onegoodmove

The Obama flyer is for Kentucky. All of the Presidential candidates pander to religion, Barack especially because some people still think or suspect he's a closet muslim.

This is the website that is linked to if you click on the hyperlinked word "flyer".

Are we to read this as an endorsement for McCain?

Adam,

That you need to ask the question is insulting. You've read numerous links where I take McCain to task. You know my stand on that issue. That you continue to find reasons to attack me for anything I post that is anti Obama demonstrates that you're nothing more than an apologist for your candidate. No one gets a free pass on religious pandering here. I find it disgusting that our only choices are those who pander. How about showing a little disgust for the pandering regardless of where it comes from, or does your Obamamania preclude any criticism other than the generic I don't agree with him on everything copout.

I find it disgusting that our only choices are those who pander.

Yes. It is. But they really all do, and they have to, and you can thank bloody Jerry Fallwell for that.

The point, though, is this: why oh why oh WHY must Democrats insist on taking a beautiful gift-horse (this supposedly "unlosable" election) and give it a full oral inspection, insisting on finding things wrong with it? Let me just mention that it would absolutely be the same, if not much worse, if Hillary was the presumptive nominee.

For better or for worse, the Republican party's ability to ignore the usually-abundant flaws in their candidate in favour of unconditional support towards the end of winning the white house is one big reason why they have largely controlled washington for the past 25 years. I'm not saying we should ever ignore a candidate's flaws, but while there truly is a time for sober, ultra-critical analysis of a potential Democratic presidential candidate, this is most certainly not it: continued scruitisation of Obama at this point only serves to divide a party that should be focused on the number one priority, beating McCain.

Well, I think that Obama may have some appeal to christians, as do others. Maybe he needs them to help with his problems with some parts of the country.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4b5e4b8a-4c95-4bee-8801-41be531dfb24

I don't like that the campaign feels they have to do this stuff, but if the news media is correct in telling us that voters keep saying they will not vote for him cause he is a radical muslim, what exactly should he do, leave the race or try to correct it? I personally wish he would get out there and give a similar speech about faith in politics as he did in the past. That I would prefer. I also think he should say something about how americans should not care whatever religion he is.

Norm, I think you should link to the McCain skit on SNL, he did well and it is funny. I need to learn how to link better. can anyone remind me how it is done?

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=252556&dst=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video&__source=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video

Use

link info

Let's see if I'm remembering correctly. For your link:

mccain on snl

Use

link info

then without a space, enter

Let's see if I'm remembering correctly. For your link:

mccain on snl

P. S. sorry if this is a double post

Ugh - yes a double, but my directions became muddled because I didn't see the hyperlink coming when I wrote them.

Start with

Then use > after the quotation marks.

Wow.. Start with

then no space ref="

OK, my profuse apologies. The instructions can't be given well here, before hyperlinking takes over and either tries to link or makes things invisible. Makes me think of "Alvin's Secret Code."

That McCain Video is pretty funny.

I don't think that the flier will hurt Obama more than it will help him. The flier will show that Obama is not a Muslim which is a lie he's had to fight for some time now. Obviously it would be better if he addressed his religious views without obvious pandering. The issue of religious pandering should be brought out into the open and not brushed aside as an unfortunate action of all politicians. Hillary, Obama, and McCain have all pandered to the religious and should all have to be confronted with it.

I find it disgusting that our only choices are those who pander.

Me too. But realistically, since nonbelievers are a disorganized lot who do not generally vote on the basis of disbelief, it could really be no other way. The morons are out there, making sure that candidates are professing their faith.

Fortunately, we have an opportunity even on this front. Obama has made clear that we are a nation of many faiths and a nation of those who have none. John McCain has yet to be backed into a corner with Rod Parsley. McCain is on tape saying that 'He [Parsley] really should be speaking, not me [McCain]'. So, McCain should be made to explain what Parsley means when he says that this country was founded, in large part, to wipe out Islam. Does he mean that the US should launch a holy way against more than a billion people? Does John McCain intend to conduct such a holy war? Obama was criticized for saying 'we should [attack terrorists in] Pakistan, if necessary.' Does John McCain, like Rod Parsley, think we should attack all Muslims in Pakistan as part of our war on Islam? What about Indonesia? Malaysia? If not, why did John McCain accept Rod Parsley's endorsement?

The right wing is on a religious/racist attack that is truly breathtaking forget mere pandering. Look at Kathleen Parker's editorial that appeared in the Washington Post and was described by Atrios guest blogger aimai as "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!" (c.f. Glenn Greenwald). You can read this gem at fascist headquarters. While you are there, check out Michael Medved's claim that Americans are now genetically superior to other folks.

I really do appreciate that you are holding Obama accountable, Norm. But I think that forester is right - we have much bigger fish to fry and now is the time to close ranks and crush these bastards.

Somehow I doubt holding Obama up to the light is going to stop anyone on this site voting Democrat. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really doubt it. Also, the total effect of this site will be minimal (no offense norm) so why not look at our nominee? The good thing about this site was that it didn't give democrats a pass just because they were democrats. It also promoted a progressive agenda. That is what kept me coming back here anyway.

Norm,

I think we've had a misunderstanding. I respect your views, however frequently I'm inclined to disagree; enjoy engaging with them; and deeply appreciate the hard work you put into maintaining this blog and the kind of community it's created.

I do not see, however, how this makes you immune to criticism when it is based on an issue rather than a personal attack.

That you need to ask the question is insulting. You've read numerous links where I take McCain to task. You know my stand on that issue.

I was being in part sarcastic, but to make a serious point: does it matter to you where Obama attacks come from? For me, as I've made clear repeatedly, it does: I don't trust unreliable news sources (The Washington Times, Fox News, etc.). So no, I was not seriously entertaining the idea that you intended to support McCain; I was questioning the productiveness both of this line of attack, at this time (about which more in a moment) and of borrowing it from Republicans.

No one gets a free pass on religious pandering here. I find it disgusting that our only choices are those who pander.

Me too, but that is the political reality we live in. Moreover, most of the criticisms along these lines around here seem to me to be leveled mostly--although not exclusively--at Obama. Why is that?

That you continue to find reasons to attack me for anything I post that is anti Obama demonstrates that you're nothing more than an apologist for your candidate.

I have commented extensively on this topic, and explained my views on it many times. Since I don't expect that you read all my comments, let me summarize. Given that this kind of pandering is required, at this time, for any candidate to have so much as a hope of being elected to public office, I have insisted on a distinction between using religious appeals for practical purposes--which Obama consistently does-- and using them as metaphysical appeals to some noumenal, unknowable reality, faith in which is regarded by its adherents as unquestionable and immune to rational criticism--Obama has explicitly rejected this on many occasions, stating emphatically that any policy proposal that is religiously motivated must also be statable in 'universal' terms or reasons that can be accepted by those without such faith. It follows that religion cannot, in his view, make an independent contribution to public decision making, since any religiously motivated proposal must also be argued for in non-religious terms. If-note the emphasis--religion is to be a part of public life, lamentable though it may be, this seems to me the best way of neutralizing its influence while pretending to grant it credence.

As for my being an apologist--when we were in the primaries, I was happy to look at all and any arguments, pro and con for a given position; I have been happy to acknowledge when I thought Obama got stuff wrong. And if Obama seriously hedges or fudges on any of his proposals once in office--particularly health care or Iraq--I will be among the first to criticize him. Until that time, I want a democratic to win the nomination, and given that he is overwhelmingly likely, at this point and as you yourself admit, to be the democratic nominee, and the alternative is McCain, I simply do not see the point in tearing him down.

Until that time, I want a democratic to win the nomination

Sorry, Freudian slip. I meant I wanted a democrat--whether Barack or not--to win the election for President.

This calls for a partial repost of a comment from another thread.

Sorry if this seems pedantic, but the careless use of words leads to many misunderstandings, and "pander" is a loaded word that is commonly thrown around in the political arena like so much mud.

For clarity: If you are not indulging or gratifying an immoral or distasteful desire or habit, or ministering to the evil designs and passions of another, it's not pandering.

To my knowledge, Obama has NOT used his church affiliation in an immoral or distasteful way, but rather to invoke a sense of responsibility towards the poor & disenfranchised.

Refusal to accept religion as valid on any terms amounts to a form of disenfranchisement. You can tell people bluntly, "You shouldn't believe that crap," but you won't get anywhere that way. Many people have no real problem with, and indeed draw great value from, myth and symbolism. It is their means of tapping into something deeper than the stories themselves.

If you can't meet and communicate with people where they are, what qualifies you to lead them?

To this I would just add two things:

(1) If you're smart enough to understand the irrational aspect of religion as well as recognizing its pervasiveness in society, surely you're smart enough to understand that a politician needs to address it, and in a non-hostile way.

So wouldn't you rather a politician who invokes Christianity in order to further truly Christian ethics such as universal brotherhood, than one who invokes it for antithetical purposes such as extermination of 1.3 billion Muslims?

(2) If you cannot accept the validity of point (1), then I submit to you that YOUR worldview is as irrational as any religious one you care to mention, because it refuses to accept and meaningfully integrate a whole body of facts that deals with human belief and behavior. This is precisely the same dynamic as stubbornly refusing to negotiate with enemies, based on the prejudicial assumption that they could never have any views worth considering.

So MIRRORS UP, everybody. Before accusing others, take a look at yourself.

That's Matthew 7:5, by the way.

michelle Bachelet is actually not that popular in Chile. Her problem has been the Santiago transportation system. Santiago is 40% of Chile's population. It is a mega city of 6 million people, the fifth largest in South America. Santiago has a metro but it has very few lines. The city thus depends on buses. And though it is not her fault per se, the bus system was changed about a year into her mandate. It was a disaster. Entire neighborhoods were left without bus services. People were walking an hour or more to get to a bus line. She's trying to solve it. But she can't run for re-election either. it's one six year term and out. She can run after six years if she wants. Still her relative unpopularity in Santiago shouldn't hurt the left in Chile. Technically she is the head of a wide center-left alliance in Chile. They also have run-offs in Chile if no one candidate gets 50% + 1 of the vote and since Pinochet left office in 1989, no run-off has been needed. That shows the power of the center left.

And of course, socialist can mean different things. She's really a social democrat in the European vein. The split in Latin America is between a hard left (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua) versus a pragmatic left (Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil, Costa Rica). You should look into the President of Uruguay, Tabare Vasquez. He is a true Socialist but very pragmatic. More of Nordic type socialist. He is also a medical doctor. Michelle Bachelet is also a doctor, a pediatrician.

What's striking between the US and Latin America is that in Latin America, leaders come from all walks of life. In the US, they are mostly lawyers. Dean and Bush are the only ones that I can think of that don't have law degrees. Only two Latin American Presidents are lawyers, Kristina de Kitchner in Argentina and Alan Garcia in Peru. But Garcia is also a PhD in Political Economy from the Universidad Compultenese in Madrid plus an MA in sociology from the University of Paris. The new Presiden of Paraguay is a bishop. Colombia's Uribe is an economist and urban planner with advanced degrees from Harvard and an PhD from the London School of Economics, Lula da Silva is trade unionist. He lacks a formal education, didn't learn to read until age 10 and is largely self-taught. But Brazil relies on technocrats to run affairs. Most have masters or PhDs. In Colombia, it is a requirement to have a Masters to serve in the civil service. The Colombian government sponsers 2,700 people a year to earn their masters abroad that then return to serve in govt. Chile, Argentina, Uruguay do the same. Calderon in Mexico is a businessman, an economist by training with MPA from Harvard. And Uribe who is painted as "right wing" in the international media, isn't at all. It is a law and order government to tackle security but in terms of social policy, Colombia has a center-left government. The govt. will pass a gay marriage law this year. It just passed the most sweeping water rights law in the world. Uribe has an 85% approval rating compared to 46% for Bachelet. The numbers are for April 2008. In October 2007, Uribe was at 67% and Bachelet at 39%. The rise for Uribe has been his ability to really dismantle the guerrillas and Bachelet the rise is attributable to making progress on the mess in the Santiago bus system.

And all of Latin America has turned away from the Milton Friedman doctrines. Now the model is a mixed economy with expanding social benefits. And since 2000, Latin Americans economies have grown by over 6% annually. The sole exceptions are Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador. What does that tell you? Nicaragua right now has daily riots. There is a nation-wide transit strike. Ecuador has coup rumours. Bolivia is splitting up and Morales is facing a recall. And Venezuela can't feed itself and last weeek Chavez nationalized the cement industry.

Now I have to get back to my work.

To my knowledge, Obama has NOT used his church affiliation in an immoral or distasteful way, but rather to invoke a sense of responsibility towards the poor & disenfranchised.

Yes, I (mostly) agree: that is the point of the distinction between using religion as a practical motivation for policies and programs that can be justified in secular terms and using relgion as a metaphysical prop for outrageous designs.

I do think Obama is indeed pandering, however, even by your--surely correct--definition. One can respect religious people without pretending to be deeply religious oneself or explicitly identifying with the content of their beliefs. And even if one did shared the beliefs of religious people, it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing to make that a publicly political issue. By emphasizing his religious affiliations, Obama is enabling the distasteful idea that it is appropriate to apply religious tests for public office--which is disgusting--by suggesting to voters who use religious belief as such a standard that he fulfills their requirements.

Note: I'm NOT saying he has any practical alternative if he wants to win public office. But insofar as it is practically necessary, I think he's been very responsible about it--by neutralizing the force of religious claims by appeal to the standard that policies motivated by them must be justified in secular terms.

I'm right there with you, Adam. There's a hair's-breadth of difference in our views on this matter, and we could have that philosophical debate, but I can stand shoulder to shoulder with you without having to throw any elbows on that basis. Our disagreement really dwindles to insignificance in light of the urgency of making a responsible choice in the larger context at hand.

HMMn,,, did you see the actual flyer?? If the gas tax is "pandering", i think this also applies. He is appealing to people baser instincts (ie. they won't vote for a non chrisitan).

Yes I support Obama, but he is using the fact he is a christian to try and get votes, it is not pretty, it may be necessary?

Would we think it is OK if McCain did it? Hillary? Or are we OK with it because of the various attacks on him being Muslim?

Doesn't matter to me as I am supporting the democratic nominee.... whomever it is...

Welcome back Charles. I have been reading your blog off and on.

Yes I support Obama, but he is using the fact he is a christian to try and get votes, it is not pretty, it may be necessary?

Would we think it is OK if McCain did it? Hillary? Or are we OK with it because of the various attacks on him being Muslim?

Obama is a black man who is being branded as a "Muslim" which is akin to being branded as a heathen horrible, the worst of the worst here in the U.S.A. Obama has no choice but to do everthing that he can to dispell this notion to be elected. It sucks, but he has not choice.

I'm right there with you, Adam

Me too Adam. I'm right there with you.

Post after post after post here has been critical of Obama.

SuperFrenchie has a nice balance to the crap I've been reading lately

The topic of affirmative action is a recurring one on this blog. In part because it is currently being discussed for implementation in France, under the name of “Discrimination Positive” (positive discrimination), but also because it has been an issue of the current U.S. presidential campaign (Is being black an advantage for Obama?)

My feeling is that affirmative action is needed in both countries. Those who say it is not needed argue that since there is no longer any institutionalized discrimination (except, ironically, for said affirmative action,) chances are already equal for blacks and whites.

I argue that there are still a lot of institutionalized disadvantages of being black in America:

The first one comes very early in life: you have twice as much of a chance to die as an infant as if you were white. That gap is actually increasing!

The second disadvantage you’ll have is education. Blacks have a much higher chance of attending a poor school in a poor neighborhood. Somehow, it results in an educational gap. Gee, I wonder why!

Note that if you’re born black, so far, you haven’t had much opportunity to do something about anything!

The third disadvantage you will have is discrimination. Housing and jobs are the two main ones.

Adding all that, you end up having a huge wealth gap. The typical white family enjoys a net worth that is more than seven times that of its black counterpart. Note that for this one, there isn’t that much one can do either since researchers estimate that up to 80% of lifetime wealth accumulation results from gifts in one form or another from past generations of relatives. These gifts can range from the down payment on a first home, to a free college education, to a bequest upon the death of a parent. Over the long run, small initial differences in wealth holdings multiply. (Also note that such Republican favorites such as eliminating the “death tax” actually work in favor of increasing the gap!)

Oh, you’ll also die much younger than if you were white. About 6 years earlier. Surprisingly, socioeconomic factors are major contributors…

Yes, affirmative action will result in some whites being discriminated against. Compared to what blacks have to go through, that doesn’t seem like a huge price to pay.

Sorry if this seems pedantic, but the careless use of words leads to many misunderstandings, and "pander" is a loaded word that is commonly thrown around in the political arena like so much mud.

pander as in a person who caters to or profits from the weaknesses or vices of others.

Seems to me pander is a perfectly adequate word to describe what Barack and other politicians do vis a vis religion.

the worst of the worst here in the U.S.A.

Joann I appreciate the friendly word. Not to be too picky, but actually ATHEISTS--we foul creatures, alas!--are actually ranked a little lower in American public opinion than even Muslims and Mormons. Here is the Pew Forum poll from last September.

That is, I suspect, why we get upset when politicians pander. Also, a good explanation of why they do it.

Here's another interesting tid-bit I found from googling the pew forum survey, coming across a similar poll by the University of Minnesota in 2006:

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. [...]

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

I'm always so surprised when I hear this, but I think I live a very sheltered existence--in NYC, no one gives a shit if you are gay or straight, black or white; in academia--in my corner of it at least--you are, pretty literally, treated bemused condescension, as though you were a simply-minded child who still believes in Santa Claus, if you profess a sincere belief in God.

JoAnn, if there's an argument for affirmative action, that's not it.

Those statistics are not because black people are black, but because many black folks are poor. Of course a big reason for that is that their ancestors or even themselves were heavily discriminated against, but still their issue nowadays is mainly poverty. And not all black folks are poor, nor all poor folks are black.

I think a more reasonable and just approach for "positive discrimination" is to do it for poor people in general, not just black people. As long as most poor people are black (if that's true), most help will go to black folks anyway.

I think a more reasonable and just approach for "positive discrimination" is to do it for poor people in general, not just black people. As long as most poor people are black (if that's true), most help will go to black folks anyway.

I mostly agree with this, until you reach the third point of the Arguement Joann Posted, about how jobs and housing are major sources of discrimination. No matter how much changing affirmative action to "poor action", that won't stop 2/5ths of West Virginians for treating blacks differently just because their skin.