Posted on 02/03/2011 7:02:02 AM PST by Migraine
People of faith. To speak to the heartland, Democrats also must be comfortable using the language of faith. Religious Americans believe, with good reason, that bicoastal elites look down on them as Bible-thumping primitives. Yet Democrats ought to be able to oppose the political agenda of religious conservatives -- on abortion, on school prayer, on homosexuality -- without dismissing people of faith in general as hopelessly "retro." They ought to be able to defend the establishment clause and religious liberty without getting in bed with the secular absolutists of the ACLU. It makes little sense for Democrats to be estranged from people of faith when their "base" consists of so many of them -- including many African Americans, Latinos, Jews, members of mainline ...congregations, and, yes, even some "freestyle evangelicals."
Just as religious advocates of the "Social Gospel" infused early 20th century progressivism with moral fervor, Democrats should couch their social initiatives in the language of faith and morality. snip
Democrats should invoke biblical authority in challenging religious conservatives to support initiatives to aid the working poor and protect the earth's environment. Following Sen. Joe Lieberman's lead, the party also should back a progressive faith-based initiative -- a real partnership between government and religious groups to tackle urgent social problems, ...snip
Finally, Democrats should give the culture warriors of the right and left a wide berth and instead adopt a stance of "values centrism." Again, Clinton offers instructive lessons. Rather than adopt a strident "us versus them" posture on cultural issues, he always sought common ground. While resolutely pro-choice, he recognized the genuine moral complexities surrounding abortion when he called for making it "safe, legal, and rare." His "mend it, don't end it" stance on affirmative action acknowledged real flaws in preference policies, instead of labeling their critics as racists.
(Excerpt) Read more at dlc.org ...
At the time I said, "good luck" -- that is just impossible to fake. So when we saw the left secure a nomination for brocko, it was his cynical appeal to the "Christian" vote via his affiliation with a large, vibrant "Christian" church in Chicago that was part of his claim to marketability -- until, that is, the nature of that church as a communist, racist ranting-post became public. At that point, brocko just distanced himself from it and, having done quite fine without Christian credentials, simply abandoned the cynical effort.
Until, that is, now. Up jumped the shellacking. Hence the return to "the strategy", enunciated to a "T" by Will Marshall in this article. It was expressed with an ice-cold, calculating deceptiveness this morning at the Prayer Breakfast he didn't even bother to attend last year, by brocko himself, in a speech written by a brilliant cynic who appropriated (*hijacked) most of the language -- harking back over 6 years to this policy article. If you click on the article itself, you'll see the now-taboo targets. LOL.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=253055
I wanted to draw attention to the fact that I am referencing a contemporary (as in this morning) topic, PLUS the antecedent article. Sorry to have offended your sensibilities. I’ll try to appropriate the appropriate language in the future. LOL
“Democrats should invoke biblical authority”
This should be a non-starter because biblical authority is absolutely opposed to the Democrats’ Godless death-cult of a party. Sadly, these scum have infested many churches, so this strategy has had some success...
In other words, “how do we fool these hayseed religious yahoos into voting Democrat?”
Who is Brocko?
Not making up fake titles would be a good start.
Brocko Bama
My post was more about today, in light of a six-year-old article, than it was about the article itself.
In that case, would it have been less offensive to you if I had listed myself as the author and today’s date as the origin, then led with my comment, and THEN post the link to the article?
I had no intention of offending, and ESPECIALLY no intention of eliciting from you or anyone else that the title was “fake”.
I’ve only been on here 13 years though, so I guess I’m just not hip. There’s still hope, given time.
Good grief.
When you've made up the title yourself, what would you then call it if not fake?
The title I chose was more in reference to the point I was making than to the 6-year-old article I was adducing. The title, then, rather than being fake just because I invented it, was useful.
As opposed to using the 6-year-old title about a Clintonesque Dem strategy which someone, at first glance, may have wondered “Why is this being posted 6 years late?” — I instead cut to the chase by referencing its recrudescence here, now, today, moments ago, at the Prayer Breakfast.
Again, I am an inveterate reader here, and a frequent commenter; but I am admittedly an infrequent poster of threads and articles. So I know I could probably use some protocol 101. Even so, lighten up.
I'm not getting on your case but since you have been here so long, you must know the rules. As moderators explain again and again, the reason for the rule is to prevent duplicates.
Somebody doing a search on the real title would think that it hadn't already been posted.
Just trying to be helpful.
Thanks. So am I.
Thank you for the link. I can’t believe I was JUST looking for this info. I could not remember where it originated, but I remembered that the Democrats at the time were being encouraged to learn how to speak “the language of faith” so they could hoodwink conservative Christians.
I’m posting a remark at Town Hall.com under an article by Robert Morrison on this subject. Thanks again! My screen name on TH is the same.
“Not making up fake titles would be a good start.”
The title was the title of Migraine’s post, not the title of the article.
I went to Townhall and read your post. It’s good. And thanks for the heads-up. It’s nice to make your acquaintance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.