Howard Dean was too "electorally secular"

[Kolesar]

Some politicians are very natural dropping "God bless" into their speeches, whether scripted or off the cuff. Northern folks like Howard Dean just don't do that stuff. In conversation, it is considered quaint at best. However, voters in some of the states necessary to get a winning electoral combination think that someone who is naturally in tune with God is needed. The Democrats have only been able to win that way going back to JC (Jimmy Carter).

This truly pissed me off when I heard a political writer say this early in the primary season, but now I think it is true. John Kerry managed to drop God into his speeches, and only made me cringe a little bit. Of course, Kerry did not sound natural in his speeches until the very end.

This really bums me out because what I loved about Howard Dean was that he railed against the far right-wing and we all knew what he was talking about. He had nothing but disdain for the anti-choice crowd and the shameless politicians that led them. I thought that he could win by placing himself into the center of the electorate and not lose much by ignoring the pro-lifers.

[a new day]

1. Reagan wasn't a bible thumper, Bush 41 either

It isn't the Bible verses, it's Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, the 700 Club.

No Democrat is going to get them.

[RogueTrooper]

3. No, but Regean could play one

and 41 got his son to do the leg work with the god botherers.

[a new day]

7. And Ronnie could consult Nancy’s astrologer and practice numerology, too

It wasn't Reagan's personal belief that endeared him to Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and Le Hay, but his willingness to appoint Christian conservatives to governmental posts. An example is Donald P. Hodel, who was a cabinet secretary from 1982 until Reagan left office, first at Energy then the Interior Department. After leaving government service, Hodel was the head of the Christian Coalition, and now Focus on the Family. Hodel (and his wife, Barbara,) are clearly believers in The Rapture, so it is little wonder that his tenure was a bonanza for oil, timber and mining companies eager to extract the maximum from public lands. What's the difference, Hodel isn't long for this earthly coil, at least he hopes not.

So, Reagan represented the camel's nose into the tent of government, and Shrub the answer to their prayers, in full, but whose prayers?

59% of Americans think it is important or very important to maintain a separation of church and state, and 75% of Americans disapprove of religious leaders endorsing candidates from their pulpit or in any official capacity on behalf of their houses of worship.

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/Election2004/Election2004List.cfm?c=99

It is clear that, if Godliness is decisive at all, it is because certain constituencies will vote as their leaders tell them to. But these people are very much in the minority.

I think it is a mistake to assume that a little God talk will get these people to vote with you. It is hard for me to believe that religion is more central W's belief system than it is to Bill Clinton. In fact, knowing how Clinton investigates everything, I think it safe to say he is a much more comprehensively knowledgeable Christian than Bush. That aside, most Americans accept them as sufficiently God fearing to become President.

But, the deal all three of the past GOP presidents have with the leaders of the Christian right isn't their personal beliefs, but their willingness to appoint believers and practitioners of a particular stripe at all levels of government.

In addition, those voters who will vote as Dobson, Bob Jones et al tell them to practice a very skewed version of Christianity, even for born again evangelicals. A version that is much more informed by the laws of the Old Testament than it is by the Gospel of Matthew.

So, it is very strange to me that the criticism of Howard Dean's foray into God talk was dismissed because he mistakenly spoke of Job as a book of the New Testament.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36540

I don't think the discussion that has to occur starts with a presidential candidate. It starts by calling into question these extremely powerful corporations that enjoy tax breaks for their supposed good works, when their real focus is the entrenchment of a set of beliefs and "values" that are repugnant to me and millions of other people.

[madfloridian]

2. That says a lot about our country.

And what we have become.

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. Here it is, from a Catholic...Nothing angers me more. It's petty pandering

plain and simple. My faith has no business in my government and vice versa. I always tell my "friends" who are super religious and delighted over this, "Remember, it may not be 'your' church they're talking about." I cannot wait to see the looks on the faces of all the Catholic Bush backers when they get kicked back to the handbaskets like the rest of us. :hi:

[Philostopher]

5. I genuinely wish they'd let any pol say, without challenge,

"I feel faith is a private thing, so I'm not going to talk about it."

I know, it's not going to happen any time soon, but still. The problem is, liberals/progressives genuinely believe faith is a private thing, and to be expected or pressured to discuss it in a very public way makes them uneasy. Sadly, that shows. It's not necessarily an issue, for them, and I think it shows a creeping sickness in the culture that so many people consider it a bellwether of a politician's ability to run the country. Bush is the greatest example we've ever had that it gives you no indication at all of someone's competence to run the country.

My dad -- who was Christian -- said there were several people he'd almost rather know weren't Christian:

His surgeon, his cabbie and his president.

Because he'd feel better if the guy who was cutting him open, driving him in a strange city or running his country actually believed the life he was living was the only one he was ever going to have.

But my dad was pretty much the living example of a liberal who also had Christian beliefs -- he might have believed in a higher power, but he also was pragmatic.

[Kolesar]

6. NJ Sen Bill Bradley said just that during the 2000 Dem primaries

That was in response to a reporter's question. It endeared me to him, but I voted for Al Gore.

[Philostopher]

9. Me, too, though I live in a state that decides nothing in the primaries.

Which was why I didn't even get to vote for the guy I was cheering for early on, he'd already bailed out by then. I liked Bradley, but it was obvious Gore would get the nod -- because he'd already been in DC for eight years, I don't really think anybody seriously thought anyone else would get the nomination.

And Al Gore's talk about religion was heartfelt and honest, he never sounded like anybody was holding a knife to his throat when he talked about it. I have no problem with that, really -- if they mean it, and it doesn't make them sound like they're being beseiged, it works okay most of the time. Worked out great for Carter the first time out, and I had a lot of respect for him -- and have even more now than I did then, because unlike most Repugs, he put his money where his mouth had been for four years and actually did something good for people once he was no longer in the White House.

I just don't see Poppy and Bar and Dub and Jenna and notJenna and Nancy Reagan going into inner city Atlanta and building houses for poor people, do you?

[janx]

8. When will the "leader" Dems stop playing on right-wing turf?

All of this talk about "values" and having to have a politician from "the South" is simply capitulation to the right-wingers.

When will the D.C. Dems learn? Are they really that insulated?