well, that's just great.

[sophiaserpentia]

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

from Obama Vows To Expand Bush's Faith-Based Programs

This comes on the heels of Obama's stated willingness to vote for a bill that contains an immunity provision for telecom companies who helped Bush eavesdrop illegally on the phone conversations of who-knows-how-many American citizens.

Comments

[tantra-cat.livejournal.com]

Oh boy....I can understand tacking to the middle, but he is really starting to drift over the line now.

Re: point #2 did you see olberman's special comment last night? There may be a way out on that one.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I suppose he was tacking for the middle, but he's wound up far to the right of where any of the other Democrats running for president would have gone. And i don't think he's done yet.

Yeah, i watched Olbermann's comment this morning. I'm underwhelmed. It's like scraping a little bit of positivity out of a whole bunch of crap, along with the added sinking feeling of, this is what we get to look forward to now.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I resolve this in a fairly simplistic way: he's having to position to deal with the standard Republican attack methods so until the election, I'm not really going to worry about his voting - because his history prior to becoming a candidate is solid.

Also, we well know what McCain will deliver, so not like that's an option.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I wish this conventional wisdom would die already, because no one respects obvious pandering.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

It's not so much conventional wisdom in my opinion so much as a need to respond to a method of campaigning that Reagan used successfully and that has been a Republican blueprint ever since. That dual-pronged approach of fear and macho posturing. Sadly, it sells and so the dems are on the defensive.

Obama has shown he has integrity when it counted but idealism right now is probably simply not practical unless we want 4 more years of the same.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

If he wants to look like a real "candidate for change" then maybe he should campaign differently and have some faith in the message he sold to America during the primaries... the message which had already given him a fairly clear lead over McCain. He should have pulled McCain to the left to him, rather than lurching to the right to meet McCain.

After what he's been saying over the last two weeks he's left all his core supporters wary.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I resolve this in a fairly simplistic way: he's having to position to deal with the standard Republican attack methods

It's called throwing the election to McCain. The Republican faithful are not gonna vote for the darkie Muslim lib'ral no matter what, so Obama (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale) lose thousands of votes by moving rightward, while not gaining a single vote.

And if the radical right somehow became so enamored of Obama's newfound conservativism that they ended up supporting him, then...why would any progressive even bother voting for him?

What Obama is doing is guaranteeing a McCain victory in November.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

I suppose he was tacking for the middle, but he's wound up far to the right of where any of the other Democrats running for president would have gone.

I disagree. Hillary, for one, has always been in favor of telecom immunity and FISA, and is herself a long-time member of a fairly scary fundie cult.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

Obermann sold out. He is just another shill for the Democrats.

[revulo.livejournal.com]

*siiiiigh*

[liminalia.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I just heard that on NPR and I was really disappointed.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

The whole party just radiates this attitude of, "Oh, so you're to the left of Joe Lieberman, who else ya gonna vote for, eh?"

Well, maybe no one else. But, maybe not at all, either.

[lassiter.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe no one else. But, maybe not at all, either.

There are other options.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yeah, i'm watching her campaign with interest. I'm just tired of the defeatist attitude among the left of, "Leftist votes for anyone but Democrats are wasted."

I have been, at least, happy with the way my own rep, Ed Markey, votes.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

People who say that are not leftists, but just lily livered liberals who refuse to support left candidates.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Sometimes in life you just have to step outside the safe zone. Voting third party is one of those times, if that is what your conscience demands.

If a Green candidate were to get 10% of the vote, the Democrats would very suddenly become the party of Born Again Leftists. Until such a thing happens, the quiet acquiescence of 30-40% of voters is going to be presumed. (Unless, and here's a scary thought, the Democrats succeed in becoming convincingly-enough right-wing to win elections without the left wing.)

[aerieofgrace.livejournal.com]

suck! I totally didn't see this coming.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Have you seen the update? The Obama campaign rejects the AP's characterization of the program.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yep, but their objection sounded more along the lines of, "Well, we wouldn't put it *that* way." He would disallow hiring bias regarding the portion of church activity which would be federally funded, but it would be okay to apply religious hiring bias for non-federally-funded church activities.

Enforcement of two different hiring bias guidelines would be a nightmare.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying it's necessarily ideal, but even Americans United acknowledges that public funding of secular services from religiously affiliated organizations is a long-standing practice. Different hiring guidelines depending on whether the position is private- or public-funded are nothing new, and there is already a set of established case law in this regard.

The new concerns with the Bush program were that it allowed discrimination in hiring, that it allowed proselytizing. Obama's proposal clearly addresses both these concerns.

PS - Here's a description of the program from the horses' mouth: http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/Press/Fact%20Sheet%20Partnering%20With%20Communities%20of%20Faith%20FINAL.pdf

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

It's not just that proselytizing was allowed. There's the case, for example, of religious prison programs which encourage therapeutic methods with very little in the way of solid research demonstrating their effectiveness, not much in the way of results, and which have in numerous cases led to people being forced to accept fundamentalist Protestant views (a Catholic was forced, in one high profile case, to renounce his Catholicism).

These funds are distributed to groups who apply for them, and who are accepted by the bureaucracy. As the program has been carried out it's been a very blatant payola to Bush's right-wing Christian supporters. To eliminate the bias in the system would involve revamping not just the federal bureaucracy but the rapid ramping-up of programs on the religious left that have been shut out of the process. It's not going to become, instantaneously, on January 20th an unbiased program.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

So far in the implementation of this program under Bush there's been a very obvious bias regarding the distribution of these funds. For example, non-Christian groups were routinely rejected if they asked for faith-based funds. There have been a number of lawsuits over cases where federal funds were used to support right-wing Christian proselytizing. And some 98% of USAID money sent to faith-based groups around the globe went to Christian organizations.

There's absolutely no reason to believe this funding would suddenly shift to left-wing programs. (Because, really, it shouldn't reflect political bias at all - it should go to feeding and housing the homeless and poor, healing the sick, and all that stuff, which is not left- or right-wing.)

[sharminator.livejournal.com]

As a non fundy Christian I must say,
So sad, so true.

[cowgrrl.livejournal.com]

You don't suppose I could write in "Laura Roslin" for president in November?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Not Zathras/Zathras?

Besides, Laura Roslin is a religious fundamentalist.

[cowgrrl.livejournal.com]

Oh, you're right: that won't work at all. (Though she'd actually stand a chance of getting elected!)

I'll have to go with the Londo/G'Kar ticket then. :-)

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, G'Kar took a bit of a religious turn too, but i suppose he'd be okay as VP. Important to balance out the ticket.

Hilary

[redslime.livejournal.com]

I guess a lot of folks are going to want to change there vote!

Re: Hilary

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

It's too late for Democrats to change their support to Hillary Clinton. I suppose there could still in theory be a super-delegate uprising at the convention. But votes have already all been cast.

Re: Hilary

[redslime.livejournal.com]

yeah I we being ironic.

[rhonan.livejournal.com]

I am reminded of an old geek T-shirt. When running from a dragon in the company of a halfling, one does not need to outrun the dragon, one just needs to outrun the halfling.

We can't afford the risk of McCain getting elected. In the current race, the only candidate who has any chance of beating McCain is Obama. Was he my first choice, hell no! I still think Kucinich was the best option, but he dropped out when he saw he had no choice. Obama wasn't even my second choice, but Edwards followed Kucinich not too much later. Now, if there were a viable third party in this election, I might give them a thought, but there isn't. Sure, there are a couple of fringe candidates that are good matched ideologically, but none of them have either the stature needed to capture attention, nor the organization to win in November. Would it be good to have a viable third party? Oh hells yeah, but only a fool would work on building that third party in the face of yet another four years of a Republican presidency, and the chance that one of the more liberal Justices on the Supreme Court. Besides, in the past two elections we have seen significant numbers of the left vote for fringe parties because they did not consider the Democrat liberal enough for them. None of those fringe parties is significantly stronger in this cycle, and we've had 8 years of Republican ruin.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Given that 22 Democrats voted to confirm John Roberts, and 7 voted to confirm Samuel Alito, and there was not a significant attempt made to stop either nomination - i'm a bit cynical when the Democrats turn around now and go, "ZOMG we must save the Supreme Court!"

And then they vote again and again and again to give Bush every bit of funding he asks for for the war - i'm a bit cynical that they turn around now and claim to be anti-war.

And then they support domestic spying - and they haven't even really turned around and claimed to oppose it.

And meanwhile the war on drugs continues apace, and the incarceration of massive segments of the American population continues apace, and the construction of that monstrous wall on the border with Mexico continues apace. As the housing market collapses, the banking and finance industry is going to get away with yet another massive con.

Some Democrats have been the voice of reason in the last seven years - and i will support those individuals. But i no longer see this in terms of "We have to have a Democrat in office to counter the Republicans." I see it in terms of "We have to have someone competent and reasonable in office to counter the utter disaster that has been wrought in the name of greed and selfishness."

And it sure does seem that Obama is more competent and reasonable than McCain, but if someone else is running who is even *more* so, that person is going to get my support.

[decafdyke.livejournal.com]

"Given that 22 Democrats voted to confirm John Roberts, and 7 voted to confirm Samuel Alito, and there was not a significant attempt made to stop either nomination - i'm a bit cynical when the Democrats turn around now and go, 'ZOMG we must save the Supreme Court!'"

Frustration shared. But with a Democratic president neither of those would have been nominated, and we *might* (if there were a Democratic-enough Congress to get liberal nominees through) have seen different decisions on gun control and Exxon last week thanks to the contributions of, say, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice William Fletcher.

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

As I think you know already, my most compelling interests in Amerikan politics have to do with foreign policy; I had long ago given up on ever seeing any sort of social democracy in Amerika.

What I care about most deeply, as I leave Amerika, is that this war-worshipping country not precipitate Armageddon in the Middle East. That seems far less likely under Obama than under McCain, and that's why I remain a fervent supporter of Obama.

As far as FISA, the "flip flop" on public funding, his "faith based" foolishness, etc. are concerned, I regard all of that as examples of his brilliant Machiavellian ruthlessness in anticipating the few arguments that McCain could use against him in further gulling the Amerikan sheep. He WILL be elected--and probably by a landslide, and then (and only then) will we get to see if he has the moral integrity to change Amerika domestically as fundamentally as I believe he'll HAVE to change the foreign policy of the decadent, ersatz republic Amerika has become (based on the kind of mandate on the war I expect he's likely to achieve).

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing is, none of this stuff he's saying now is a flip-flop at all. This proposal to expand the federal funding of faith-based programs is perfectly in character for Barack Obama. It's just the timing of this, right after he won the primaries. He knew a large segment of his base would be dubious about this and so he kept silent on it until he'd gotten what he wanted.

I certainly won't debate that Obama is a shrewd and somewhat ruthless campaigner.

But this "lurch to the right right after the primaries are locked in" is so old-style politics that it puts his entire rhetoric into doubt. He *could* have set a new tone, stuck with the message he's been selling all along (and which had already won him support from a clear majority of Americans) and forced McCain to swing left onto unfamiliar turf. But he didn't.

No...

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

...Miss Serpentia:

which had already won him support from a clear majority of Americans

It had already "won him support from a clear majority" of ALL PEOPLE WHO VOTE IN PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES: they, unfortunately, are NOT a "clear majority of Americans." Obama knows he has to appeal to a lot of political iidiots, as well.

Re: No...

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

He's also been consistently polling ahead of McCain.