Ideological contortionist, Barack Obama, marches toward his personal goal of causing one million progressives' heads to simultaneously explode.
He obtained an essential first step toward this aim when he capitulated on FISA, a move so contradictory to the core of the Progressive movement that outraged midget, Markos "Dailykos" Moulitsas, yanked a generous contribution from Obama's bony fingers as punishment for the sneaky, immoral maneuver. Moveon.org was also unhappy with Obama, all of which brings to mind the ancient expression: If You Wrong The Progressives, Protect Your Crotch.
These burns aren't going to heal any time soon. John Kerry turned out to be an empty shell of a candidate, but Barack Obama had real potential, or so the Progressives thought. They sunk their time and money into Obama, and as thanks, he turned around and bit the hands that fed him.
Selling out his Progressive base on FISA was bad enough, but then Obama followed up his gradual tumble toward triangulation when he recently vowed to expand Bush's faith-based programs.
Defenders of Obama's latest selling-out point claim churches are an essential party of American society because the institutions provide basic services like feeding the poor. Except, churches have no business substituting for the government in anti-poverty campaigns.
If churches hold the occasional bake sale to help the Harper family pay for Little Matty's liver transplant, that's all well and good. However, any politician seriously claiming churches should substitute for government programs needs to have their head examined. It's the job of the state to care for its citizens, namely because the state is Constitutionally secular, forbidding government agents to deny care on the grounds of theological loyalty.
In a way, asking the church to step up and care for the poor in lieu of a comprehensive, meaty welfare program is like abandoning the American post office in favor of using FedEx. It's yet another dig at the innards of the American infrastructure. It's yet another way to privatize a normal function of the government. Of course, in this case, it's selling out pro bono because the church claims to operate without the explicit intent of profit. I guess we're not counting those basket donations...
Even if Obama proposed the expansion as an accessory program where the church just gets to "come along for the poverty ride," the idea is still worse than dumb, it's downright insulting. When will a progressive candidate have the courage to admit they have no business dictating moral values? When will a progressive acknowledge that triangulation brought us to this place, where the American people have no bargaining chips left? They're poor, they're losing their jobs because of triangulating land mines like NAFTA, and those jobs are not coming back. They have no health care, their food and environment are poisoned, and Barack Obama tells them to go to church and pray for a miracle.
And that's the progressive talking. Just imaging the steaming pile of shit resting on John McCain's tongue.
"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama explained when confronted by foaming-at-the-mouths Progressives.
Um, what? So let me get this straight: We pay taxes for a government unable to do its job. We elect representatives, like Barack Obama, to overhaul a broken system that has abandoned its own constituents, and instead of creating a bold, radical agenda, Obama perpetuates the status quo. Obama chooses to invest his trust in the church instead of in the political system that has invested in him this great and rare opportunity to fix an ailing society. He chooses to entrust a brothel of fairy tales with the safety of the people instead of a responsible, secular government.
What the hell is he thinking? Unless there's a business model somewhere where "priest molestations" plus "dangerous ignorance" equals "profit" that I don't know about, this appears to be yet another grave error from the Obama camp.
More surprising than Obama selling out his progressive base is the stubbornness with which some progressives have reacted during these gradual moves toward triangulation. One such supporter explained to me, "You can't drive the bus without the keys," meaning Obama is just faking his way into the White House with these "moderate" moves and bushels of "compromises."
But this kind of logic ignores Quid Pro Quo, where Wall Street lobbyists, who have sunk nearly twice as much money into Obama as they have McCain, will demand favors in exchange for their generosity.
Obama is already in debt, but the progressives seem to think he'll experience a kind of miraculous spell of transubstantiation during his inauguration where his past corruptions will turn into delicious wine and universal health care. It ain't, as they say, gonna happen, folks. At least, it won't happen without the motivation of a seriously pissed-off base.
Of course, the motivation of his pissed-off base was supposed to have been what was going to keep Obama on track in the first place. With that not working, progressives have few options left, and their trust is waning in the last great savior for the so-called progressive movement.
Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny
Yes, that's EXACTLY right. Which goes to the core of folks who push back at tax increases. If paying 50% of my income in taxes would fix the problems we face, I'd do so gladly. In reality, I'd probably get 40 cents on the dollar in actual benefit.
THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A SECULAR NATION. It was NOT founded as such. As much as you wish it to be true, it is not. The constitution of France says that, "France is a...secular...republic". Nowhere in the US constitution does it say that. In fact the bulk of the evidence suggests that it is anything but.
George Washington added to the Presidential oath prescribed by the Constitution, the concluding
words "so help me God". The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer. These are just two of MANY, MANY examples. The constitution of this contry provides for the free excercise of religion. It does not explicitly forbit religion in the public square.
The left wants to read the consitution as supporting this position of complete seperation...no mention of religion in any public forum. That's NOT what the founders intended when they drafted the constitution. It is clearly evidenced by their actions before and after the drafting of the constitution.
Accept it - progressives wil be thrown under the bus for the next 8 years if he wins.
Is that a deal breaker?
Do you think she would have EXPANDED Bush's faith-based programs?
Absolutely not.
Check out how much his former church received from this program under Bush.
Hint: seven figures.
I am one of those progressives who is outraged at Mr. Bait-and-Swich Obama.
This faith-based pandering is just the latest in a series of blows to the democratic wing of the Democratic party.
Complete bullshit.
Obama has *always* been the candidate who was most aggressively going to reach out to the Christians in this country that the Democratic Party has essentially ceded for decades. If we want a majority, we need to be in tune with the values of the voters in this country. We need to make a liberal case that resonates with religious voters. For far too long, the Democrats have been falling all over themselves to become exclusively the party of atheists and secular intellectuals. That is the path to electoral ruin.
During the primary, Obama kept pledging to unite the country, to end the culture war, and bring red and blue together. A lot of people wrote this off as just talk, but its not just talk. It is the core of his strategy. He couldn't really elaborate on this strategy during the primaries for fear of alienating people like yourself. But it's always been there. This is what uniting the country without taking an exclusively centrist position looks like - it means taking a chunk of Evangelical voters.
As an agnostic I don't mind that somebody has faith. I believe in religious freedom as a fundamental right. It is one of the most important rights a human being can have. It is a celebration of freedom.
Therefor I can not blame the future president of the US to have faith. I can expect him to express his faith in ways that do not reduce the rights of everyone, including agnostics, to their beliefs. But Senator Obama is doing more in his speeches: he is elevating this right by talking intelligently about his faith and faith in general. Something that must be so unfamiliar to most Americans that is has to provoke fear.
And that is essentially what we see here: fear that the world might be more complex than simplistic ideologies and that once this is discovered, some people will not get to manipulate the masses any longer.
I think what critics say about the man says way more about them than about him. I can live with that and I will continue to support this cause. If Senator Obama can't unite the country, we are not going to be united anytime soon.
I fear that I may be smelling a coming sell-out of the whole UHC concept...and I really do hope I'm wrong about that....
Have all of you forgotten about a UHC system here in the US?
If he flips on that issue, will that be okay too? If he decides that the timing isn't right, will you stand by that call as well?
What's the point in proposing that problem when it's not an issue right now? His stance on supporting all sorts of secular poverty aid organizations has nothing to do with health care. I haven't heard/read anything that leads me to worry about universal health care in particular, so I don't know why ponder it right now. Unless you like stressing yourself out for no particular reason.
I'm a realist on this kind of stuff; hope and change are excellent buzz words, but they actually have to mean something to be efective outside of the campaign environment.
"...Except, churches have no business substituting for the government in anti-poverty campaigns."
He's not talking about churches SUBSTITUTING for government programs. He's talking about the government aiding already established poverty programs that also happen to have ties to religious organizations. If someone really cares about helping the poor, then it makes sense to support the organizations that already have a foothold on the ground. And in some states, especially Bible-belt states, poverty programs with church ties are the only games in town.
Do you truly believe the government can feed every single homeless person who's hungry without the help of already established food banks? Homeless shelters? Street to jobs programs? We're not just talking about a "comprehensive, meaty welfare program" - we're talking about a place a person can go to have a hot meal on Wednesday because they haven't eaten since Monday. Some of the most effective on the ground, poverty programs have ties to religious organizations. Why? Because a lot of religious organizations feel it's their duty to help the less fortunate. Obama is talking about helping fund the secular portions of those programs.
You speak about poverty like it's an issue that can only be solved by Gov intervention. That simply isn't realistic. It's frankly blazingly ignorant to the reality of poverty in America.
Not YET...but as things are going with him, I'm not sure what comes next.
The FISA development is another story. We'll see where he goes with that.
That is not the point. People may believe whatever they like.
But our Constitution says that our government shall support NO RELIGION.
I found out by being on a private church email list that promoted Rev Obama religiously since the fall, that he would win Iowa with the enormous help of churches like mine. Even within the church community, the Obama devotees used name calling toward Hillary supporters and claims of purity to advance the Rev.
There was no stopping the Rev nomination because the Rev had church people. It made me feel like I was in Germany before WW11.
They do not even mind that he is acting like he is no longer a progressive. Maybe he is a closet pacifist, they say hopefully?
The money will seal the deal. The churches love the money.
"the Obama devotees used name calling toward Hillary supporters and claims of purity to advance the Rev."
And I heard the most heinous things out of Hillary supporters mouths. Your girl is no saint. No politician is.
I find it a little laughable you think Obama has falied the left somehow and that offends your sensabilities but you chose HRC and are steadfast that she is the best for progressives? What?The woman who moved center/right well before the primaries to get the "clinton" stank off her and become more appealing to the middle of America? Flag-burning is a crime? Her? i'm shocked.