As I typed the title, I reflected on several posts here months ago focusing on Hillary Clinton. I wondered who pro-life voters should prefer: Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton. Seems silly now, eh?
Lots of Dems preferred Hillary over Barack but not enough. However, on social issues, Obama is not much different than Hillary. And so, given that Evangelicals are overwhelmingly pro-life, it seems incredible that they could move toward Obama. However, Obama is reaching out to Evangelicals, suggesting a meeting with Focus on the Family. Today, the FOTF daily broadcast devotes some time to criticize Obama’s use of the Bible in his speeches.
Apparently, Dobson and company believe Evangelicals could be persuaded by Obama’s references to the Bible and believes some attention is needed to keep them from jumping on the Obandwagon. While sticking up for a traditional exegesis of the Bible seems reasonable for a Christian radio show, this is moving into political waters — which as the AP article points out is permitted in this case. However, if pro-life, Evangelical leaders want to really impact things, my advice would be build public bridges to McCain. Don’t wait for McCain to do it on your terms, just do it. Having trouble with the idea? Just think about Obama’s support for the Freedom of Choice Act and the Supreme Court appointments a President Obama might select.
19 thoughts on “Could Obama win over Evangelicals?”
Comments are closed.
We need better communications with the “Conservatives” This transcends our “Maverick” candidate. It is a direct attack on Christian values!
Obama told the AME Church in St Louis on July 5th he became a Christian decades ago while working as a Community Organizer in Chicago! His Mentor Wrights mentor was James H CONE……..A Ordained Minister of the AME Church !
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
is a memoir by current United States Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. It was first published in 1995 after Obama was elected the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, but before his political career began. The book was re-released in 2004 following Senator Obama’s widely admired keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (DNC); the 2004 edition includes a new introduction by Senator Obama as well as his DNC keynote address.
Below are some quotes for your review:
“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”
“I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”
“There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.”
“It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names .”
“I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela.”
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
is the second book written by US Senator Barack Obama. It was the number three bestseller on The New York Times nonfiction list as of October 2006. The book represents Obama’s personal manifesto for his 2008 campaign for the presidency.
A quote for your review.
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
James H. Cone
Aspects of Cone’s theology and words have been the subject of controversy in the political context of the 2008 Presidential campaign, as Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright noted that he had been inspired by Cone’s theology. Some scholars of black theology have noted that the controversial quotes do not necessarily represent black theology as it is currently practiced or the views of people like Wright who practice it. Cone has responded to the controversy by noting that he was generally writing about white churches that did nothing to oppose slavery and segregation and not about white people as individuals.
Hoover Institute fellow Stanley Kurtz, in a political commentary in National Review, wrote that “Cone defines it as “complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary.” For Cone, the deeply racist structure of American society leaves blacks with no alternative but radical transformation or social withdrawal. So-called Christianity, as commonly practiced in the United States, is actually the racist Antichrist. “Theologically,” Cone affirms, “Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.'” The false Christianity of the white-devil oppressor must be replaced by an authentic Christianity fully identified with the poor and oppressed.”
Mary wrote:
=)))
Good one.
Mary
With government spending goin’ increasingly nuts every year we might be headed that way sooner or later. 😎
I’m bending more towards anarchy, everyday.
Generally speaking the federal government should have no right to legislate morality. Sadly the feds involve themselves in that and a lot of other things.
The states… now that is a different story. I like the idea of trying 50 different ideas. Freedom and innovation keeps a system strong.
Nor, dare I say, does the Republican Party belong to christianity!
It’s not small government. It’s the high-horse “morality” of the religious right that sickens me. Christianity does not belong to the Republican Party.
Michael Bussee
I have always despised the connection between evangelical theology and right-wing Republican politics. Let’s keep the first and dump the second.
As a believer in small govt. I don’t plan on dumping Republican politics anytime soon. Then again the GOP didn’t exactly practice small government when it controlled the House, Senate and Presidency for 6 years. So I say dump em’ all.
I have always despised the connection between evangelical theology and right-wing Republican politics. Let’s keep the first and dump the second.
Pro- choice issue. Though I am pro-choice and disagree the idea of abortion – Obama voted for partial birth abortion – which I cannot imagine. He doesn’t win my vote because of this issue.
Jayhuck
I mean an Obama/Clark ticket would be formidable for McCain to beat. I don’t mean tough as in bad.
Personally I hope Obama picks Rev Wright as his VP choice. 😎 I would sleep a little easier, hehe.
John – I think there is a good possibility you are correct in your analysis regarding the emergent church and Evangelicals.
I see some of the anti-gay sentiment waning but I do not see the pro-life sentiment doing so. I think what might keep Evangelicals with McCain is the pro-life issue.
James Dobson is the last of the old guard who still retains any substantive power. That being said, the old guard is dying off, and younger evangelicals are increasingly more liberal and more prone to support emergent-church type theology. I don’t even know that that’s the wisest move on their part (I may be an agnostic, but I’d like to see evangelicalism survive. Emergent theology will tear out whatever is original in evangelical theology). But the more the evangelical church associates itself solely with an anti-gay agenda, the more irrelevant it will make itself to younger evangelicals. Just my two cents.
John
Warren,
Apparently, Dobson and company believe Evangelicals could be persuaded by Obama’s references to the Bible and believes some attention is needed to keep them from jumping on the Obandwagon.
Is this the same Dobson that has been criticized by many researchers this year for co-opting and distorting their research? Does James Dobson still maintain credibility – even in the Evangelical world? If so, How and Why?
Ann Coulter could have a good point. Take a break for four years, re-group, and re-focus on 2012.
LOL – it MIGHT be a good point except that 3 years ago Ann Coulter wrote an article raging against liberals, saying how the war of ideas was OVER – and that Republicans had won. Wrong again Ann 🙂
“I pray Obama doesn’t have the brains to pick Gen. Wesley Clark as his VP choice. That would be a tough ticket.”
Please Drowssap – at least state that this would be a tough ticket for YOU – not necessarily for the rest of us or even for most of Americans – don’t assume most people are ready to follow your lead 🙂
I’m writing in my vote.
Obama doesn’t need to get 100% of the Evangelical vote to stir up trouble. If he manages to gobble up say 25% it might be game over for McCain. If what’s left of the GOP base splinters…. ughhh…
Right now the landscape looks pretty bad. Then again I was getting ready for President Hillary just 6 months ago.
Side Note:
I pray Obama doesn’t have the brains to pick Gen. Wesley Clark as his VP choice. That would be a tough ticket.
Sadly, Dobson and the old guard of the Religious Right are still trying to argue that controlling women’s bodies, stopping gay civil rights, and cutting taxes are the only issues Christian voters should be concerned about.
And yet, after seven years of a “pro-life”, anti-gay president and fours years of a supportive congress, and now a cooperative Supreme Court, the Religious Right has had relatively few victories to show for itself. Bush Jr. failed to fund his faith-based initiatives, the anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion amendments went no where, Israel is even less safe, the environmental crisis is an undeniable reality with even Pat Robertson and Newt Gingrich jumping on the global warming ad campaigns, abstinence only education has been less than effective, irresponsible deficit spending is up, etc. etc.
Understandably, McCain’s proposed third Bush term with even less padering to the Religious Right would seem to be even less attractive. Less than sane Ann Coulter could have a good point. Take a break for four years, re-group, and re-focus on 2012. After all, it could even be argued that the Religious Right had more success in the Clinton 90s with the passage of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DOMA, and the always reliable anti-Clinton fundraisers.