Howard Dean and Dems Courting Evangelicals

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:05:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Newsweek reports Howard Dean is courting Republican evangelicals.

One of those he's met with recently is a Tennessee evangelical named Richard Iband. Can this be true?

"Dean told me how the Democrats were pro-life in that they wanted a country in which abortion was rare. I said, 'I agree, but we disagree how to get there.' Still, it was certainly a change in tone."

Apparently, yes. Dean told Newseek:

"In the past, we've come off as dismissive to evangelicals," Dean tells NEWSWEEK. "But our party has become much more comfortable talking about faith and values.

"Are we going to abandon Roe v. Wade? No. But a lot can be done to prevent teen pregnancy and abortions. There is a lot we do agree on."

If you're not queasy enough yet, keep reading.

The DNC under Dean has stepped up its Faith in Action initiative, an outreach program created in the wake of the Democrats' 2004 defeat. Run by a Pentecostal minister, it has trained about 150 people.

All the major Democratic candidates seem to be playing the evangelical card:

Clinton, Obama and John Edwards all have senior staffers in charge of reaching out to religious groups. "There's a lot of common ground here with evangelicals on the genocide in Darfur, ending human trafficking and making sure that religious liberty is not static around the world," says Burns Strider, director of faith-based operations for the Clinton campaign. (By contrast, talking to evangelicals in 2004 was considered "a waste of resources," says Mara Vanderslice, who was hired by John Kerry only eight months before Election Day to reach out to the faith community.)

Obama's national director of religious affairs, Joshua DuBois, says he has contacted more than 75 evangelical leaders since he joined the campaign on its first day.

There's going to be a quid pro quo for their support.

Tony Perkins, who heads the conservative Family Research Council. "If the Democrats follow through with substantive policy initiatives that reflect their newfound faith, they could make headway. But it's got to be more than just talk."

This is very disheartening. I don't want evangelicals -- or any religious group -- to have a say in anything but their churches -- and certainly not a say in government policy or legislation.

< AG Nominee Mukasey Once Ruled Sentencing Guidelines Unconstitutional | Why Does The Party Of Dobson (The GOP) Hate America? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Howard Dean and Dems Courting Evangelicals | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What a surprise (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Al on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:26:28 AM EST

The Democrats can find Jesus at election time just like the Republicans. Yea, verily I say unto thee, even Howard Dean can find salvation.

The two major political parties consist of nothing but cynical, self-serving, opportunistic swine. They have perfected the art of winning elections. Unfortunately, once they win them, they haven't a clue what to do, except to continue to live the good life, which is the only reason they wanted to win the elections in the first place.

Can Anyone Find The Democratic Party? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MO Blue on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 02:08:28 AM EST

I think it has been lost somewhere along the way. Guess Dean doesn't want to have a Democratic wing of the Democratic Party after all. Both parties are looking and often voting like Republican's now.

Glad that I cancelled my Democracy Bond. Sure don't want my money used to promote MORE religious control of our government.

If we registered by party affiliation in my state, I think I would change my affiliation from Democratic to Independent. About ready to completely give up on the so called Democratic Party.

: I cancelled mine, too. (none / 0) (#4)
by dkmich on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 07:04:08 AM EST

The Democratic Party is a waste of time and money. Reading this confirms that.

Makes No Sense (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by john horse on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 07:03:15 AM EST

From a political point of view this makes no sense. In many areas of the country conservative fundamentalists run the Republican party. One result of this is that many moderate Republicans in those states are being driven out of the Republican party. Why pander to fundamentalists? The Democrats gain very little and end up looking phony. Instead of pandering to fundamentalists we should be appealing to disenchanted Republicans.

What does it profit a party if it gains the world but loses its soul.

I didn't vote to get a Preacher in Chief (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Ellie on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:18:44 AM EST

Nor to have a National Faith preached at me from congress or the SCOTUS.

I can find Heaven or Hell just fine on my own, thanks.

Is it too much to ask these lying sacks to abide by their oaths, do the job they promised when they took office and uphold and defend the Constitution?

Could they worry about my vows and oaths AFTER they show they can do it themselves?

Evangelicals are broad spectrum (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by cmpnwtr on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:28:26 AM EST

It is wrong to paint Evangelicals with one brush. And it is wrong of progressive Democrats to simply dismiss the role of religion in the political sphere. There was a time when the immigrant Catholic vote was the backbone of Democratic politics and the source of progressive pro-Union pro-working class policies. Evangelicals range from Jim Wallis to James Dobson. Dobson may not find any common cause with Dems but the demographic of Evangelicals includes many low income people who suffer under the low wage, no health care access, and pollution policies of the Republicans. They are people who depend on social security and Medicare, and their old people need Medicaid when they go to nursing homes. Having contempt for these people is wrong. Having contempt for the values of religion in politics is wrong. A pure secularist ideology, which seems to be what the blogosphere advocates, will forever cede the political field to the radical religious right, and becomes a religion in itself. Howard Dean is right and deserves support. Those who want to bemoan the influence of religion in American life should educate themselves.

: This is elevating one PARTICULAR religion / sect (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Ellie on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:01:04 PM EST

Please don't toss out that canard about the "secular left" -- or ::: gasp ::: godless libruls -- not understanding the role of religion in American life.
There's plenty for politicians on the campaign trail to discuss and, if elected, to do upholding the Constitution.
I find the political stunt of waving around holy books for political cred distasteful and pathetic. It makes me lose respect for the person doing it not just as a potential elected representative but as soneone who puts thought and consideration behind their code of ethics and morality.

Beg to differ (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by koshembos on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:48:18 AM EST

Evangelicals should be, first and foremost, religious people. As such, the basis of all Western religions is support the poor, the sick and the disadvantage. Evangelical leaders are, by and large, political creatures with all the typical cynicism baggage.

The grassroots evangelicals should be, by definition, for the party of the people, i.e. Democrats, rather than the party of the extremely rich, i.e. the Republicans. The reason they don't vote Democratic was partially touched upon above and the rest should be dealt with separately.

Evangelical leaders stand to lose a lot if the current political trends continue; they live high on the hog with the Republican, but will starve with the Democrats. Dean is trying to show them the balance sheet and hopes to open some eyes.

In any event, the majority of the Democrats will still be blue and white collar folks; the evangelicals are not taking over.

Ignorance of religion and religious communities (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by cmpnwtr on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 02:00:00 PM EST

Many of the attitudes expressed here simply play into the meme of the religious right that the Democratic party and people on the left are intolerant of religion. In reading a number of the posts here and on other blogsites I see simply a number of people posting a shoot-from-the-hip reactive hostility to anything religious or religious values that lead to policy formulation in governing. That kind of ignorance of religion and religious communities and the intolerance that it leads to are not supported by progressive values. Even misusing the term "evangelical" as is done here, (and, I might add, by Newsweek) supports that intolerance. Surveys I have seen by blogs show that the majority of folks who are active in the blogosphere are indeed secularist in their orientation. That doesn't automatically mean they need to cultivate hostility toward religion, nor that they can't educate themselves about the diversity of religious culture in our country. Some actual dialogue within the progressive movement could really help with this. First timers to this and a number of other sites would simply conclude "these folks hate religion." Period.. And like it or not, most Americans don't hate religion. And for most Americans their orientation to religious faith is a factor in their political decision and voting. So how about finding a way to talk about working together? Howard Dean is right, why cede the field to those who are in fact extreme and bigoted?

Some of you need a reality check (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by goosedawg on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 02:11:02 PM EST

Religious faith plays a major role in the decisions a vast majority of American voters make. I'm new to this site, but have been a true Democrat all of my adult life. My Christian faith is one aspect of my life that leads me to vote Democratic. I realize many of you scoff at the idea that "faith" can influence voters, but whether you like it or not faith does influence most voters. I fail to see what political objective we achieve by ignoring the role faith plays with voters. By actively courting voters whose faith influences their vote, we can make substantial inroads in the evangelical community and can energize the mainline faith community. That's a goal worth pursuing, and we should applaud Howard Dean for it.

What's wrong with preventing teen pregnancy? (3.00 / 2) (#7)
by robrecht on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:23:29 AM EST

Laughing out loud (1.00 / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 09:49:35 AM EST

Lobbying (1.00 / 0) (#14)
by jarober on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 01:19:53 PM EST

Lots of groups lobby in favor of things I dislike. Unlike TL and the left, I actually favor free association and free speech rights for all, religious or otherwise.

So once again, pardon my laugh the next time the left calls itself tolerant. Tolerance means more than being ok with people you already like.

: This is not about religious freedom (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Al on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 04:41:37 PM EST

It's about keeping religion out of government. Completely different thing. You can practice voodoo in your home for all I care, but I don't want voodoo in government. We've had quite enough "faith-based" crap from the Republicans, thank you very much.

Voodoo (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by jarober on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 04:59:27 PM EST

This is absurd:

"It's about keeping religion out of government. Completely different thing. You can practice voodoo in your home for all I care, but I don't want voodoo in government. We've had quite enough "faith-based" crap from the Republicans, thank you very much. "

Say I favor policy position A, which liberals like. Say I favor it out of some strong sense of religious conviction - for instance, being anti-war. I presume that you folks will now hound all religious anti-war people out of the left for purity reasons?

: you've made your point (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 06:31:52 PM EST

three times now. See the commenting rules on "chatterers" and please limit yourself to four comments a day on this site.

The evangelicals.... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 08:11:19 AM EST

will get a taste of our medicine. The Dems love to court, but they're a tease when it comes time to f*ck.

Which groups get ruled out next? (none / 0) (#12)
by jarober on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:52:58 PM EST

"This is very disheartening. I don't want evangelicals -- or any religious group -- to have a say in anything but their churches -- and certainly not a say in government policy or legislation."

Ahh, the tolerant left. Which other interest groups should get ruled out - unions, lawyers, who? Who died and made TL king?

Kingdom of Fear, indeed. (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 01:34:49 PM EST

C'mon, Howard. Use your frickin' head. Make them pander and suck up to you.

The a$$-backwards route you're taking is a big mistake, and it's going to burn you.

: Not Pandering (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by talex on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 09:15:15 PM EST

"Are we going to abandon Roe v. Wade? No. But a lot can be done to prevent teen pregnancy and abortions. There is a lot we do agree on."
Dean is hardly pandering. Abortion is more than a religious issue. It is a moral issue to even some who are not inherently religious. Teen pregnancy and abortion can screw up young girls for life so if you can, as Dean says, educate and work to limit that from happening then it is a good thing. And if that helps the Dems win more votes in the process then that is OK. Like his quote above says he is not for abolishing abortion - he is just for limiting it by other alternatives.
For instance in California an unwed mother can have a baby and leave it on the doorstep of a hospital or fire station, etc - or even walk the baby in and give it up no questions no names asked. That kind of thing is good for the girl and the baby. If people, including evangelicals see that type of thing as a good thing and the Dems support that type of thing and it makes evangelicals eliminate abortion as an issue for not looking at Dems then hallelujah.
It is pretty silly for the Left to discount any constituency. I sometimes think the Left sees a buzzword like Evangelical and automatically they want nothing to do with it because of the word not because of the issue being talked about. It is as knee jerk of a reaction as Repubs have to taxes.

Some reasons that Howard Dean (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:54:09 AM EST

and the Democratic Leadership need to be very, very, very careful courting evangelicals.

The a$$-backwards route Dean is taking is a big mistake, and it's going to burn everyone.

Soldier Who Sued Army Facing Threats

Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Kill or Convert, Brought To You By The Pentagon

Video, Report Details Evangelism At Highest Levels Of US Military

Swastikas at Hunter Airfield, and a Rabbi on the Run

With God on Our Side: Evangelical Christianity On Steroids In US Military

Ft. Leavenworth Army Chaplains Preaching Anti-Semitism to US Soldiers

Anti-Semitic Bible Teachings Disappear From Army Site

The evangelist conducting those breakfast prayer meetings in the executive dining room for the Defense Secretary and upper echelon Pentagon brass and administrative management INSIDE the Pentagon's E-Ring, is James Kennedy:

'We Could Control This Country': 33 Extreme Reasons to Give Bush the Boot

Of course, there are plenty more extremist groups out there, with plenty of clout. And in addition to sharing an incestuous relationship (Famed Reconstructionist Dr. George Grant, for example, is affiliated with Coral Ridge Ministries, which is run by former National Council for Policy member D. James Kennedy, who sat on the board of directors of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, which was also organized by Tim LaHaye), they seem to be driven by a single-minded determinism. "There are forty million people who claim to have been converted. If every one of those would simply win one other person to Christ, we could control this country," televangelist Kennedy once said.
On the other hand, America is still the home of great thinkers who would surely fight back. "Our president is a Christian? So was Adolf Hitler," Kurt Vonnegut recently wrote, proving that not everyone grasps the compassion of these conservatives.
And that's the thing. These folks are not promoting the promise of America at her best, but are instead advocating the ills the Founders tried to protect against. They are striving to remake American in their stark revisionist image, and in doing so, are aiming for what America could become, at her worst.

Dadler, Dec 12, 2006

What really got me was that the Christian Embassy HAS AN OFFICE in the Pentagon's inner ring. They don't merely have access, they are a PERMANENT FIXTURE. Talk about the scariest brand of church/state intermingling. So much for the peacemakers.

C'mon guys (none / 0) (#23)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:53:17 AM EST

don't you see that if we allow "evangelicals" to participate it might crowd out convicted felons? We've got to make a stand about whom we want this Party to represent. If crooks want to participate that's fine because they've paid their dues for their crimes but if we let people who believe have professed a belief in God particpate without first having been rehabilitated then we have truly lost our moral bearings.

The New Party of Dobson? (none / 0) (#24)
by MSimon on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:14:19 AM EST

Dean managed to switch the control of the House and Senate by getting conservatives elected.

This is just another move in a winning strategy.

This is also one of the worst aspects of American democracy: the appeal to voters.

Just a little sarcasm. Pay no attention.

=

In electoral politics this is always a central issue: purity vs popularity.