Democrats Play at Being All Religious and Stuff
Abortion advocates try to pretend that "faith" is important to them:
Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all got personal last night during a forum focused on something much less commonly mentioned on the campaign trail: their religious faith.My Comments:
During a wide-ranging discussion, each Democrat took the stage to discuss their views on religion, values and poverty. But the three front-runners for their party's 2008 nomination also fielded questions much more personal in nature about their sins and prayer habits.
Mrs. Clinton, a senator from New York, told the audience of 1,300 that her faith helped her survive her husband's infidelity when he was in the White House.
"I'm not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," the former first lady said.
***
She added that her "extended faith family" acted as "prayer warriors for me."
***
All three candidates were able to highlight their favored domestic policies. Poverty "is the cause of my life," Mr. Edwards said, noting his work to help organize unions and to raise the minimum wage.
Mr. Edwards promised to drive the poverty issue during the 2008 race "so that everyone is required to talk about it, because I think it is the great moral issue of our time."
But outside the debate hall, a protester used chalk to scrawl the words: "Would Jesus live in a 26,000-ft. house?" a reference to the large Edwards family home.
Mrs. Clinton discussed health care as a moral issue and said she wants abortion to be "safe, legal and rare."
"The pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find a common ground, and that is a great failing on all of our parts," she said, offering to work with the religious leaders to bring those groups together.
***
"Finally, a better conversation about faith and values," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, a debate organizer and author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."
***
Mr. Obama announced last week the creation of a group called "People of Faith for Barack" and he will speak at the Hampton University Ministers' Conference in southeastern Virginia this morning. [ED. See "Look Who's Supporting Obama".]
[More]
Gag! Puke! Barf!
This bunch of phonies are just preaching to the hard-leftist choir and aren't fooling anyone. At least not anyone paying attention.
UPDATE (6 June)
Mark Shea also sees through the Democrat charade, but is much better at articulating it than I am:
The reason they have this image problem is because of the bleedin' obvious fact that Christian-hatred is endemic on the Left as even a casual reading of Kos, DU, or a thousand other gung-ho Lefty sites will demonstrate. This weird synthetic piety is about as fake as Dukakis in a tank or Hillary baking cookies. I'd have more respect for them if they just didn't phony it up.
Not that GOP elders are bastions of sincerity. They quite often hold their religious party faithful at arm's length disdain. The difference is, precisely, that the party faithful of the Dems--the energized base--tend to be the God-and Christian-haters and the party elders have no problem with that (Amanda Marcotte anyone?). However, the Dems have to play toward the middle if they want to win, and the middle tends to be Christian. So they have to pretend that the zealous Christian-hating flesh eaters who constitute their base don't exist and they are jes' like folks. GOP elders don't have to pretend that their base is as deeply religious as the rest of middle America. They just have to pretend that they are. Having less to prove in this department, they can afford to just say the Usual Stuff about family values and not have to have weird quasi-show trial conducted by Soledad O'Brien in which they have to make bogus confessions of sin to prove that they speaka the lingo.
Labels: "Religious Left", Culture of Death, Democrats, God and Country, Hypocrites
posted by Pro Ecclesia 8:25 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I wouldn't be so sure it won't work. In this closely divided electorate, peel off a small percentage in the middle, and you have a victory.
The problem, of course, is that they are lying.
No one even believes them. But if Hillary is promising to make abortion "rare", and is running against Giuliani promising to keep it legal, she might pick up a few votes from people who think they have to try to save at least a few babies.
Of course, none of them will do anything to make abortion more safe (not for the mother, certainly not for the baby) nor more rare. But they will move heaven and earth to keep it legal.
I am reminded of Rush Limbaugh's advice to Bill Clinton in 1996 on how to be re-elected with 80% of the vote: simply announce that he was now pro-life, and would bring an end to abortion in his second term.
Those who supported him would know he was lying and continue to support him, and many who were frustrated with Dole's refusal to discuss the issue would be forced to vote their hopes and support him as well.
When Hillary speaks of trying find the common ground between those who want to ban abortion and those who want to keep it legal, she means it stays legal.
Faith truly is important to liberals -- as an obstacle to their bid to run every aspect of our lives.
Unfortunately I think there ARE many who will buy this crap. I work at a Christian non-profit (Protestant except for me and one other Catholic) and I guarantee you that 95% of the staff here would vote Hillary into office in a heartbeat. I've heard it from their own lips.
Poverty is certainly the cause of Edwards's life. It's just that when most people make poverty the cause of their lives, they mean eliminating it. Edwards with his tax hikes means to increase it.
Hillary made it through her husband's infidelity with the help of the thought of being the President & her husband's move to Harlem more than her faith, I think.
Then again, Rudy's faith is almost as fake. If it's Rudy v. Hillary, we can watch a contest of who can produce the fakest religious credentials.
Dale, I agree with you that the Dems' hypocritical religious posturing might work. Election victories really are all about winning those folks in the middle who remain uncommitted until right before Election Day. Emotional, warm-and-fuzzy displays such as the Dems put on recently may not fool long-time pro-life activists and political junkies like us, but they do fool a lot of those people in the middle who are so busy just coping with life that they don't have time or energy to do more, politically, than passively accept the biased b.s. of the "mainstream" media.
Recently, I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper relating the fact that Barack Obama, during his time in the Illinois state senate, had voted in favor of continuing partial-birth abortion. I briefly described that procedure, and stated that anyone who could support such a thing is NOT a very nice person.
I was simply amazed at the feedback I got on this letter. Many very nice, pro-life, born-again Christian friends of mine came up to me for days afterward and were telling me how my letter had opened their eyes and how shocked they were by the information: Until they read my letter, they had been considering voting for Obama because he seemed like "such a nice, family kind of guy"!!!
Folks, we have our work cut out for us, educating people about all the facts that our media, which are rabidly pro-abortion, will never cover. A terrifying proportion of the American population, including even people who consider themselves pro-life, bases its vote on whatever CNN, NBC, et al., feed to them. It's up to US to spread the truth!
Post a Comment
<< Home