By SN
Saturday June 7, 2008
 |
Huffington Post – June 6, 2008 via beliefnet.com:
In a new interview with Dan Gilgoff for BeliefNet’s God-o-Meter, DeMoss explains the lack of religious enthusiasm for McCain and predicts a potential major shift to Obama.
|
This is one guy’s perspective, but I am surprised by how little I’ve seen or read in conservative circles about McCain since February. I don’t think I’ve gotten one email or letter or phone call from anybody in America in the last four months saying anything about this election or urging that we unite behind John McCain and put aside whatever differences we have. Back in the fall and winter, you’d get several things a day from conservatives saying, “The future of the Supreme Court is at stake. We have to stop Hillary Clinton. Get behind so and so–or don’t’ go with this guy.” It’s just very quiet.
If one third of white evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton the second time, at the height of Monica Lewinsky mess–that’s a statistic I didn’t believe at first but I double and triple checked it–I would not be surprised if that many or more voted for Barack Obama in this election. You’re seeing some movement among evangelicals as the term [evangelical] has become more pejorative. There’s a reaction among some evangelicals to swing out to the left in an effort to prove that evangelicals are really not that right wing. There’s some concern that maybe Republicans haven’t done that well. And there’s this fascination with Barack Obama. So I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 40-percent.
In the comments, Jägermeister mentioned this graph and article supporting the same conclusion, Evangelical Christians love Obama!:
This rhetorical question needs to be asked: If Right leaning evangelicals love Obama and hate Hillary, how does this affect her chances to be VP?
|
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Could the social gospel movement of the Canadian prairies be moving south? Probably not, but that sure would be nice.
If Obama is able to get any substantial votes from the right wingdings, he surely has magical powers.
Personally, I prefer the wingdings stay clear from Obama and die.
Something similar has already begun on environmental issues. Bible-thumpers may be dense and accustomed to living their lives by rote; but, you know, a bit of self-preservation has to seep through the propaganda from the nutball Right.
Plus, they finally, just finally, may be starting to resent being “owned” by the most cynical crew of liars and hypocrites since Goebbels & Co.
Wow, the author really doesn’t understand the bible belt. Jeremiah Wright squashed ANY chance of Obama picking up more than 10% of the vote with evangelicals.
#4, Angus. Amen, brother!
Considering that this is coming from the Huffington Post, I’m afraid it’s just wishful thinking.
I hope I’m wrong.
Actually, the interview was from beliefnet.com, I’ve changed the post to clarify that.
So, what issues interest the religo-wingnuts?
Abortion==McCain against, Obama for.
Prayer everywhere 24/7==if McCains not there now, he will flip-flop for it. Obama, against.
Gay Marriage==McCain against, Obama, don’t know.
But Clinton was much the same as Obama and he got 30%==so why not? Being called “intolerant” will really piss an intolerant person off. Truth hurts.
OK, I’m an Evangelical, and I’m DEFINITELY voting for Obama. I’m thrilled he beat Hillary, as the choice between her and McCain would have been fraught with difficulties for me.
By the way, I don’t think I’m a right-wing religious wingnut, or whatever else some of you have been calling it. There’s an awful lot of condescension in some of the posts above.
Thats all Obama needs, a group of white southern fanatics that think liberals, leftists and the media were responsible for 9/11.
#9–Welcome Kim==what are your opinions on the items at #8?
The republican scheme is to LET the dems win this election. Then we have a full blown recession/ depression that gets laid a the feet of the dems. (That’s how our simpleton electorate’s logic works.) Then the republicans are reelected for the final faze of the neocon world dynasty. woopee! (picture Slim Pickens riding a nuke)
#9 – kim Helliwell
You might want to avoid posting your email address in the “Website” field (unless you like spam). (Editor: You might want to remove it for her. :))
Okay, a couple of months old, but look at the graph. The survey (even though it was conducted online) gives you an indication that Obama might have the support the guy in the article claims.
#9
“By the way, I don’t think I’m a right-wing religious wingnut, or whatever else some of you have been calling it. There’s an awful lot of condescension in some of the posts above.”
Religious (or social) conservatives have been a key constituency of the Republican party since Nixon’s time and reached saturation in 90’s. It’ll be interesting to see if this group (which includes you) takes control of it’s own destiny or passively lets another political movement control them. I’m not religious person (oh really?) but I have to wonder if you’ve been well served by this amalgamation of church and state?
#15–QB==How can a self-described evangelical EVER be served by any political party?
I assume they tend to be values voters with a small number of issues as I Posted at #8.
If thats true, the Repubs promise these values but don’t/can’t deliver while the Dems promise NOT to deliver.
When an evangelical decides to go Dem/Obama they have to give up voting their core values and instead for on other social policies. Few seem willing to do this.
Have I got anything wrong?
There’s no need at this point to push the argument for Supreme Court selection. The continuing body blows that Obama has been taking from his own party is doing a great job in softening him up.
He will be mince meat when the general election ramps up without a mention of the Supreme Court.
Bobbo,
I understand your point, but I feel that the Republican managed to “control” the religious vote by focusing on a narrow bunch of items. You are correct that an evangelical voter (or any other religious group) is well served by one political party or the other.
The point I’m hoping to make (obviously I didn’t make it very well) is whether religious folks and their organizations will go back to “being religious” and take control of their destiny. Or will they continue to be the pawns of one or the other political movement.
An example of this was Karl Rove putting “gay marriage” on the ballot in key swing states during the 2004 election. This was direct manipulation of evangelicals (and Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, mainstream Protestants, etc) and it worked.
I think Jesus attacking the money lenders in the temple and the US founding fathers separating Church and State were both on the same track. And I think the evangelical movement in particular will have to do some deep soul searching to see if they’ve lost their religious freedoms through obvious and emotional political coercion.
Oops, didn’t proof read before submitting. Me bad.
You are correct that an evangelical voter (or any other religious group) is NOT well served by one political party or the other.
#19–QB==I think we are stumbling towards the larger truth here. NO MINORITY interest other than BIG MONEY is well served by the political parties.
And I think you are intimating what the evangelicals should really understand they will never have their religious interests served because of the Courts and because with all the different religious groups, each remains a minority with no political power==they can only get used.
Rove really is a genius if he can figure out how to pimp the evangelicals like that. Masterstroke. It would be like the Dem’s getting the draft reinstated. How well would McCain do then?
Remember, 30% of Evanglicals voted for Gore and 21% voted for Kerry. I don’t know the absolute numbers but that’s millions of votes.
http://tinyurl.com/5h7ebe
So, it’s nothing new for evangelical Christians to vote liberal.
I’d count myself among that group and have always been bothered that BOTH Democrats and Republicans rarely acknowledge that the millions of us liberal-voting evangelicals exist.
#21 – gregallen
Very interesting table, especially the relationship between going to church and voting on the Republicans.
#21–gregallen==how would the proper recognition take place?
What could/shoul the repugs do to recognize a group that don’t vote for them?
What could/should the dems do to recognize a group that is a minority and is voting on issues not supported by the majority of their label?
#11 bobbo:
I’ll take a crack at those (and you might be surprised):
Abortion: as a Christian I am and have always been troubled by the “abortion on demand” and abortion used as a birth control method. Both of these seem to be anti-life positions. On the other hand, there are medical and other reasons why abortion may be necessary, and I hate it that the government is intruding into what should be a private decision between a woman and her doctor. Similarly, the government involvement in the Terry Schiavo case was, plain and simple, meddling, the opinions of certain prominent Evangelicals notwithstanding.
Prayer “everywhere” (whatever that means): I assume it’s aimed at prayer in schools. I am totally against government mandated prayer in schools. I am for allowing students and teachers to pray in schools, though preferably not ostentatiously (cf Matthew 6:16, for example)
Gay Marriage: I am against calling it marriage, which I really think is a term that refers to a union of a man and a woman. But I don’t hate gays either singly or as a whole, and don’t think rights should be denied any group because of membership in that group, and I definitely extend that courtesy to gays as a group. I’m not sure why gays seek the right to be called “married”, but I am sure someone will instruct me why this is important. Don’t expect to change my mind, though.
#15: I’ve been a Republican most of my life, but I’m pretty much burned out on the Republican Party and tried (but failed so far) to re-register as a Democrat (I’ll be trying again, though; the failure was my fault). But I’ve never been comfortable with the alliance between (some) Evangelicals and the Republican Party, and I think the handwriting is on the wall for said alliance. Someone above said it correctly: the Republican Party used its Evangelical allies to gain political power and now appears bent on using that power for their own ends. It’s time to put the kibosh on that while we still can (and assuming we still can). Electing Obama might help; at least I like a lot of what he stands for, having read both of his books.
There are Evangelicals of all political persuasions (except perhaps Communism!). But I know of many Evangelicals who are Democrats, and I’m sure that many are libertarians or independents. When we meet at our Churches, we don’t normally talk about politics! I think the conservative Evangelical Bloc that got in bed with the Republicans made a serious mistake, the consequences of which are still playing out and will continue to play out for some time.
#15: Thanks for pointing that out. It was not intentional; my silly browser filled that in for me and I didn’t notice before posting. Probably little harm done, as I suppose every spammer in the world has that address several times over already; it’s kind of my throw-away address. If it can be hidden by the moderator, great.
Oh, and by the way, the name is Kim, but I am a man. There are a few of us male Kims running around…
Kim,
I have two aunts who are nuns and define themselves as Christians by their care for the sick and poor. I give money to a inner city church who spends their money on caring for the homeless – I have never once heard them talk about any of the above political issues.
I think it’s sad that a Christian like you must define themselves in narrow terms around abortion, prayer in schools, and gay marriage. It seems like a loss of religious freedom to me.
#25–QB–I think you got Kim all wrong. At #24==Kim affirms his conservatives values on those points BUT is liberal because other issues not discussed are even more important.
I similarly hold all my values quite strongly==but I don’t support making my values the LAW that everyone else must follow==I just encourage them to adopt my values on a moral basis.
Makes sense to me.
Kim–is it your position that Abortion is wrong but the government should not make it illegal or Abortion is wrong, should be illegal, but there are more important issues?
Religionists have been duped into voting against their own interest for years because of gay marriage and abortion.
They vote for tax cuts for the rich even though they are not rich. They vote for corporate agendas, against the environment, against a modern health insurance system, against science, for using the DOJ as a political machine, for misleading into war, police state like spying, torture, etc.
We get all this and more, just to keep the gays from getting married.
That’s fucked up.
The people who vote for McSame are the same people who only get their news from FOX or talk radio. They have no idea what is really going on, but they are mad as hell.
I can see them dropping McCain, but going to a secularist like Obama?
#28, Lyin’ Mike,
I can see them dropping McCain, but going to a secularist like Obama?
Yaa !!! 8) Sure makes them look smarter than you.
>>Religionists have been duped into voting
>>against their own interest for years because
>>of gay marriage and abortion.
Hey! Knock it off, Jules.
If you consider people of faith to be “religionists”, then I am one. Card-carrying. And I NEVER vote for those motherfuckers who seek to ban gay marriage or restrict reproductive rights.