barack Obama. While I support him, I can still find fault with some of his positions. That is something that I don't think you've been able to do. This is one of those positions where I find fault.
You have been incredibly critical of other candidate's policies, including those like this one. Where is the fair criticism of this one?
It was fun while it lasted
Obama does not want my vote.
However, with his latest flip-flops and position on FISA, I am very disappointed to the level that I am seriously thinking about not voting for him in Nov.
obama has always stood by these programs, with the understanding that they are only legal when they don't enforce their belief structure or discriminate based on those beliefs.
faith-based organization represent an existing network of providers who have close ties to communities who need services. i guess that doesn't matter though, all we want is someone to destroy religion.
i work in city government and we contract with a lot of religiously-affiliated groups because they are the ones who step up. they can't preach or discriminate under our contracts, which we monitor closely.
I have a problem with the way Obama's campaign is headed and It worries me.
well... except for ted haggard anyway.
rimming in July of 2002 here in Dallas when the Southern Baptists were in
town for their big convention. The Dallas male escorts were so overbooked,
they had to bring in reinforcements from Houston and Austin. I am so fucking
sick of our domestic agenda being advised by these trailer trash
self-ordained bubba polyester haired pastors in these megachurches that
resemble tacky versions of Broadway theatres.
Its culture people!
And you can watch it on TV in your underwear, with your choice of junk food, instead of going out. Salvation!.
Obama is trying to break the hold that the GOP has on religious people. To make a new coalition to get things done, we have to stop the old identity politics and this is what he is trying to do.
Democracy is about COMPROMISE. The evangelicals, as much as we might wish them to, are not going away. Full stop. So why not poach maybe 10% of them? Even 5%? If Obama got up and said he wanted to end the influence of faith on government, they'd close ranks and bury us. It'll be hard enough even with Obama as the candidate to get the minority vote out in November to counteract these white evangelicals. But those people - THOSE PEOPLE - they pray about it, then go vote straight Republican, especially with "godless lib'ruls" to oppose.
Grow up and get real. A perfect compromise is when all parties are equally unhappy.
BTW, Doug Tudor's running against Adam Putnam in FL-12. Yes, THAT Adam Putnam. Doug supports the rights of all Americans, not just those washed in the blood of the lamb.
Won't you please contribute?
http://www.teamtudor.org/contribute.asp
if you didn't think he would support this idea, but with critical changes, then you were just a sychophant who hadn't taken the time to learn his story. this is how he saved neighborhoods. he's not going to allow money to go to groups that try to convert people or only hire people who agree with them...he said that flatout today.
if you want to keep losing elections...have this knee-jerk, "all religion is evil" reaction every time. about 60% of the country just loves it.
I.e. "If we give you money to do stuff, you can't reject people on the basis of their faith when you hire them to do what we paid you to do."
I still don't like that we're giving money to tax-exempt people, but it is at least a little less slimy than at first blush.
He is still better than McCain.
HOWEVER... given his ability as a brilliant orator... if he can sway enough people that are disgusted with mccain? go for it.
now, I don't really care that he's schmoozing the fundies... what bothers me is the separation of church and state.
I think the whole 'faith based' initiative was a really BAD idea to begin with... sorta 'let's re-write the very principles this country was founded on'.
If I trusted the fundies at all, I could understand hanging out the olive branch... but these people have proven OVER and OVER that, when given a little power, they try to take over policy and legislation.
Obama needs to keep them on a tight leash... do we really want a christian version of Shiara law in the USA?
I'm a voodou twin. That's my branch of it, and I will fuck it up.
This is why we keep losing elections because we are looking for the perfect candidate.
Bad things will come from this.
obama specifically said the program would be altered to prevent prothlestizing and hiring/service discrimination as is currently allowed.
if you didn't see this coming, then you all were, including john, truly just drinking the cool-aid. this is what obama did in chicago. he worked the churches to help save communities. there is nothing unconstitutional about giving funds for provision of services, when there is no preference for a particular religion.
For all the voters he "thinks" he is going to gain with this, and FISA, and criticizing MoveOn and Clark, Obama will be losing THREE TIMES (3) the voters he needs to win.
I'm am totally at a lost on who is giving advice Obama. Is it the Clinton folks?
If he loses, it will be Obama's fault (not the voters) for gearing to the right.
Arianna at HP had a great post about this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffingto...
"Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers"
I'm sick of putting politicians on pedestals and then being disappointed when they turn out not to be saints.
One of the biggest disappointments in my life........
Never felt the same about politicians since.
I remember a few years ago a minor uproar over the Bush Administration sending the MCC a letter of congratulations on some anniversary or something...and then attempting (I think) to somehow claim it was a "mistake." The same thing happened in regards to some faith-based bullshit meeting in which certain "religious" groups like the MCC either weren't invited or were discouraged from attending. That is, in my opinion, an exact violation of the intent of the Constitution and the First Amendment.
http://www.beaconhousedc.org/
is a neighborhood based organization that supports at-risk youth and families of the Edgewood Terrace community in Washington, D.C. Beacon House offers educational, cultural, recreational and athletic programs.
Founded in 1991 by Reverend Donald E. Robinson, a Unitarian Universalist (UU) Minister, Beacon House provides a wide range of opportunities for learning to increase the likelihood of high school graduation, and eventual involvement in higher education, vocational training, or other productive adult work paths.
This idea is a bad, notwithstanding the fact that Obama supports it. FISA capitulation is a bad idea, nothwistanding the fact that Obama supports it. Obama desrves sharp criticism when he supports bad ideas.
Our Democratic candidates pander to our vote, but when they get the nomination they start acting like republicans.
You want full support from Democrats ... then act like a Democrat, vote for the values of the Democrats, be consistent as a Democrat.
The whole "centrist", middle of the road, DLC, is definitely a losing straegy, When will our candidates ever learn?
I can understand and respect those who aren't religious who don't want their tax dollars supporting religious activities, even if its a soup kitchen or a food pantry or a homeless shelter, but the truth is that even in a thoroughly liberal city like New York, the people helping people on the margins are as or more likely to be churches, synagogues and mosques (and, especially, their volunteers) as government agencies.
We learn that his Supreme Court choices will be more conservative than almost all of his supporters were led to believe. And on and on.
How many of these will it be? Most of them? All of them? If I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet against any of this, including all of it.
The new bumper sticker - Support the Republicans, vote for Obama.
Change the name from "Faith Based" to "Community Outreach" - eliminate all references to "religion" and allow NO discrimination whatsoever so long as federal $ are concerned. Get it down to that and I'll support Church involvement in feeding the poor, homeless, etc. with federal help -- but I don't personally believe they can do that, i.e., eliminate religious discrimination.
If the John Birch Society wants to open a bunch of soup kitchens, fine. I seem to recall that the Black Panthers ran community centers in Chicago in the 1960s ( I was mugged just across the street from one).
People need food and a place to sleep as well as emotional support. If the government can't supply it, then someone else needs to take up the slack.
The Faith-Based-Initiative to me always seemed like a rehash of Bush Sr.'s "Thousand Points of Light", except that the pandering to the Christians seemed a bit more overt.
Do atheist programs qualify under FBI? Or is the government in the business of determining what beliefs or lack thereof constitute "faith"?
I fear that Obama may not be the agent for change that the country really needs now.
We are electing a President not a Saviour.
Let's Dump Obama and put in Clinton until she disappoints us, then dump her and put in Edwards until he disappoints or let's put in (insert name here) until they disappoint us.
I hope he is being politically savvy and pandering to their perceived fears when in actuality he will expand faith based crap to Buddists and Jews and any NON Christian faith group. Oh, and possibly restore all the community monies taken from Gay and Lesbian neighborhood programs.
UPDATE: An Obama campaign official told the Huffington Post that the AP's claims about Obama allowing hiring or firing based on faith are false. From a portion of Obama's speech today:
"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."
The Politico, meanwhile, describes Obama's new plan not as an expansion of Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, but as an effort to tear down what Bush created and establish a new program with a new set of goals:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) slammed President Bush's faith-based program as "a photo-op" and a failure on Tuesday, and said he will scrap the office and create a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that would be a "critical" part of his administration.
Obama, unveiling a plan to overhaul and expand Bush's faith-based program during remarks at a community ministry in Zanesville, Ohio, said the White House Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives - which Bush founded during his second week in office - "never fulfilled its promise." [...]
Reaching out to evangelicals who are non-plussed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama declared: "I still believe it's a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership - not a photo-op. That's what it will be when I'm President. I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."
"The new name will reflect a new commitment," he continued. "This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart - it will be a critical part of my administration."
"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea -- so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."
And:
"You see, while these groups are often made up of folks who've come together around a common faith, they're usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they're particularly well-placed to offer help. As I've said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.
"That's why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today -- from saving our planet to ending poverty -- are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.
"I'm not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I'm not saying that they're somehow better at lifting people up. What I'm saying is that we all have to work together -- Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike -- to meet the challenges of the 21st century."
With each passing day, and each move to the right, Obama is becoming a bigger disappointment.
What we spend in "evangelizing" -- out of a completely separate budget -- consists of signs out front listing service times, occasional ads in the neighborhood newspaper around Christmas and Easter, and in the past, occasional ads on a local radio station for the same holidays. Oh, and the cups for the water table we just hosted for the Gay Pride March that runs past our church every June. That's about it. And those activities would continue if and when we can afford them, regardless of what we spend or do on our food pantry.
Maybe all other churches aren't set up this way, but to state that any money given to churches frees up money for evangelizing shows a complete lack of understanding of how church finances work 98% of the time -- and imagines some monolithic financial windfall that just isn't borne out by the truth, except perhaps in some well-publicized exceptions on television or in a megachurch setting. The truth is, often the only people willing to do a lot of this work in most every town IS churches, but they can't do it all on their own so we'll take whatever funds we can get to feed people. And, in the end, people are getting fed. Would we prefer we didn't have the problem of hunger and homelessness in our community? Certainly. We only started it back when government began to fail to take care of people. But to spite the groups doing the work because they're religiously inclined shows a complete disregard for the actual people who need the help. (Not to mention creates a religious test for federal funding, which is definitely unconstitutional.)
This kind of partnership between churches and government has existed throughout New York City's history, at least, and probably everywhere else. (My own church ran the Five Points Day School in the 19th century and set up New York's first daycare for working mothers.) There may be instances where evangelism has been tied to the help provided, but in all my years of involvement with various churches in different denominations, I've never seen it as the norm and I've never seen it succeed, either for the recipients or the church.
If churches want to help people in need, they can do so any way they want. But if a president or candidate wants to force me to donate to a church's program, by handing over my tax dollars, then I have a problem with that. I have no problem with spending fed funds on non-denominational programs.
The only money churches have is from contributions, and like other nonprofits, they (by definition) have zero profit at the end of the year -- unlike individuals or for-profit corporations. What comes in goes out. Without federal funds these churches and these programs would still exist, they just wouldn't be able to serve as many people. Yanking federal funds isn't going to force them to cut out their evangelism activities elsewhere (also entirely volunteer funded and staffed) to support their soup kitchen. They'll still do both, they just won't be as effective at the soup kitchen part of it, because evangelism can be done by word of mouth if necessary, but soup kitchens need soup.
I would love to see a new version of the Civilian Conservation Corps, and more federal money for food stamps and WIC payments, and better public education, etc. I would like us to build a society where problems like hunger and homelessness are only a concept. But they're not, they're very real -- and placing yourself as the enemy of the people working to solve those problems says you're more interested in a particular theory of church-state separation (i.e., total and absolute) than in the actual people who are hungry and homeless.
Which is fine, everyone's got the right -- but I think I've pretty much explained my position, at least.
By the way, I assume you also oppose individuals using their own income for things you adamantly oppose if their tax refunds or Social Security checks give them the opportunity to earmark more money toward those activities than they would otherwise? It's an equivalent argument you're making about supposed subsidies for evangelism or proselytizing.
I'm also a Christian, but hardly one who approves of the fundamental, evangelical version. My Christianity is of an eccumenical sort that feels that every religion is the attempt of that group or society to deal with their ultimate questions, the meaning of life and death, right and wrong, how to live with your neighbors, etc. I grew up in Christianity and therefore it is what I know and it serves me, but I'm not selfish enough to demand that everyone else comply with my perceptions of religion or die. Everyone is entitled to their own understanding of those ultimate questions. Ha! Even within a single religion there are life and death disputes so I would not try to favor any one religion as the one and only religion.
Obama is getting to be more and more of a disappointment. I recall that he was a community organizer in Chicago and he had to be very liberal and caring to be involved in that type of work. To suspect he is now right wing or moving that direction is a massive shift of priorities from other people to a completely selfish point of view. Sigh! I hope (and pray) the community organizer identity is the real Obama.
Today, my donations to the Obama campaign cease and my vote for him is very doubtful.
I just did 2 new videos on my youtube channel - am so frustrated I even did one without the clown face. SparklestheClown. Thanks for listening. aka Gammy Sparkles aka Jeany in Colorado
I am not asking for help from anyone, we are not martyrs or asking for anything for what we are trying to do. Simply 10 people trying to reach out, something I am sure lots of others do everyday around the country. Singling out faith based as a criteria is wrong. if He wants to expand helping to groups who legitimately want to provide it fine. There needs to be oversight. The government can't provide oversight on its own spending on the war forget trying to determine where money to these churches will go and how it will be used to further that particular churches goals which aren't always involved in helping. Like the missionaries who went to 3rd world countries it was also about signing up more converts. The operation of the government is not to expand religious influence we have enough of that on tv every day of the week. He is wrong and will pay a price for his pandering.
Churches and faith groups already do a lot of "heavy lifting" in helping those in need. Mainstream denominations, in my experience, do NOT proselytize to those receiving aid. Faith-based communities are CALLED to serve the poor, and at my church, we all are volunteers. At our church, and others in town, members of those churches are fully funding their programs. In other words, we pay taxes for government programs AND give the church money for our programs.
My church has a food bank, serves lunches to the hungry, helps run a homeless shelter, houses a Head Start program (for which we only receive utility reimbursement, not rent), and has also housed the homeless (since the shelter is full) during bitter cold nights. There are no questions asked for those who are receiving services, they are simply welcomed in and respected as human beings.
With non-profits struggling and shutting down, those who are willing to step up could use some financial help. We could do so much more to alleviate the suffering of those in need if we only had more money available, as we certainly have the energy to put into it. There are still hungry folks out there, and not enough room at the shelter... people live in their cars and in the woods. And a majority of them have jobs. It's reprehensible that someone that is working can't afford a place to live... but I digress.
If any organization receiving money is found to be proselytizing, they should have their monies recinded. As far as hiring for non-taxpayer money positions, that's up to the church and its members, not the government, since members fund those positions.
And we do it because we are called by our faith to serve our neighbors. I know there are groups out there who do not have those motives, but please don't slam all faith groups because of it.
Hannah
"Federal dollars flowing to religious organizations is in violation of separation of church and state. Please don't attempt to rationalize how it is not."
I think you have that backwards, smart guy. If you refuse to fund a community program simply because it is run by religiously inclined people, you've created a religious test in government. And THAT's unconstitutional. Separation of church and state means the state is supposed to be a-religious, not anti-religious. If these are the people doing the work that needs to be done, then the government must ensure that taxpayer dollars are only going to fund the work, not the religious activities. Just as they would need to make sure that funds given to community organization are used for helping those in need and not for, say, lobbying. If that "frees up" money to be spent on proselytizing, that's the same as saying that any money provided to any group frees up money to be spent elsewhere -- including advertising. Your double standard is pretty clear.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." See that smarty pants, it says establishmen of religion - religion at all. Congress shall make no law related whatsoever to religion. Making law has clearly been interpreted by the Courts to mean administrative rule or other government directive. The Court's have also interpreted this clause to prohibit execisive entanglement between government and religion. The fact that the President is even talking about channeling money to "faith based organizations" is completely contrary to that notion. Read the Constitution, not ONCE in the entire document did the founders place the word god, or religion or faith or anything similar EXCEPT in the provision that says Congress can make NO LAW respecting AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. They clearly knew how to pepper the document with references to god or religion or faith had they wanted to, but they choose not to.
Besides, why do faith based groups even want these funds? doesn't that defeat the notion of charity? What would Jesus do? Stand with his hand out to the Romans?
Far too many of these "faith based funding" sponsored groups are all too eager to fire or bash anyone NOT straight. This cynical Bush created move plays into their hands beautifully to garner votes from the Jesus freaks.
The very fact that Obama is even talking about this is pissing us faggots off. At least the faggots paying any attention to politics. I may start sending Ralph Nader money. As much as I loathe what he's done. I feel like I want to punish both parties again. Maybe I am so pissed I want to see nothing short of full revolution in America. Blood in the streets. Yeah...I am fucking really pissed off today.
Thanks to tithing the LDS church has no need of government funds.
If there is an LDS Temple someplace close to were you live, go there in a disaster, there is food and watter stores there and soon there will be people who can help. You will not be proselytized, and we will even help if you are gay...
I am starting to really think that McCain will be elected in November because Obama is not perfect he is after all a politician just like McCain and Nader. I did not really like Kerry in 2004 but I knew that he was better than Bush, just like I know that Obama is better than McCain.
If McCain is elected the Democrats will whine and moan about a third Bush term but when they had a chance to do something about it they chose to look the other way because Obama wasn't their dream come true, he did not walk on Democratic water.
HA!
Thats a good one.
what would be stupid for Obama to do would be to continue the divisive, hate-filled, wedge-issue rovian tactics we're all sick of. just because that's all we've had, doesn't mean that's all there is. It would be equally stupid to say let's all embrace fundamentalist christofascism and bludgeon people with it....and he's not saying that. give him some time.
According to David Kuo, Clinton actually gave more to faith-based initiatives than Bush ever did.
Bush just paid it much more lip service to get backing on the Fundie Right.
Plus, Bush put the money on useless programs like abstinence training or whatever the hell it's called.
Substantiating that claim proved difficult, Kuo says. “Finding these examples became a huge priority.… If President Bush was making the world a better place for faith-based groups, we had to show it was really a bad place to begin with. But, in fact, it wasn’t that bad at all.”
In fact, when Bush asks Kuo how much money was being spent on “compassion” social programs, Kuo claims he discovered the amount was $20 million a year less than during the Clinton Administration.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/
Ralph Nader is looking good again. How curiously curious.
But do you throw out the whole thing because of some bad apples?
All I know is if there weren't churches in my city, there wouldn't be near enough homeless shelters and food kitchens,
Exactly. Well said.
I am doing a write in for Ron Paul.
Churches who do not proselytize while helping those in need do not discriminate against anyone. No matter your race, sexual orientation, religious background, gender, etc. We believe we're all children of God, loved by Him. You don't have to believe that to receive help and we won't hit you over the head with our beliefs. Just accept the gifts we give.
In other news:
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.
"In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.""
Does that help?
I'm truly sorry if you've had this experience. You would be more than welcome at my church just as you are, a child of God. I have many friends who are gay, in fact, one of the former pastors of my church is a lesbian. I know there are plenty of well-meaning (I guess?) people out there who try to "convert" gays and lesbians, but they are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Anyway, my church spends every last dime we collect to pay our wonderful (underpaid) staff, keep up the building & utilities, AND for outreach to our community. No questions asked. If someone is in need, we do our best to help. If we had extra funding, we would expand our outreach. No questions asked, no litmus tests to the receivers.
Hannah
I didn't realize I was getting responses in my inbox.
Anyway, my greater church body (Lutheran) IS considered mainstream. There are liberal and more conservative (the good kind, not wingnuts) and those in the middle who attend my particular church, but we all believe in serving. We are participants with other mainstream churches in my area: Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian in ministry to the poor, to the unemployed, to children, and so on. I certainly understand your point, but I really don't care what any of those other denominations think: they are not God. Following the call of Jesus Christ is what is most important.
Thanks for your reply,
Hannah
THROW THE FAGS UNDER THE BUS AND WIN WIN WIN
WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN
THROW THE FAGS UNDER THE BUS AND WIN WIN WIN
ALL THROUGH THE TOWNS.
Looks like all the lambs are being led to slaughter. So this is the new "politics?"
There is a friend of mine who was close to the Clinton White House via Bob Hattoy, and he is talking about an effort to resurect Mrs. Clintons campaign at the convention, if Sen.. Obamas rightward swing continues....at this point I am nutral on that, but could swing in that direction if Sen. Obama does not halt his rightward slide
My personal preference would be that no public money go to religious organizations of any kind. But, not only did that boat leave the dock eons ago, I also realize that religious-affiliated service organizations do play an important role, and the professional ones (the only ones deserving of any public funding) are capable of delivering services in an unbiased, non-religious way (unlike the types of organizations that Bush wanted to see funded.) There's no money for "cure the gays" wingnut religionists in Obama's plans. That was Bush. If you don't get that, you're guilty of facile, wingnut thinking, and I can't think of any more of an insult than that.
For those concerned with the current “faith-based” topic, do yourselves a favor and stop bleating like wingnuts and read a little piece on Salon by Alex Koppelman.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/...
He worked at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, so I’d say that he brings a shred of credibility to the subject, not to mention rationality. My two favorite lines:
“Thankfully, this AP feed was wrong, it’s being corrected, and Barack Obama has not completely lost his mind. I obtained a copy of the speech Obama is going to deliver today, and he specifically outlines a faith-based agenda that in no way resembles Bush’s approach. In fact, it’s largely the opposite.”
“By all appearances, Obama’s vision is consistent with what Bush’s plan would have been, if Bush cared about constitutional law, the interests of taxpayers, the rights of families in need and the integrity of religious institutions.”
Do you prefer a slow and continuing slide to our doom with just enough good from government to keep us complacent, or would you like our doom to come hard and fast and enraging enough that citizens finally rise up and fight?
Because these appears to be our choices.
Your false premise is that we are simply going to sit back and accept deficiencies in an Obama administration, and that will somehow be some kind of slow slide to doom, as if we're not going to experience more setbacks with McCain. Well I suppose it might be true if you just sit on your ass and moan about his positions not agreeing with yours. I have a little more faith in actual political engagement and activism, rather than keyboard bleating, and the effect that organizing can and will have when Obama is in the White House. Please don't give me the even more ludicrous, pie-in-the-sky, sanctimonious bullshit about "finally rising up and fighting" when the sky falls, which is a crock of shit.
Yes, it is proven that today's Americans will not revolt until they feel the pain personally. That pain is already being felt and much more of it is to come with McC as president. Cold and hungry and homeless people are much more likely to rise in revolt than are those doing well enough to continue fairly normal lives.
You make one salient point, about a complacent citizenry no matter the provocations, yet somehow think we will suddenly become engaged activists under a president Obama.
Do you see the conflict in your comment?
However, everybody else on this blog shouldn't be fooled: Obama is a liberal. His mother was a hippie and he has been liberal his entire political life. I doubt he is even religious, he just became one later in his life for political expediency.
There is no doubt in my mind that he is a liberal, and a few policy changes in the past couple of months is not going to change my mind about that.
America hasn't had a liberal president since LBJ. Obama just needs to do what he has to do to get into the White House because this country is right of center whether we want to believe it or not.
Plus this:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquest...
and the rest
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquest...
We've been had . . . . .
I am his base, I am one who believes in him. But as a gay person, I cannot sit by and watch my tax dollars continue to go to institutions that would sooner see me fry in hell.
When you lose my enthusiasm, you are really losing it....cuz I am a big supporter. And I am now saddened by this. :-(
I had planned on volunteering to get voter registration up, and now I am staying home.
First FISA, and now this?
This is NOT the center, this is to the right, and sadly it will tarnish his brand.
In 1992, Clinton had to move to the right because it was a conservative era. The failure of the extreme right's policies, almost across the board, has society moving to the left, en mass.
There's no reason to move to the right to get votes. Society is moving to the left.
I can understand some pandering to those outside your perspective - all presidents should want to be president to all the people, and so should show some respect, if not sympathy, to ideas that they oppose. But that's not going on here. Obama is moving to the right when it is totally uncalled for.
The population is ready to move to the left. All he has to do is sell it well. By moving to the right he's lost his capacity to look acceptable to anyone.
I share John Aravosis's fears and concerns about such programs. I am agnostic and would prefer my tax dollars be used to set up to government-organized programs with religious-neutral social workers and bureaucrats serving the poor. However, I doubt there is anything inherently better about one way of delivering services over another, so long as the service providers are responsible and considerate of the people being served. Many years ago I participated briefly in my Methodist church's program which received some federal government distributions of surplus food and supplies.
Remember, Barack Obama himself was once a community organizer based from a church on the south side of Chicago. I think he knows wherefore he speaks. Any program he would direct you could count on being politically neutral and efficiently and considerately serving the people intended in a humane way.
these joints are raking in the dough and i bet their accounting practices would make Enron look honest...