Obama to expand faith-based programs
Offline And not only that, he will support hiring and firing based on faith.
Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 14 minutes ago
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.
Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.
"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."
Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.
The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies traditionally loyal to Republicans.
But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.
Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.
Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.
David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.
This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.
"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.
Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.
"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."
Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.
Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.
Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.
"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.
He also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.
"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.
Any atheists for Obama left?
[mod edit: link]
- Login to post comments
Offline Keith Olbermann had a great special comment about FISA, that I agree with, and is similar to what I have been saying, although not as harsh. Keith seems to be sucked up into Obamamania, but thats his right I guess.
The telecoms get civil immunity, but not criminal immunity, and Obama could theoretically get into office and hold them all to account in criminal court, as well as Bush. While I think this would be a good solution(although it doesn't allow citizens to find out who spied on them, why, and redress grievances) I have almost zero faith that Obama would do anything like this.
Post partisan usually equates to "don't rock the other party's boat or you will piss off their supporters and lose votes."
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
- Login to post comments
Offline Well, you seem to have your mind made up. It's hard to fault you for it, but I will, Obama is the better choice given the choice betwee Obaman and McCaine - but a vote for Obama, especially given his recent comments and positions on things like FBIs and FISA is really a vote for the status quo. You know it, and I know it. I understand why you are going to vote that way, but please, four years from now or eight, remember what I've said to you.
The simple fact of the matter is that nothing will ever change unless we take the initiative and opportunity to change things. We've had the opportunity countless times. We've just never had the guts.
When Brain and Rook approached me almost three years ago to do a radio program about atheism, I certainly didn't think it would go anywhere. We were attacked, left and right, by fairly prominent atheists who accused us of dividing the cause (what cause? what were they doing before we came along?) and undermining the goals (again, what goals?) of the atheist community.
We essentially said, fuck you guys, we're doing this thing, and fuck the consequences. Years later, here we are, and we are a force to be reckoned with, BECAUSE people put principle above politics and playing it safe.
I can only hope that some day we will have the guts to do the same thing as citizens considering the politics that effect us every day. Shit, it only affects every day of you life - but yeah, let's compromise one more time, and hope it will get better. I mean, it's never worked before, but maybe we'll get lucky.
So yeah, I understand why you are going to vote the way you are, and your rationalizations for it, and deep down inside, it tears me to pieces.
I totally agreed with you a couple of weeks ago until I read a couple of books "Young Patriots" and "Team of Rivals". Political compromises are the only way to get things done in a democracy and it's nothing new.
I'll see your doom and raise you some gloom. You will never get anything done without compromise or a complete overthrow of the government. To quote Lincoln:
"Important principles may and must be flexible."
Get over it.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
- Login to post comments
Offline i voted for obama in the primaries here in Texas but I won't tolerate him sponsoring any faith based programs. The more news I get on Obama the more disappointed I get. I have always voted Libertarian in city/county political runs. Obama is losing my trust really quick.
- Login to post comments
Offline The real shame is that Obama *has* to do this...he is being portrayed as a Muslim/heathen/fetus killing non christian...who is going to promote spiritual anarchy once he gets into office...Ugh. Personally I would imagine that he throws up a little in his own mouth every time he has to pander to these assholes...
But having said that, I vote Libertarian regardless.
- Login to post comments
Offline MattShizzle wrote:I still support him, though this shocked me. He's still a way better choice than McCain.
And this is EXACTLY why the situation in the US keeps getting worse.
If you keep voting for the lesser of evils, things just keep getting more evil.
People like you have continually set the bar lower every election.
How does the LP candidate (Bob Barr, who had way too much interest in the Mighty Clinton Penis when he was a Rep.) an improvement?
No matter what a citizen does, political evil's going to win. So why try?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll vote for Obama, but I still want Jesse Jackson to cut his nuts off. Eunuchs were among the most highly respected civic officials in the ancient world and I think it's time to try another one.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
- Login to post comments
Offline i voted for obama in the primaries here in Texas but I won't tolerate him sponsoring any faith based programs. The more news I get on Obama the more disappointed I get. I have always voted Libertarian in city/county political runs. Obama is losing my trust really quick.
Lucky for you, it doesn't matter for the presidential election. Texas will go Republican 
- Login to post comments
Offline Regardless of the presidential victor in November.... he had best produce positive results or he'll be 'one and out'. There are far too many up and comers waiting in the wings, including from parties other than the big two. Now that America has shown they are very willing to consider a woman or a black man, well, who knows what could happen four years from now.
One other thought (and I apologize if this has already been mentioned)....
Obama is the Dem nominee for more reasons than most people can imagine. I personally know more than 80 elephants in my small city alone who were so disenfranchised with McCain that they pulled ballots on the other side to, in their words, "make sure a Clinton doesn't get in."
In a city of 7k with only about a quarter of those being Republicans, I think that's an amazing number. And, that's only the ones I know of who voted that way. I have family in other parts of the country who all reported the same thing, though sometimes on a smaller scale. Multiply it out across America, especially red states, and it's nearly unbelievable that she still won the popular vote.
I think Obama may have quite a few elephants to thank.
- Login to post comments
Offline There were also plenty of Republicans who voted for her because they thought she was the weaker candidate.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline There were also plenty of Republicans who voted for her because they thought she was the weaker candidate.
Republicans....thinking...... hmmmmm, interesting concept you've got their Matt. 
Let me throw a bunch of 'if's at everyone...
If Obama is elected in November and...
If Hillary somehow found her way onto the ticket as the veep and ....
If some kook/nut job/klanster decided to go after the first black president and succeed then..........
- Login to post comments
My opinion of him gets lower every day since the general election started. His triangulation to the middle by leaning right on issues seems the perennial democrat plan. Its not post partisan, its not a new kind of politics, its not bipartisan. Its clearly pandering to right leaning independents and evangelicals to appear as a real Christian, and not to be seen as "the most liberal senator in the senate" as his Republican naysayers would like to paint him.
He is an incredible actor, and a smooth, polished politician, but as for a good president that moves behind the politics of old...that is a pipe dream he sold all of his supporters. In areas like this he is more of the same, and people are starting to call him on his bullshit. He's been wrong on FISA, corn ethanol, flip flopping on public financing, and it seems like the person he appeared to be might not be the person he is.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
I still support him, though this shocked me. He's still a way better choice than McCain.
Fuck.
(luckily, I don't live in or anywhere near the USA)
Politicians say a lot of things when they are trying to win an election. In this case, I beleive he is trying to score points with evangelical voters who aren't too enthusiastic on McCain, and may "slide" over with some coaxing. I also think he is still working to dispell the right wing spam email myth that he is Muslim...It was debunked a long time ago, but I still keep hearing it...well, around my parts anyways (big surprise).
And, don't forget...he was recently sharply criticized by some on the religious right for this statement...
Backpeddling?
It doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as the headline would have you believe, but I'm disappointed with the pandering. Is it so impossible that people would elect someone on the strength of their conviction even if they didn't 100% approve? When are the Democrats going to stop trying to be all things to all people?
To some extent it's necessary. I think the timing of gay rights advocates during the '04 election was piss poor and gave conservatives a slam dunk issue. It may happen again with the ruling in California, but hopefully conservatives will keep their priorities straight (no pun intended) and vote on real issues this time. It sucks to tell people who are being treated like second class citizens to keep quiet for a little longer, but I think their cause would have been better served if they hadn't offered an easy distraction from the many blunders of the Bush administration and waited until after the election to push the issue.
I'm hoping he's just taking a play from Bush's playbook and telling them what they want to hear to further undercut McCain's base. There's a chance it could backfire, but for the time being I think people are so disillusioned with the Republicans that it will go unnoticed. If it does blow up in his face we're screwed. I don't think America or the world at large can take another 4-8 years of Republican "leadership".
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
I watched Obama's 40 minute talk about faith a few weeks back, and I liked it. I would also say he's playing to the christians to get votes. Otherwise he seems to be almost a secularist. Whatever he does, he won't pass laws that will screw over his other atheist family members. From the things I have heard him say, he understands that not everyone believes, or even sees the same reasons to believe as everyone else does. This is good!
I also notice he's trying to give more power to 'the people'...Give the churches the power to speak to the people, because they are so close... This could possibly be the start of moving church away from government... sure it may be funded, but perhaps other religious and non-religious groups will get just as funded, and the theocracy aspect will calm down a bit.
Ultimately, Obama represents change, and I think people like that... compared to McCain, I'm down with Obama. He sounds a lot smarter than bush
IMHO, you should be looking for a good candidate, not a perfect candidate.
Barack fits the first descriptor just fine, even if he's wish-washy on some issues and wrong on others.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
To sum up, here's why I'm a fan of Obama:
Obama: "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers,"
Bush: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
To be fair, it was actually Bush Sr who supposedly said that and it seems he never really did.
Sorry about the long link. Pardon my ignorance, but for future reference, how do I shorten it?
Click on the chain and post the link in there. It will appear highlighted where your cursor was. Type anything without the spacebar and that becomes the link.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Cool, thanks.
Signature ? How ?
I don't think that's accurate. I read an article which states that the religious organizations must abide by the Civil Rights Act when hiring/firing for activities that are paid for by taxpayer money. Religious groups still have the special right to hire/fire with private funds.
It essentially goes back to the old rules pre-Bush which required publically financed religious groups to abide by the law. Bush's "Office of Faith Based Programs" exempted groups from the act when public funds were used.
Requiring the groups to keep two separate accounts will add paperwork and will prevent the mixing of services. Common sense would lead us to think that taking public funds and mixing them with church funds would open up the entire church to liability concerns. However with the legal system as it is I doubt any group found violating the law will get anything more than a slap on the wrist.
I still think Obama may be the lesser of two evil's.
You betcha.
Politically, this is a no-brainer for Obama. You've got a fair percentage of Christians who think he's a Muslim. It's easy for him to say he'll expand the faith-based programs - as long as increases spending on it by a percentage point he can't be accused of lying.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
Signature ? How ?
Change you can BELIEVE in!
Between this and his stance on FISA, any respect or hope I had held for this man has evaporated in the matter of a few weeks.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Voting for Nader this time is voting for McCain, just like voting for him last time was voting for Bush. He's such an asshat to run knowing he only helps the Rethuglicans who are way further from his views than Democrats.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
And this is EXACTLY why the situation in the US keeps getting worse.
If you keep voting for the lesser of evils, things just keep getting more evil.
People like you have continually set the bar lower every election.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Bullshit. You have this attitude, and you wonder why you keep having to choose between two shitty candidates, niether of whom really represent you or your intrests, and you have the fucking gall to chastize people who actually DO vote to change things?
Repugnant.
A vote for a third party is NOT a vote AGAINST your candidate, it's a citizen exercising their right to vote for the candidate they feel best represents them.
It's not done out of spite (as plenty of dipshit Hillary supporters will be doing), it's not "stealing" votes, it's exercising democracy. The more we keep fucking up your pissing contests between Evil and Eviler, and Dem and Repub (which are now essentially the same damn thing - look at the FISA votes across the board) we'll keep pushing for an actual representative democracy that the two major parties keep denying us. You can thank us later.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Exactly. A 3rd party vote is only a vote for a mainstream candidate from the two-party mindset. I know that there is a considerable amount of overlap, but it's wrong to assume that everyone who voted for Nader in 2000 would have voted for Gore if they only had a choice of two candidates. Some wouldn't vote at all.
All hands are needed on deck according to Obama, is your group going to participate?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith
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.
"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."
I think that goes back to political timing. The introduction of a third party candidate in more stable times would be a huge benefit, but currently we've got negative momentum. We need to get things moving in the opposite direction. Nader for the most part is Democrat lite. He's a liberal without the clout and is more likely to draw votes away from a candidate he is more ideologically aligned with.
Nader 2012 or 2016? Sure, but first we need to stop the bleeding.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
Yes indeede,the Dems and the Repubs wear the same suite ,but with different color ties.I've been voting Independent for over 20 years,Hoping that some day we can have a real open Democratic society to be proud of,a nd too pass on to our young a country that is truly for the people!!! "POWER to the PEOPLE" Right on.
Signature ? How ?
He's 74 years old, so I seriously doubt he'll be running in 2016. He'd be 82 years old going into his presidency.
So then he's old enough to know better. That sucks for him but the greater good that is presently more attainable is of greater importance than his personal ambition. Maybe he'd be a great president but he would have to win first and it's not gonna happen. There's no sense in dragging Obama down with him.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
What makes you assume I'm talking about Nader?
And, no, NOW is the PERFECT time for third parties like libertarians to show exactly how much they count. I HOPE third parties throw this election into chaos. Maybe then we'll be taken seriously.
IOW, your candidate had better start listening to us, recognizing and showing interests in our views, or we will not be voting for them.
Personally, I never liked Nader, and never voted for him. His economic policies are garbage, and that was what he is always running on.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I would consider a third party candidate in future elections, but this election I feel so strongly that we HAVE to get the rethugs out...voting Obama is a no-brainer for me. The alternative? McSame...Bush's third term.
I also feel that in order for a third party candidate to really be a contender, they need the money to put themselves out there...advertising, appearances etc. The money has to come from somewhere (unless the individual VERY wealthy)...enter special interests...people who have agendas. Nader gets a lot of funding from historically republican donors, right-wing groups...people who are also donating to the republican candidate. Hmmm, wonder why?
And if any of them start to pick up steam...the republicans will start funding them, never friggen fails.
So the problem isn't that Obama is pandering, but that he's not pandering to you? That's not a very principled stance.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.
There are other alternatives, and you know there are. You simply will vote Obama, because you think voting McCaine leaves us worse off. Don't call it a no-brainer, call it what it is, a compromise of your ideals. That's fine, if it be a reasoned decision I suppose, but don't sugar coat it, call it what it is.
Because Nader is a fiscal conservative, and always has been. I personally think he tends to bungle it anyway, but that's just me.
Most strong third party candidates tend to be libertrarian and thus fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Hence the support for Ron Paul. These people generally get support from conservatives who value fiscal responsiblitiy above all else. They also tend to advocate a reduction in the power of the Fed. That is a GOOD thing, from a fiscal and social perspective.
Personally, the Republicans that were Republicans before the Evangelicals took over tend to have a pretty decent idea of how things should be run.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
No, sir.
The problem is that Obama has no stance, apparantly. His stance fits the people he speaks to. Just like every other two party whore we've put up on the auction block.
He's already backtracked on several of his promises, this is only one, FISA is a HUGE one. Up until a few weeks ago, I REALLY liked the guy, he had my vote. Once he secured the nod, however, it seems the shit hit the fan as far a principle and ethics go.
He's also not bothered to even address libertarians yet. Not that many candidates ever bother to. But being that we are about 5% of voters, and growing every cycle, especially this year with what Ron Paul has done, he'd better take us seriously and address us.
He could still earn my vote, but he's got to address my concerns as he would any other voting block. Is that really an unreasonable request?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I don't view it as "compromising my ideals", I view it as being realistic. Sure I'd love to see what I consider to be my "ideal" candidate be elected some day, but I recognize that it's not going to happen this time...hell, it may not happen in my lifetime. MY main concern right now is preventing another republican from taking office, it's an achievable goal, and I feel it's a good first step in the right direction. Baby steps.
You're, right, baby steps, BACKWARDS. How many elections before this one have people had the SAME attitude and fallacious reasoning?
Yes, by voting Obama you help prevent McCaine from taking the reigns, but you also help cement a two party system that has failed us for centuries. Odds are, in 4 or 8 years you'll make the same rationalization, because Obama has failed us - it's already clear that he's more of the same. So in 4 or 8 years when you vote to oust Obama, because of the war in IRAN, you'll forgive me saying I told you so. But you'll still vote for the lesser of two evils, because voting for the other guy would only perpetuate the problems we have now....and in 4 or 8 years after that.....
I suppose the addage is true - people get the government that they desereve.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I hear what you are saying, but as a single vote, I feel I have to look at the direction things are going, and adjust my vote accordingly. I want to use my vote in the way that it will be most effective. It takes a collective effort to implement real change, and let's face it...this country has a lot of ignorant sheep, and people who just don't give a shit about the political process. Getting enough people on the same page to elect a REAL change candidate...not easy. I was a Kucinich supporter, and you know how that campaign turned out.
Well, you seem to have your mind made up. It's hard to fault you for it, but I will, Obama is the better choice given the choice betwee Obaman and McCaine - but a vote for Obama, especially given his recent comments and positions on things like FBIs and FISA is really a vote for the status quo. You know it, and I know it. I understand why you are going to vote that way, but please, four years from now or eight, remember what I've said to you.
The simple fact of the matter is that nothing will ever change unless we take the initiative and opportunity to change things. We've had the opportunity countless times. We've just never had the guts.
When Brain and Rook approached me almost three years ago to do a radio program about atheism, I certainly didn't think it would go anywhere. We were attacked, left and right, by fairly prominent atheists who accused us of dividing the cause (what cause? what were they doing before we came along?) and undermining the goals (again, what goals?) of the atheist community.
We essentially said, fuck you guys, we're doing this thing, and fuck the consequences. Years later, here we are, and we are a force to be reckoned with, BECAUSE people put principle above politics and playing it safe.
I can only hope that some day we will have the guts to do the same thing as citizens considering the politics that effect us every day. Shit, it only affects every day of you life - but yeah, let's compromise one more time, and hope it will get better. I mean, it's never worked before, but maybe we'll get lucky.
So yeah, I understand why you are going to vote the way you are, and your rationalizations for it, and deep down inside, it tears me to pieces.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yeah.
I'm damned liberal (voted Nader in 2000, stood by my principles), and I definitely agree with this.
I like Obama. I think he'll make a decent president, probably the best President we've had in decades. Definitely better than the last two yahoos, and potentially better than the three terms of the first President Bush.
I'd had a lot of hope for Obama. He seemed principled. His response to the Rev. Wright fiasco was brilliant -- address the actual issue, race and progress (or lack thereof) in America. It seemed as if he might be the kind of person who was thoughtful, and willing to stand by his ideals.
Then along came FISA. At first, he vehemently opposed retroactive amnesty for the telcos, which is the princicpled position. Then, he distanced himself from the controversy, claiming he wouldn't sacrifice security. What the ever-loving blue-eyed fuck? This isn't about security from terrorism. This is about the President having the power to spy on American citizens with no oversight!
This was the first disappointment.
Now this? I don't mind the idea, mind you. But calling it "faith-based," instead of "community-based," is fucking retarded, and unconstitutional. Greedy theist fucks already have tax-exempt status, and now they are going to get money from the feds? What happened to separation of church and state?
I'd like to see the results of the applications for this funding. How many Muslim groups applied, but were turned down? How many Wiccan groups received money? How about the Satanists? The Elvisarians? The Subgeniuses?
What about atheists? Greedy atheistic fucks deserve a little governmental love, too.
If this were community-based initiatives, I wouldn't mind. But this is just damned ridiculous. He should be more principled, and less willing to sell his ideals for the Presidency.
That's the problem though, isn't it? Any Presidential candidate worth being President wouldn't sell out, would stand by his ideals, and that would make him ultimately unelectable. Kind of a Catch-22.
I'm still voting for him. I'm cynical enough to see that he probably has to do this to get elected. If he does, though, and it turns out he sucks as bad as, say, Clinton (which he'd have to suck pretty damned bad, or get sucked pretty damned good) I'm forming the Church of the Holy Brew, and applying me for some of that "faith-based" milk from the government's teat. I'l be like a suckling piglet. Mmmm-mmm. Tastes like government-issue cream-of-pandering.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I agree that we have to be realistic. I would like to see someone so liberal they make Obama look like Rush Limbaugh, but such a person would have zero chance of winning and even were they running voting for them would only help McCain. Obama comes way closer to my views than McCain so I'm going to vote for him. There is no way in the immediate future a 3rd party will win.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Ron Paul is a Republican you know. There's a big R following his name. Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate.
But anyway, the number of electoral votes granted to a party that gets 5% of the vote is zero. Therefore they are bound to lose. Why would any candidate be concerned with the issues of a party that loses so badly? Obama hasn't addressed the concerns of the Natural Law Party, the Alaskan Independence Party or Walt Brown either.
The Libertarian Party earned 0.32% of the vote in 2004, Nader an astonishing 0.38%.
So why don't you just vote for yourself? I'm sure you agree with yourself more than believing there is some perfect candidate who will share all your views.
He's doing what politicians have done since the Continental Congress convened to declare independence. During the primary his audience was liberals, now it's liberals, conservatives, pacifists, vet's, war hawks, fundies, atheists, etc. In order to get things done you have to make concessions. The mark of a good statesman is accomplishing this without sacrificing the principle goal.
I'm disappointed with the FISA bill too. All of the Democrats are responsible for this. It disgusts me that whenever they "compromise" the Republicans get what they wanted all along. All anyone has to do is make a demand and then say they hate America if they don't comply and they can have whatever they want. I definitely think we need a third party with the values of the Democrats and the brass of the Republicans.
It kind of is. I wouldn't break my neck for 5% of the vote at the expense of a larger demographic either.
"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon
Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.