Sen. Clinton urges use of faith-based initiatives

[seriousstan]

On the eve of the presidential inauguration, US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night embraced an issue some pundits say helped seal a second term for George W. Bush: acceptance of the role of faith in addressing social ills.

In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, Clinton said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.

"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.

Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston's Fairmont Copley Plaza, Clinton invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, "I've always been a praying person."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF

[MadHound]

1. Ah yes, dear Hilary, one of the better Republican Senators out there

Sad to say that she is registered as a Democrat:puke:

[ally_sc]

74. not surprising, i don't agree with this ploy at all

she really must be thinking seriously about climbing on board...i say boxer for president. anyone that stood up to that clown the other day deserves a chance to run...

[papau]

274. Hillary spoke to "TenPoint Leadership Foundation" which is a 501c3

http://www.thebakerhouse.org/latest_news/Herald_H_Clinton.html

TenPoint Leadership Foundation is a 501c3

Clinton in Hub helps honor local mentors
By Kimberly Atkins
Thursday, January 20, 2005


Hillary Rodham Clinton last night praised local inner-city activists and declared that - despite the 2004 election results - no political party has a monopoly on faith-based initiatives.

``There is a lot that needs to be done and there is an unnecessary debate in our country on how to do it,'' said the New York senator and former first lady, keynote speaker at a Boston dinner honoring local people who mentor city youth.

``It doesn't matter whether it is inspired by faith, inspired by our vision, inspired by family or inspired by the threat of federal indictment,'' she told those attending the Ella J. Baker House dinner at the Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel, which attracted some 400 people.

The Baker House, a Dorchester-based arm of the national TenPoint Leadership Foundation, was founded by the Rev. Eugene F. Rivers III.

The group's first annual awards dinner paid tribute to local leaders who have worked to assist inner-city young people. Award recipients were Boston police Commissioner Kathleen O'Toole, former U.S. Attorney Donald K. Stern, Roxbury Municipal Court Judge Edward R. Redd and Sylvia R. Johnson, associate director of the Hyams Foundation, which provides grants to support local nonprofit organizations.

``Too often it is only kids who get in trouble that get the attention,'' O'Toole said. ``I want to give attention to the kids we see in the city day in and day out.''


Hillary spoke to Natioal Ten Point program - here is a write up on what they do:


The Coalition is an ecumenical group of Christian clergy and lay leaders working to mobilize the Christian community around issues affecting Black and Latino youth -- especially those at-risk for violence, drug abuse and other destructive behaviors.

The Coalition’s goal is not to replace the local church, but to make the local church more effective in the work of rebuilding of communities. It also seeks to build partnerships with community-based, governmental, and private sector institutions which are also committed to the revitalization of the families and communities in which our youth must be raised.

The following programs have been implemented by the Coalition’s 52 church and parachurch members: street outreach programs; court advocacy and mentoring programs; economic development; health center partnerships; neighborhood crime watch support; male and female gang intervention programs; suburban and downtown to inner city church partnerships.<1>


National Ten-Point Leadership Foundation

The National Ten-Point Leadership Foundation is a non-profit organization whose primary mission is to help provide African-American Christian churches with the strategic vision, programmatic structure, and financial resources necessary to saving at-risk inner-city youth from child abuse and neglect, street violence, drug abuse, school failure, teen-age pregnancy, incarceration, chronic joblessness, spiritual depravity, and hopelessness about the future.<2>
THE TEN POINTS:

Adopting youth gangs.
Sending mediators and mentors for Black and Latino juveniles into the local courts, schools, juvenile detention facilities, and the streets.
Commissioning youth workers to do street level work with drug dealers and gang leaders.
Developing concrete and specific economic alternatives to the drug economy.
Building linkages between downtown and suburban churches and inner-city churches and ministries.
Initiating and supporting neighborhood crime watches.
Developing partnerships between churches and community health centers that would, for example, facilitate counseling for families and individuals under stress, offer abstinence-oriented prevention programs for sexually transmitted diseases, or provide substance abuse prevention and recovery programs.
Establishing brotherhoods and sisterhoods as a rational alternative to violent gang life.
Establishing rape crisis drop-in centers, services for battered women, and counseling for abusive men.
Developing a Black and Latino curriculum, with an additional focus on the struggles of women and poor people as a means of increasing literacy and enhancing self-esteem in young people.

[zann725]

122. I always considered "Bill" a Remocrat too. And I didn't vote for him....

and I WON'T vote for Hilary. Besides how could I? Since I'll be voting for the TRUE Democract, President Boxer instead.

[Just Me]

211. Feed the right-wing "consumption",...right here,...on DU.

Does THAT feel good?

Being manipulated feels like shit,...huh.

Ya'll better focus or lose to tyrants.

On edit I am just telling you to focus your anger on the tyrants and DEMAND strength from those who have the power to engage US.

[AuntiBush]

225. Here, Here!

After today, (if) I had a drink, I'd cheer that one!

[ikojo]

239. Hillary started as a Republican in upper middle class Park

Ridge, IL so this is not surprising that she would tend to side with the pugs.

It's not like Bill Clinton was a raging liberal a la Paul Wellstone. Mr Wellstone would not have pushed through as draconian legislation as welfare reform nor would he have sold the farm to shove NAFTA through a skeptical congress.

[Dufaeth]

2. I hope I don't have to vote for her.

eom

[sui generis]

3. Hillary you are treading on some thin Donna Summer records

really.

The best division of church and state is an utterly clear division.

Hillary you just lost my vote on that issue.

[GOPBasher]

4. ??????

Why? Why? Why? This is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

[Eloriel]

100. Can we say

PANDERING?

I knew we could.

:puke:

I've lost what little respect I had left for her with this stunt.

[justy329]

126. Can you say...

PANDERING WINS ELECTIONS?!

[Donailin]

209. well, I say

we need to change the system then!

goddamit, we gotta get the blinders off whoever the fuck is wearing them. sheesh.

[VegasWolf]

212. Un huh, stealing wins them too. n/t

[ikojo]

241. You mean like the Democrats pandering on Iraq and the so called

war on terror helped them regain the House and Senate in 2002....

Pandering on Iraq in the presidential election helped the Dems regain the House and Senate in 2004.....


Oh wait, running as a Me2 party DIDN'T WORK in 1998, 2000, 2002 or in 2004.....


Just as Jean Carnahan FORMER Democratic Senator from Missouri...she sided with Buish on almost all of his agenda and her seat is now occupied by a REAL Republican James (no) Talent.

The Republicans win because they acknowledge their base of far right "Christian" conservatives and NRA types.

[justy329]

286. '98 was a victory

In the midst of Impeachment, the GOP felt they would gain supper-majoroties. In the '74 election during watergate, the GOP lost BIG time and thought that their party was dead.
While we did win the popular vote in 2000 and Gore was the one who got more votes in Florida, we still should have done better on the presidentil level. I will give you that. (However, even after the '50s peace and prosperity, the VP of the administration did not get in.) So, it is hard to have one party win so many elections in a row. But, i must point out, that we exceeded all expectations in the senate. Nobody expected us to go from 45 to 50 seats. (And, of course, we would soon gain control after Jefford's defection.)

What was the year that running as an unabashed liberals worked?

[pokercat999]

299. Ok I'm assumming here that you are not

a high powered political pundit/power broker ala James Carville or Donna Brazile? So why can't they see the wisdom in your statements......because they are owned by the samne corporations as the Repugs.....and after all this bullshit in 2004 guess who was 100% correct......was 100% true to his convictions and was roasted and hated right here on DU

RALPH NADER !!!!!!


When will we learn............can you spell N E V E R

[seaofcrisis]

276. Pandering is the rule, not the exception

Can you think of any mainstream polititian who doesn't pander to the crowds? Hell, Boxer was doing it when she questioned Rice the other day. Any politician from her district would have said the exact same things. I find the whole political system really sick. Sometimes, I think we'd be better off if legislators were selected at random from amoung the general population - like doing jury duty.

[no_to_war_economy]

5. clinton was the best

republican president ever

never again, never again

[justy329]

124. GET REAL!!!

Would you rather have had a Republican? If we had two pro-life justices appointed, you might be seeing back alley abortions.

What about his economic plan that made the wealthy pay their fair share. Who ended the great failure known as a trickle-down economics?

My lord, you arch-leftists make me ashamed to be a Democrat with your nonsense.

[Wind Dancer]

149. You might want to look at voting records.

I didn't realize FDR was considered an arch-leftist.

[justy329]

151. actually, he was not.

Liberals felt that FDR could do more in terms of direct aide to the poor than what his New Deal programs did.
Also, I don't know if you all would have totally approved WWII.

[ikojo]

242. FYI: MANY Americans were opposed to the US entering

WWII that is until Dec 7, 1941 (attack on Pearl Harbor for those who are not familiar w/American history). Until then there was a large and active Mothers movement (led primarily by women on the right) against the US entering into what was seen as yet another European conflict.

The US did not go to war against Germany to save Jews that is for sure. It was a secondary effect (liberation of the camps) but not the reason the US went to war. Antisemitism was widespread in the US at the time.

[Donailin]

213. A little note on the right to choose

David Brooks, an extreme conservative who writes for the NYT and total supporter of Bush answered this question today on NPR. Paraphrasing; "If folks think that abortion is going to be made illegal in the near future, they should think again. Even if the issue were overturned, the states would still provide abortions on demand. Roe v. Wade is highly unlikely to be overturned no matter who is on the SC."

IOW, it was pandering on the part of the president to get the "moral" vote. They know better than to overturn it. They want to starve the beast, not make the beast bigger.

[justy329]

222. so you're saying it's OK

to run spoilers to take votes away from Dems or run un-electable left-wing candidates because if a GOP wins, abortion won't be made illegal?
I detest that reasoning. There are many more reasons besides the right to choose that demand that every better even remotely left of center UNITE behind one candidate.

[Donailin]

300. hell no

I was just pointing out how the repubs will say anything to get a vote.

[AndyTiedye]

259. He's Just Trying To Lull Us To Sleep Until It's TOO LATE

The Scalia court will not only overturn Roe, they'll probably
ban abortion by judicial fiat. Since they consider birth control
to be abortion, they'll take down Griswold v. Ct. too while they're
at it.

[Bono71]

260. I doubt it, but you never know...if they did do such a preposterous

thing, there really would be riots in the streets.

[AndyTiedye]

268. No, There Wouldn't

People would be really unhappy about it, but there would be nothing
and I do mean NOTHING that we could possibly ever do about it. We'd
need a Constitutional amendment to get those rights back again, and the
Bible Belt would be able to stop that until the end of time.

Once they take over the Supreme Court, it's all over for women's rights,
gay rights, civil rights, and everything else we and our parents fought
for in the last century.

[Donailin]

302. well yeah, and a lot of it would be from their own party.

[Donailin]

301. I dunno man

I think it would not be in the interest of the repubs to overturn RvW.
It is too slippery a slope. In their greedy minds, it would end up being a monkey on their back.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. What a sad day.

Hillary needs to spend some time in the South to understand what those faith based bribes are all about. That money is not being distributed to the poor properly.

[hiley]

20. That is the damn truth

People have to jump through hoops and still get screwed.:wtf:

[The Backlash Cometh]

36. Most of these "churches" don't have a proper definition of "poverty."

For them, poor blacks and hispanics are poor because they don't work, so their poverty is their own creation. They won't help them. They won't help their own. At the very best, that money will go to pay missionary trips to Brazil & other foreign countries. Most likely, if it's spent here, it will go to buy land to build storehouse-type buildings where they'll put up thrift shops and sell donated clothing.

I went with my dad to one of these after Christmas to give them my mom's clothing. We were hoping it would go directly to migrant workers. We never were sure it did. But, in the warehouse, after Christmas, there was at least one thousand wrapped toy Christmas presents. The kinds you see collected in Toys for Tots. They said they had a distribution problem and would redistribute again. That's a thousand toys that people donated that didn't make it to kids before Christmas.

We found another missionary group that DOES give directly to migrant workers. They get the rest of mom's stuff.

[Taragui Junkie]

84. Most religious groups are evil.

They say they're interested in helping people, but they really only help the "right" people, and they help themselves.

Government is neutral, efficient and much more effective.

[The Backlash Cometh]

86. "Government is neutral" Very good statement.

It can also be reglulated better than churches.

[formernaderite]

91. they also tend to be very discriminatory towards alternative lifestyles...

...not even in the left or right sense. Even in democratic urban city centers you'll find black churches preaching hate against gays and lesbians.

Hillary is running to the right, so she can run for President. I just hope the democratic party doesn't coronate her like they did in the Senate race.

[Donailin]

214. It never is

in any organized religion. Go to Rome or Florence where the churches are worth their weight in gold and find the homeless begging for money across the street while the priests hear confessions.

[Connie_Corleone]

7. Does she really think this is a winning strategy for 2008??

I hope Democrats don't vote for her in the primaries.

[Bono71]

43. Apparently she does think it is a winning strategy. n/t

[Lorien]

65. The DLC does

it's a great strategy for helping the repugs win more seats!

[soleft]

8. I've long suspected Hillary is a major league Dino

Didn't she work for Republicans in the 60's. I'd vote for a self respecting pro choice republican than before I'd vote for this poser. I'd only chose her over a neo con fascist religious wacko. It cracks me up that people see her as being far on the left.

[Bono71]

9. This has Bill Clinton written all over it, and in my view a

very smart political move.

Take back the red states, people.

[Dufaeth]

12. No more compromise

We'll be a theocracy before you know it.

[Bono71]

15. No we won't. n/t

[mutus_frutex]

26. Yes, you will..

If things continue as they are, the US might be a mild theocracy within 20 years and a hard one in 30.

It didn't take too long for the Nazis to take over Germany I give the States a bit longer since it has a long tradition of democracy and the inertia and apathy of its people works in both directions.

[Bono71]

38. Get over it...

we will not become a theocracy, period. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't want it. And to compare the US right now to Nazi Germany, are you kidding????????

[Charlie Brown]

80. most Iranians did not want a theocracy in '79

and I doubt most Iraqis supported Saddam in the 60s/70s. Even in Germany in the 30s, I think most ordinary blokes probably disliked the idea of a police-state with a monopoly on religion, the military, etc. You think they would have supported Hitler if he had advertised his mania for global conquest and extermination?

Majority opinion has nothing to do with the aspirations of those in power.

[Bono71]

110. Oh I see...we are now in danger of becoming Iran...

give me a break.

[FizzFuzz]

296. small nitpick--Hitler DID advertise his manias, in Mein Kampf.

The problem was, no one believed he would really do what he said he was going to do.

People stay in denial until the gun is pointed at their forehead.

Hmmm, what did Bush just say he's going to do?.....fires of freedom? :scared:

I just had to jump in, as I think it's important to remember Hitler did say clearly what he planned and how barbaric he intended to be about it (I've been reading accounts of Hitler's rise to power lately, that's how I know.)

[mutus_frutex]

89. I don't need to get over it..

I'm not an american citizen and when the time comes, I'll probably get the hell out of here. But I do feel for all my good american friends.

As some other post nicely put it, the fact that the majority doesn't want it is not an obstacle.

And where did I compare the US with Nazi Germany?? You really read whatever you wanted in my post. I was merely giving an example of how a totalitarian regime can arise extremely fast, given the right conditions. Obviously, the conditions in Germany only slightly resemble the conditions in the US right now.

By the way, the first skirmishes in the establishment of a theocracy have already been won: the Bush administration(s). They set up everything for the big battle: the takeover of your Judicial system. Once that is in place you can kiss most of your freedoms good-bye.

[Bono71]

111. Only, unlike most theocracies, the Bush administration

is gone, no questions asked, in 4 years, and we get another crack at the presidency...tell me, is that how it works in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Jordan?

[mutus_frutex]

143. OK, man, denial is great...

I'm done with you.. I hope you enjoy the next 15-20 years of a conservative SC if it comes to pass..

And to show you that there are no hard feelings I'll open you my house in my 3rd world but nicely secular country..

Cheers..

[Bono71]

144. Don't let the door... n/t

[Just Me]

215. WTF are YOU ABOUT?!?!?!

You have clearly served as THE antagonist.

I ASK "WHY"?

What is your motivation to BE HERE?

GET PERSONAL,...cause this life is personal and, you OBVIOUSLY know it.

What is your motivation,...to post here?

[Bono71]

254. I am 'about' Democrats winning again. n/t

[leesa]

289. He is about irrational appeasement. This works very well for the GOP

[Sterling]

154. Yes, it's all just Bush that is behind it.

All our problems will be solved when Jeb is elected in 2008 and Hillary urges us to all go to church. :eyes:

[clovis29]

216. I guess you don't watch the news. We are Taliban Lite

Wait for the incarcaration for those who don't toe the line.

[Trillo]

55. We've been a mild Christian theocracy

for all the years I've been alive. The separation of church and state simply created a false image of perceived secularism, to trap and punish those young ones who hadn't yet read and followed the Christian rulebook.

[Bono71]

71. That must be news to Jewish politicians like Lieberman, n/t

[mutus_frutex]

92. Lieberman is a weasel nt

[Bono71]

98. I forget, is he Christian or Jewish?

[mutus_frutex]

90. That is the impression that most secular democracies have of the US

And after hearing the inauguration today, I think there is little doubt about it.

[Bono71]

99. Really? I suppose there will be a law passed that we all

have to be Christian, any day now.

[mutus_frutex]

106. I doubt it, but

You don't need that to hace a theocracy..

[Bono71]

107. What do you need? Tell me, are we more like governments

in secular Europe or theocratic Middle East?

[mutus_frutex]

135. And people accuse me of being black and white.. :-)

Seriously, theocracy is just rule by the laws of god, be it directly or by inspired intermediaries. So, when the laws are subverted to serve a moral code that it divinely inspired, you have a theocracy.

There are many laws in the use that would qualify as "divinely inspired", some are in the works, some are already there, others have been repealed but would come back in a second with a conservative SC:

1) An amendment of the constitution to define marriage
2) Sodomy laws
3) The ban on cloning
4) The attempt to ban abortion

And to answer your question, I'm considered a "secular extremist" by many, so it shouldn't surprise you that I think the US gov (specially right now) is closer to the theocracies of the middle east that to the secular europeans.. (Just look at the things that Bush is pushing and see where would they be more accepted, France or Saudi Arabia.. :-)

Cheers..

[Bono71]

136. If you think we are closer to Saudi Arabia (which tolerates only

Islam), you are smoking crack.

On edit:

1) There will never be such an amendment, there aren't enough votes (something that has been WELL publiscized) you seem to miss this point.
2) Sodomy laws have come down in most states, again, you miss this.
The other points you make are not even worth responding to.

Oh, and our 1st Amendment is not something you would find in any theocracy BECAUSE IT EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS SUCH---it would help if you read our constitution.

Cheers.

[mutus_frutex]

140. Nice non sequitur..

I can see you couldn't find an argument against my point.. So lets leave it at that..

Regarding your nice touch of pointing out my foreign ignorance, the only thing I have to say is that your Constitution is a beautiful LIVING document. You seem to forget that what's in it can come out..

Regards..

[Bono71]

142. What?!

All your points were bogus...

Hey einstein...abortion is legal in every state in the US...did you know that?

Stem cell research is LEGAL IN THE US...bet ya didn't know that....

Yes, the Constitution is a living document, but you stated we are closer to Saudi Arabia than France, and that my little friend is utter tripe (especially in light of the fact that our Bill of Rights--currently the law of the land--- inspired the secular societies of Europe!).

I could win the lottery, doesn't mean it will happen.

Good grief.

[mutus_frutex]

147. I find it amusing when

americans think that we, foreigners living in this country, are completely ignorant..

(And yes, this IS a non sequitur..)

[Bono71]

164. If you would write something that

is intelligent, maybe we wouldn't feel this way.

And it is duly noted that you did not adress the fact that abortion and stem cell research are legal and the first amendment prohibits the very theocratic government you so unintelligently imagine.

[ldf]

174. try paying attention to current politics

and then buy a clue, since you obviously don't have one.

everything you listed that is currently "legal" is now being put up for reconsideration.

you don't think the so-called "christians" that are in power can't reverse everything you say is legal? helloooo. they have already started.

again, get a clue. your tit for tat here means absolutely nothing.

[mutus_frutex]

176. Thanks...

That was more or less the case I was trying to make, but this person didn't make the effort to understand and I just got tired.

I know that I was presenting a worst case scenario, but he/she is in serious denial..

[Bono71]

180. No those who think the US is closer to Saudi Arabia than

France with respect to the current form of government are either delusional, insane, or have very little understanding of our Constitution, our freedoms or our country (ie, you).

[mutus_frutex]

231. I had given up on this, but

I think this discussion is worth the time.

First of all let me say that we are both liberals and that, as such, we should be able to maintain a civilized conversation. If I have at any time offended you, please, accept my apologies. I tend to be a bit flippant. Personally I'm pretty thick skinned. After years of being berated for my ideas, which tend to be contrarian and difficult to accept to many, I have become accustomed to being insulted. That said, let us try to bring the discourse to a higher level.

I would like to give you an idea of where I come from so you can understand my position a bit better: My country is a democracy almost as old as your. Moreover, it is extremely secular. Regretfully, we have stumbled along the way, the same as your country (the civil war comes to mind, as well as some other things like slavery and segregation). The worst was probably during the 70 and 80 when we were under a right wing dictatorship. I spent half of my life in that dictatorship.

My countries institutions fell in a very short time, less than 10 years, after a tradition of 160 years of democracy. It fell even when most of the people considered themselves democrats. But a large number were scared of the specter of communism, the government fed that fear and used it to divide the country. In a very short time the government had turned against its people.

Does this sound familiar?

Keep that in mind and take into consideration that I'm an atheist, coming from an extremely secular society where it is considered in very bad taste for politicians to express any religious opinions. It is considered undemocratic, especially in the executive branch, which represents all the people in the country, not just a party.

Therefore, all the expressions of religion that I observe in this country are truly scary, especially when they to put them into laws. Coming from such a secular society, I have a very low threshold for considering something a theocracy. To me, some of the things I here coming out of this administration sound as scary as the one you can now hear maybe not in Saudi Arabia, but in Iran.

I also find very naive, some people might even consider it arrogant, that it doesn't even occur to americans that their institutions might be subverted by a determined group of people. Your founding father would probably be embarrassed by the complacency of the american people.

So, having said all this, please got back on this thread an re-read some of my message. I know there some hyperbole on my part, and we can discuss that, but for the most part I don't think I'm wrong.

Regards..

[Bono71]

255. Well we can agree on one thing...

Our founding fathers would be upset with the complacency of our electorate.

[Bono71]

179. Excuse me...

this thread is about whether the US is currently a theocracy (as preposterous as that sounds).

And in case you didn't know this, Democrats have won two elections in the last 25 years...so if anyone needs a clue, it is those who advocate more political suicide (here is a hint--that is you).

[leesa]

291. We?? It's just you baby!

[truth2power]

153. Excuse me, Bono...

but I heard something this afternoon that absolutely appalled me. It was on NPR. They were playing clips of various inauguration speakers and I heard one of them say that "Jesus Christ is Lord of this Nation". (This is as close as anything to the exact quote.) I don't know who said this. (it wasn't Bush). It may have been one of the clergy. I can't give you documentation of this. Sorry. I wasn't attending 100% to what was on the radio, as I was making dinner. But I know what I heard.

I find this to be an outrageous slap in the face to those of us who do not identify ourselves as Christians, seeing that this took place at a venue that is supposed to be for ALL the people of this nation.

This says to me that those pushing the "faith-based" agenda simply don't care what we think. You can poo-poo this all you want, but I see the handwriting on the wall, and it ain't pretty.

You are deluding yourself. We are much further along the road to fascism with a theocratic face than you can imagine!

edit> created a smilie in the middle of everything by mistake.

[Bono71]

165. I think I heard what you are talking about and it disturbed me

as well...but to say this country is close to "fascism" or "theocracy" is a slap in the face to people who live under such tyrranical regimes.

Again, witness the first amendment.

[primavera]

175. You read too much into the word fascism

Fascism is a specific form of government, it does not refer solely to the form it took under Adolph Hitler. No, we are not very much like nazi Germany. But Franco's was a fascist government as well and it also did not resemble nazi Germany terribly closely. That did not make it any less a fascist state. A state does not need to have Hermann Goering among its officers to qualify as fascist. And the characteristics which define a fascist state, such as consolidation of centralized power, official secrecy and the elimination of transparency and accountability, elimination of judicial review, promotion of nationalism and jingoism, the primacy of the military in public policy, persecution of dissent, suspension of civil liberties, manipulation of the media, are all being practiced in this country as we speak. No, we're not as extreme as nazi Germany, nor are we likely to be anytime soon, but increasingly we're differing more by degree than by substance. And that should be an alarming development all by itself. For one, such practices are fundamentally incompatable with democratic institutions, so every advance in that direction weakens democracy. Moreover, degrees can change gradually and incrementally without sparking widespread public alarm. We've already reached the stage where we can evidently tolerate the indefinite detention of persons held without charges, trials, or evidence, and are even willing to sit idly by while these persons are tortured and murdered in our name. Given the direction and pace of change we've seen over the last four years, where do you imagine we'll be four years from now?

[Bono71]

181. In four years we will be having another democratic election...

something that typically does not happen in a fascist state (take your pick, Germany, Japan, Italy or Spain). If Democrats continue to tilt at windmills and allow themselves to be identified as the party without spiritual reflection, a Republican will win yet again.

Let me ask you, is it ok that MLK was a CHRISTIAN minister?

[primavera]

182. Sorry, wrong again

The Nazi Party came to power in elections. Stalin stood in elections. Elections are by no means a guarantor of democracy. Admittedly, it is a common practice among fascist states to rig or tamper with elections, by, for instance, purging voter registration rolls, intimidating voters, you know, the kind of stuff we're doing these days.

[Bono71]

185. No you are wrong...Stalin was not democratically elected...

as for the Nazis, they took power and poof, no more elections...

If you really believe we are headed towards a 1933-esque Germany in 4 years, that is your problem, though I think that view seriously underestimates our people. Again, that's your choice.

Love him or hate him, Bush is gone in 4 years. That I would be willing to bet a million bucks on...if Democrats don't win in 08, it will be because more people voted for the Republican, period.

[primavera]

187. I never said he was

That was precisely my point: the simple existence of elections does not ensure democracy; it is possible to have undemocratic elections. Which is why developments such as redistricting to reduce the influence of opposition voters, utilizing legal loopholes to recall democratically elected official the first instant they're vulnerable, pushing self-serving double standards regarding vote tabulations, the selective purging of voter rolls, and all of the other dirty tricks being employed in this country to undermine democratic elections I would think would be of some concern to all of us.

That you are evidently prepared to dismiss such evidence as trivial and inconsequential because, after all, Adolph Hitler isn't our head of state, ergo it somehow follows that all must be well, this is America after all, not some dictatorship, well, I think that goes a long way towards explaining how we got where we are today. I must marvel at your confidence in our people - since apparently no development shakes your confidence in the quality of our democracy, what gives you such confidence that others won't share your sunny appraisal no matter what fate befalls them?

[Bono71]

193. In case you didn't hear, the turnout on election day

was enormous and our guy received a hell of a lot of votes. True he didn't win, but he was up against an incumbant during a time of war.

You seem to think that because our guy didn't win, we are somehow sprialing into a fascist state. That is utter folly. We lost, it is a simple as that. The election was not stolen (yes, 2000 is another matter, but not '04).

The things you mention (redistricting, etc) are troubling but have been around for a long time. Both parties do it. No process is perfect, but do you honestly think that even with a majority in both the house and senate Bush will get everything he wants? Ah yes, the beauty of checks and balances.

The ACLU (I am a card carrying member) has had enormous success the last several years keeping the church out of the political arena. Would this happen in a religious-fascist state? I think not.

The bottom is, we are at a crossroads. Hillary is trying to reconnect with a majority of Americans who like to know that their leaders feel comfortable with faith (any faith). This is commendable.

[primavera]

201. No, we're just keeping dubious company

The one and only point I've been trying to make all along, despite your efforts to re-shape it into something ridiculous, is that forms of governance are not black and white. Simply because one presently calls oneself a democracy does not mean that everything that goes on in that state is, and always will remain, democratic. Elections may be tampered with, checks and balances can be circumvented, change can occur in small increments, the cumulative effect of which can, does, and is in this very country, fundamentally undermine its democratic integrity. What keeps a state democratic is the vigilance of its members, constantly striving to ensure that the state does not succumb to anti-democratic tendencies. We are witnessing, right this very instant, numerous such anti-democratic tendencies which bear an alarming similarity to practices adopted by fascist dictatorships throughout history. You would have me believe that, because we're a democracy, we don't ever need to worry about such things, nobody's perfect but, hey, we're the good guys, lighten up! I feel compelled to ask, how many anti-democratic tendencies will you tolerate before you're willing to admit that our democracy might be in trouble? Will anything less than jackbooted thugs in black uniforms shake your complacency?

[Bono71]

203. Now you're putting words in my keyboard...

I never stated I would tolerate anti-democratic tendencies...and I agree, a citizenry must be vigilant to hold onto its rights (this explains my support for the ACLU).

However, I obviously have much more faith in our system than you do. For example, our judicial system has already ruled against the government in a number of the "terrorist" cases. I find this reassuring. Yes, the government (more specifically, the current administration) has done things beyond the scope of power it has been granted under the Constitution, but I am satisfied by the various court decisions that have held them in check.

The current strain of nationalism gripping our country is not a good thing. But, what do you expect after 3000 people are savagely killed on national television. The mistake of Iraq will dismantle this nationalsim, my hope is we get out of their sooner than later. Make no mistake, however, the polls out today show support to be seriously eroding for that action, and the counrty will make a change in 2008 at the rate we are headed.

Again, it's not perfect. But, cut the melodrama. It is getting boring.

[primavera]

220. Spend a few days in Gitmo...

...and then tell me about how "melodramatic" I'm being. Or perhaps you'd care to explain your views to the mother of an Iraqi child whose mangled body has just been dragged from beneath the rubble of a building demolished by an american cruise missile.

I'm happy for you that recent political developments have afforded you the ease and comfort with which to dismiss critics as "boring." They have not been equally gentle to everyone. That apparently means nothing to you. As one in whose name such "boring" policies are being perpetrated, I personally have a hard time sleeping at night with that on my conscience. Whether it bothers you is for you to decide. Sleep well.

[truth2power]

198. Slap in the face? No it's not.

First of all, as far as the constitution, I think the BFEE + Ashcroft have already finished wiping their asses on what was left of it.

As to your other statement, I've certainly heard this before. But here's the thing: When someone says, "We're becoming fascist," and someone else says, "You can't say that, because others have suffered under fascism," it seems that it becomes a contest to see who has the greater claim to victimhood. I truly don't understand that, and I'm not being disingenuous here. Just because you (not you personally) are a victim doesn't mean I can't be one also.

I'm just not going to shut up about this anymore. There are plenty of people more credible than I who are saying that what we're living under meets all the criteria of a fascist state. I think it's clear that we meet all the 14 points of fascism listed in that article that's been floating around here.

And here's a link you might want to check out:

I've been passing this around to everyone I know.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html

BUT WAIT...yeah, I know. It's Lew Rockwell. But that's exactly the point. Someone on DU posted this link awhile back and sort of apologized because it's a Libertarian site.

Aside from it being a really good article,IMO, it says to me that WHEN EVEN THE LIBERTARIANS ARE RAISING THE ALARM, IT'S TIME TO WAKE UP! :scared:

I also had a sermon by a Unitarian minister, where he talks about clear signs of fascism in the current administration. Unfortunately, I can't find it. I'll post a link if I come across it.

[Bono71]

200. I guess we'll have to disagree...

I come from a place which has had the same guy at the helm for 45 (going on 46) years. Yet people on this board defend the form of government...can you say Irony?

Think about it, a guy threw a snowball during the presidential parade at Dick Cheney's car. If this were a truly fascist state, do you think that guy would live to tell about it?

Are things perfect now, hell no.

But I'm optimistic we can win, and it starts with reconnecting with folks in red states that voted for Clinton and Carter (Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico, Ohio and Iowa). They like politicians who are confortable discussing faith and religion. That is the candidate we need.

[ikojo]

244. Jean Carnahan (FORMER Senator from Missouri)

ran as a Me2 Democrat...she supported the unprovoked war on Iraq as well as the PATRIOT Act....

When she ran as a Me2 Dem in a non presidential election (when turnout is lower and generally the incumbent stands a better chance) against a real Republican, James (no)Talent, in 2002, she LOST....

LOST...

Running as Republican lite LOSES elections.

The right-wing does not have a lock nor does it define what is "faith based." It is to the shame of Democrats and liberals that people look to the right when defining what is "faith based" and it does nothing but give them more power.

There are "faith based" people within the Democratic party and on the left. Ever hear of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism? It's faith based (Jewish so it may not count among the folks Hillary and the DLC are pandering to).

http://rac.org/index.cfm?

How about Jim Wallis, he's a Christian and has written a book called God's Politics...here is a blurb...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060558288/qid=1106314565/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-8453569-1605765

God's Politics offers a clarion call to make both our religious communities and our government more accountable to key values of the prophetic religious tradition -- that is, make them pro-justice, pro-peace, pro-environment, pro-equality, pro-consistent ethic of life (beyond single issue voting), and pro-family (without making scapegoats of single mothers or gays and lesbians). Our biblical faith and religious traditions simply do not allow us as a nation to continue to ignore the poor and marginalized, deny racial justice, tolerate the ravages of war, or turn away from the human rights of those made in the image of God. These are the values of love and justice, reconciliation, and community that Jesus taught and that are at the core of what many of us believe, Christian or not. In the tradition of prophets such as Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day, and Desmond Tutu, Wallis inspires us to hold our political leaders and policies accountable by integrating our deepest moral convictions into our nation's public life.

[truth2power]

261. Several issues here....

I assume you are from Cuba, Castro having come to power in '59 (46 years ago). My thoughts on your statement, above:

Cuba under Batista was a playground for filthy-rich Americans and Mafiosi like Meyer Lansky. Ordinary Cubans certainly did not prosper under that system. Then Castro came to power. If the US had not been so truculent toward Castro and been willing to work with him and not drive him into the arms of the Soviet Union, perhaps the course of Cuban history, from 1959 on, might have been far different.

We drove him to the Soviet Union and then complained because Cuba was "Communist". Since that time, Cuba has been under seige by the US. For those who complain about Castro's heavy-handed tactics, I would suggest they look at what's happened here in the US since 911. All kinds of restrictions on our civil rights and general pissiness by our Dear Leader in the service of protecting us from the "terrists". When a leader feels beseiged (well, in Bush's case he's a mental case and paranoid, but that's another discussion) he resorts to harsh measures to protect his country.

So, I don't see the irony at all, in that respect.

As far as the "Is it fascist yet"" argument, I really, really don't understand why some feel we should wait until fascism is firmly entrenched here before we mobilize ourselves to stop it, anymore than waiting until cancer or heart disease has totally ravaged the body before instituting treatment.

It's undeniable that we now meet the criteria of a fascist state, although, as others have pointed out, fascism in America will not come marching down the street in jackboots, at least initially.

For the present, our fascist leaders can depend on the media to keep the sheep (and they are sheep) pacified with general bullshit and propaganda. When that no longer works, they'll take away the Potemkin Village and bring the hammer down, I guarantee you.

I continue to maintain my position that the Democratic Party, by moving to the right (or even more to the center) will absolutely ensure their demise. Of course, no one comes to my little corner of the world to ask how it should be done. I'm just a bystander. Let the games begin!

Thanks for being willing to discuss this.

[Bono71]

262. Ah yes, the old

it's the US's fault that Castro has committed these crimes.

The US is not the poster child for fair play to be sure...this does not excuse Castro... we are dealing with a sociopath.

[truth2power]

263. You read fast!

:-)

According to Freud, human behavior is overdetermined. Events and behavior are complexly shaped by many processes. Therefore, I can't say that if the US had taken a different path vis a vis Castro, that things would definitely have been different. Many other factors can come into play, I'm sure. But I continue to believe that we bear significant blame for the path that Cuba took after the Revolution.

As far as Castro being a sociopath, I haven't studied that in depth. But Bush most certainly is, clinically speaking, a sociopath. I haven't seen where you've noted that.

[Bono71]

267. I agree Bush is a sociopath...no argument there. n/t

[leesa]

206. You are so out of touch with reality. WAKE UP!

[Bono71]

207. Answer this...

who was the last Democrat to win? Who was the last democrat before him? What was their rhetoric regarding religion?

Awake yet?

[leesa]

288. And did they need that rhetoric. NO.

Go back to sleep. I like you better that way.

[MadHound]

22. Please friend, wake up

The red states can be taken back without resorting to theocratic measures. This is simply another in a long list of signposts saying that we are now living under the two party/same corporate master system of government.

How about the Democrats growing a fucking spine and stand up and fight like the opposition party that they are supposed to be, instead of rolling over and pissing on themselves like a pup afraid of it's master?

[Bono71]

42. Last 24 years- 16 years republican, 8 years Bill Clinton...

next 4 years, another republican...you WAKE UP.

[MadHound]

64. Yep, you're right,

Of the last twenty four years we've had 16 with a 'Pug in office, and eight years of a man who acted like one. Time for the Democrats to start acting like the opposition party, or get the hell out of the way for a real opposition party. It certainly isn't time for the Dems to continue to move ever rightward, we've tried that strategy the last two presidential campaigns, and what did it get us? Certainly not the presidency.

[sandnsea]

132. Last 150 years

Only 7 Dem Presidents. It's been a fight for Democrats ever since the Civil War. The north has turned, once we get the mountain states again, it'll be a complete reversal. We don't need to run on faith-based initiatives to win the west. Clinton wanted to focus on economics in 2004, he wanted to come out for gay marriage amendments, he didn't understand how important security was. And he never would have won without Perot anyway. He doesn't have the answers for this party. I like him fine, I just prefer not to have any more of his politics.

[Bono71]

133. Clinton would have won with or without the little guy from Tejas...

He would have cleaned up in 2000, as well.

[sandnsea]

139. Okay

If you say so. I think no on both counts. Clinton may well have done worse than Gore in 2000, people really were pretty sick of him.

[OldVlad]

152. So Hillary isn't the savior

They're laughing the butts off on FR at this slamefest, fyi. Bono, there are days when I don't know if there's any hope with the treatment Christians receive on here. If we aren't at least allowed to talk about Christianity in the new, smaller, defeated, minority Democratic Party, at least to fool the middle states if nothing else, I think 4 years is too rose colored glasses. I honestly believe I'll never see another Democrat in the White House in my lifetime. Not that I have all that long left, but people don't seem to be able to comprehend the long term sesmic shifts we've been experienced in the past 2 decades, and they're all bad. Every single indicator, House, Senate, state legislatures, allowing a functional idiot to defeat us twice. There is absolutely no reason for hope in this landscape. I have no idea what could be worse then seeing Bush sworn in today with all the pagentry to rub it in each poster on here's face for people to realize that radical secularism is not working.

[Bono71]

183. I know what you mean...to me the most

frustrating thing is that it would take only a minor shift in our **rhetoric** when it comes to religion...that's it...

I am with you...if we continue fighting unwinnable battles we deserve to lose the war.

It would have been incomprehensible to invision the current state of the national party in 1998, when the Big Dog was kicking ass and taking names...oh, well...

[OldVlad]

195. Maybe they'll learn after the rejection of 04

No wait, that happened in 00 and 02 and people here just get angrier and more blame shifting, strike that.

The Germans have a word for the kind of self-destructive, childish behavior; Schadenfreude. I swear many Dems hear that someone chose the otherside against them, as we've slid down the slippery slope of so many rejecting us, and they seem to want to antagonize those perceived enemies even more, in some sort of baffling to behold temper tantrum. At this moment I think God has forsaken the Democratic Party. Its tough getting up in the morning.

[Bono71]

197. I sometimes feel that way, but in the end I am

your typical American...I'm optimistic to the core...

Why?

I think there are more Bill and Jimmy's out there who understand politics and can follow through with the right rhetoric and personality to go all the way. In 08 we won't be up against an incumbant, and Bush will do nothing to help out his team (bless him, he's too dumb).

[Boosterman]

245. Nice posts man

I agree with you for the most part. While Hillary is making a shrewd move I think she wont be able to pull it off. Time will tell. I would prefer a new fresh face. He/she doesnt have to be overly religious or even religious at all (would help though). They just have to seem comfortable with it. Preferably someone who didnt have a lot of baggage in the past. Hillary for Veep?

[Bono71]

253. I agree with that 100%...

I doubt seriously Hillary could pull it off...we need fresh faces.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. Taliban rule is faith based..is that a good idea?

[Bono71]

39. Where did she state we should adopt a Taliban style

government? Sheesh, you guys have a little Knee-jerk in you, huh?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. Do you believe no faith based money has gone to the likes of Moon?

What about Scientology? How much has gone to hateful evangelists such as Falwell and Robertson? What distinguishes them from the Taliban...oh, and "knee-jerk" is a nice ad hominem to throw when you are the one that hasn't seen this through to its rightful conclusion.

We already subsidize faith by not taxing it...I think they can raise their money privately.

[Bono71]

48. Again, if we are talking presidential politics, the statements

made by H. Clinton are very shrewd and intelligent. Forget what ANY politician says, judge them by what they do...

Do you really think, if Hillary Clinton were to win a presidential election the US would become a theocracy?

Chill out, bro.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. I am not a bro and that is not the point

but it is clear you think pandering to religion is a winning formula. I ask at what cost? You apparently don't see one. That means we have reached an impasse.

[The Straight Story]

230. Just an observation

How much of our tax dollars have went to kill iraqi's and afghans? My point being that even though taxes are sometimes used poorly we still want to keep the general taxes there, we just want to fix where the problems with them are.

Sure, some faith-based money may get ill spent, but why not work on fixing that and making the system work? While we are a secular government many of the people whom that government represents are faith oriented and congregate weekly at a church/et al. Many of these churches also provide a service to the poor in their community and have had years of real experience doing so. In that sense, from a 'job' perspective they have qualifications to employ in that field.

If we are worried about X/Y/Z with respect to how they handle it, then modify the terms and have a body oversee the whole thing. In the end the poor will benefit, the government will still be doing their thing to help them through food stamps and such, and we can paint ourselves as the party that uses all means possible to help others.

[jab105]

50. How? They'll vote for the real deal instead...

We have to win people back with distinguishing ourselves from Republicans...taking back words and phrases that they now seem to own, such as partiotism, morality, and values...

[Bono71]

52. Almost correct...

By taking the religion card (or other social wedge issues) off of the table, Clinton and other democrats can focus on the facts...

If it boils down to the economy and jobs (like it did in 1992) who do you think is going to win?

[AndyTiedye]

97. After We Give Them The Social Programs, Do We Give The Schools Too?

You have no problem with making people hosanna for their food
(which is what faith-based programs do).

Once they have taken over the social programs, they'll want to
dismantle the public schools and replace them with religious schools.
I suppose we have to cave in to that too.

We have little chance of winning no matter what we do
(because they own the news and the voting machinez)
we might as well go down with some principles intact.

[Bono71]

115. Where did HC state we would GIVE THEM the social programs...

here's a hint, don't waste your time looking, she never said that...

[AndyTiedye]

192. You Are Ducking the Question

> Where did HC state we would GIVE THEM the social programs

Cutting social programs and giving the money to churches to run
"faith-based" social programs amounts to turning those programs
over to them.

Caving in to the religious right is the wrong thing to do,
and it won't gain us any votes anyway. They will just demand
more and more until they have it all.

[Bono71]

194. I agree with what you write...not trying to duck the question...

but I think her statements do nothing in this regard...it is rhetoric, not a vote on such matters.


Rhetoric is your friend.

[klyon]

123. so I suppose we should take abortion and gay rights off too

KL

[Bono71]

129. I think those issues are different...with respect to

abortion, a majority of people (according to polls) are pro choice.

As far as gay rights go, I think that is an issue for the courts. Which is why we need to get control of the white house.

[Charlie Brown]

199. Not sure I understand your reasoning

"abortion, a majority of people (according to polls) are pro choice."

So if the polls flip, and the majority support restricting the right to choose, you would become pro-life?

"As far as gay rights go, I think that is an issue for the courts."

If the Dems cannot stop the Federal Marriage Amendment, anything the Courts have to say will be moot. Sen. Clinton's husband had no problem supporting DOMA in '96, thus indicating he saw the gay vote as disposable. Since the majority clearly support witholding marital rights from gays, can I assume you share their beliefs?

[Bono71]

202. No, no, no...

What we are talking about here is political rhetoric and maneuvering...

1) A majority of American are pro-choice and therefore, political candidates on the pro-choice side (like Bill Clinton) can fire away (it's good for the base and doesn't alienate potential voters)...if the tables were flipped, the issue is trickier...it doesn't mean a politician would have to change his or her views, however, the politician would have to pick and choose their words carefully (that is the nature of the beast, my friend).

2) Gay rights...I don't like what Clinton did with respect to the DOMA. Bothered the hell out of me, to be honest. However, signing the act (political action) into law is very different than what Hillary Clinton stated (rhetoric) about her "support" for faith based programs. One is a specific act designed to keep votes, the other is general rhetoric designed to keep votes, big difference (see post 14 for a more articulate expression).

[truth2power]

158. You're correct, Jab.

I attended a Democratic Forum last week at which the speaker, someone who supposedly has the real skinny on how we can win, was skating on the edge of this philosophy - be more like them. Yikes!!

Won't work. People will always vote for the real deal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

79. And lose the blue ones in the deal

Great strategy.

(sarcasm off).

[Bono71]

113. Remind me again, is Hillary from a red or blue state? n/t

[Tyrone Slothrop]

134. She's from a blue one

MY blue state to be more specific. And I sure as hell won't vote for her next time for President OR for Senate if she wants to push Bush's faith based initiatives on us and on the rest of the country.

And I can't and certainly won't speak for all of my fellow New Yorkers, but the few that I have passed this article along to agree that they will not be voting for her in any future election if she wants to further blur the line between church and state.

If the Democrats continue in this vein, they will eventually lose the blue states to the Green Party or some other group of Independents, and the red states will continue voting for the Real-Deal Religious Republicans.

[Bono71]

138. Disagree...the Greens will never be more than a fringe party...

Their candidates will be looked upon by most Americans as a throw-away or protest vote.

And Hillary will win reelection in New York if she runs again, with or without your vote.

[dansolo]

96. How will this help?

In order to get the red states to switch over to being Democratic, you need to differentiate yourself from the Republicans. Going along with them only validates the Republican position.

[Bono71]

112. No...you take religion off the table and hammer them on

the economy, social security and other places where there is a true difference.

Worked for Bill and Jimmy C...would work again....

[justy329]

125. Thanks bono!

You get it.

Since '68, every democratic campaign involved the same liberal elites running the show. Every campaign was lost except for '76 and '92 and '96. Those three happened to be the ones run by outside the beltway Democrats who were more in touch with mainstream America.

A liberal has not won since '64. The pendulum is swinging towards the Right. We had a GREAT run! We had FDR and 50 years of Democratic control of the house and even some years with a working majority in the senate. Until the pendulum swings back, we can not be an only left-wing party.

[Bono71]

130. De nada! n/t

[Clark2008]

150. Wes Clark could do that and wouldn't have to pander.

eom

[Bono71]

166. I'd vote for hime. n/t

[leesa]

205. Oh yah!! This strategery has worked SO GOD DAMNED WELL!!

She is working for the GOP, people! Have you heard of separation of church and state??? Have you heard of the GOP plot to dismantle our social safety nets.

Good plan, my ass! Will you PLEASE stop drinking the Kool-Aid??

[Bono71]

208. My goodness...now I have heard it all...

Hillary Clinton is working for the GOP...not in 2005, maybe 1972...

Get a clue.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

10. That's sick. Prior to making this comment she should have actually

checked out what these faith based programs are like. One of the ones they all like to tout as being the best in the world is a G.D. cult. I have seen a family member go through it (and get out, thank god) but a friend was totally brainwashed.

I honestly don't have a problem with Christianity, I realize that it is a small group giving the whole religion a bad name. Most Christians I know are great people.

Edited to add: The program my family member was in was a fifteen month program, and they made all of the people in it file for social security disability, and had them sign their checks over to the program. The people themselves didn't see a dime of it. That seemed crimminal to me.

[jmowreader]

95. Which program was this?

[progressiveBadger]

11. This just confirms it.

Now is the time to begin pushing either an actual progressive democrat or a viable third party that should replace the Democratic party.
Why can't we just get a "people's president"? An actual one? I long for the day that my future children can look up to the president as a role model.

[Bono71]

17. The "People's president" would definitely be someone

willing to work with faith based organizations. Sure you want that?

[progressiveBadger]

37. Not necessarily

What I mean by "people's president" is someone who listens to ALL of his/her constituents. Someone who doesn't base his politics on corporate welfare. I think you can have separation of church and state and still be for the people.
I think Bush hides behind his faith to be the "people's president", but in reality, they are mutually exclusive.
I'm not looking for someone who has no faith nessessarily, just one that realizes that when tax money is spent on religion, it comes from every single american, even the ones that don't share their faith.
I'm not really good with presidential history, but I get the impression that JFK did a good job of sperating his personal faith from his job.

[Bono71]

40. Agree with that. n/t

[Charlie Brown]

81. Our money is going to Robertson, Falwell, etc.

Sure you want that?

[Bono71]

186. Never said I want that...and I doubt very seriously HC wants

that...

She is simply appealing to moderates, something both parties must do in order to win.

Moderates like religion, but in general are pro-choice, pro-safety net and pro-security/anti-war unless attacked.

Big Dog understood this.

Most on this board don't.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. What if the people actually like faith-based initiatives?

What would a "people's president" do in that situation?

[progressiveBadger]

60. I don't think a majority do

and if they do, then I guess I don't belong in that society.

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Unfortunately, a majority does support this idea

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=4750

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll_fbo010425.html

[Bono71]

72. Touche...which is why H. Clinton made the statement. n/t

[primavera]

178. That's because they haven't yet perceived the downside

...namely, the concomitant reduction in federal services which they've always taken for granted, so don't think they'll miss. Most people don't realize that the funding being given to faith-based programs is being deducted from the budgets of federal agencies formerly charged with providing a specific set of services. Once those services are no longer available as the money that was used to support them went to faith-based projects run by well-meaning but incompetant nonprofessionals, will they put 1 and 1 together? We can hope...

[AndyTiedye]

196. Gallup is *Owned* By Fundamentalist Christians

Did you know that?

[Freddie Stubbs]

249. Yet the Gallup poll's result is backed up by ABC's poll

I don't suppose that "Fundamentalist Christians" own every polling company, do they?

[AndyTiedye]

258. Are You Sure It's Not the Same Poll?

One of those "ABC/Gallop" polls. I thought Gallop did ABC's polls for them.

Could you provide a link to the ABC poll?

[Freddie Stubbs]

264. It was not conducted by Gallup

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll_fbo010425.html

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone April 19-22, among a random national sample of 1,350 adults. The results have a 2.5-point error margin. Data collection and tabulation by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

[patcox2]

251. If its unconstitutional, the desires of the majority are irrelevant.

What of the majority want to strip women and blacks of the right to vote? What if the majority wanted to make christianity the official national religion? Or require all citizens to be tatooed with an ID? Or what of the majority wanted to abolish the jury trial system and allow the president to throw anyone in jail, or execute anyone, without trial?

Fuck the majority. Faith based programs should be found to violate the first amendment. By giving church groups multi-million dollar contracts, you make the church wealthy, you give it a competitive advantage over other church's in the comunity, you inevitably entangle the church in government, its wrong on so many levels.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

13. I will work to stop her if she runs for the White House!

Wes Clark 08'!

[mitchum]

163. As will I

[liberalnurse]

14. She said use them......

Not totally embrace them or make them exclusive....we have always had faith-based education. I attended such a school for a time as do my children for the primary classes.

[KittyWampus]

35. Faith Based Education- PRIVATELY Funded.

Faith Based Social Programs are fine as long as my tax dollars don't go to them.

[liberalnurse]

44. Correct....and I indeed

agree.......

[Guns Aximbo]

16. another reason why...

I won't vote for her if she runs for Pres. in 08. Keep religion out of government, PERIOD!

[sunnystarr]

145. and government out of religion ... it's a two edged sword

and churches really should stop and consider if they want government in church business.

[leftofcool]

18. There is a reason they call her Slick Hillary

Ya'll don't think she really means this do ya? No way! Hillary belongs to the Smart Bill Clinton School of Political Maneuvering and don't forget it!

Left of cool

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Thanks so much for posting this. After her cowardice in the Ohio objection

vote I had my doubts, but this confirms it. I will never vote for her again.

[mutus_frutex]

21. Pandering traitor..

And to think that some people argue that the is far on the left..

[krag]

265. Hillary is Lieberman With Tits, Never Forget It n/t

[justy329]

293. AND BOTH ARE GOOD DEMOCRATS

who WIN.

[AzDar]

23. She's disgusting.....Pandering, plain and simple. On to bigger and better

things(people) in 2006 and 2008. You know, Democrats who don't bitterly disappoint......

[The Doctor.]

24. anyone here know what it would take to startup a new church?

And capitalize on faith-based funding to get it off the ground?

[klyon]

127. not much you can start one in your living room tonight

the hard part would be showing how you can help the rethugs promote their agenda, that is how you get gov. money but starting a religion is easy. The scientologists and pagaens have paved the way nicely.
KL

[ikojo]

246. I don't know but that's what L Ron Hubbard did...he is supposed to

have said that the quickest way to wealth in the US was through religion or to start your own religion. He did just that.

[jrthin]

25. She needs to effing stop,

or I'll have no problem staying home on election day. I'm already pissed at her for supporting this illegal war even though many of her constituent stood outside her office and begged her not to.

[Jacobin]

27. Fuck

This is no longer my party. It has been hijacked by whackos. The separation of church and state is the cornerstone of this country and Hillary is a complete fucking ass. She her her PNACing friends can pound sand.

I don't even know why I call myself a democrat anymore, because obviously the party has merged with the extreme RW of the republicans.

[Malva Zebrina]

29. I saw this coming a while ago

This is how to win--bribe the churches, and almost NONE will refuse the bribe I am willing to bet. No thanks Clinton--I still value separation of the church and state even if you don't. Are you going to go hunting and shooting with Scalia? Maybe fishing is more your speed--. How bout going back to your health care proposal initiative instead of trying to buy your way into the White House? Or do you expect the church to open faith based free walk in clinics to the suffering, the poor and the eager to be baptized into any church that offers them some relief.

[CoffeeCat]

30. At this point...I just want the neocons out...

I don't like Hillary at all.

This speech proves what a pander bear she is. She say anything to anyone.

However, my feeling at this point is: I really don't care if I have to put up with shit like this. I just want the neocons out. They will destroy the world and our future.

Anything is better than the neocons. If I have to hold my nose and vote for someone who wants to funnel millions toward converting squirrels to Christianity--then I guess that's better than being nuked or watching my children grow up in a fascist state.

Depressing. I know.

[Sterling]

160. This only gets the neo cons more "in"

You are funding the exact same people who will turn around and tell people to vote neo con. Fucking idiots are the only people that could think this helps defeat the RW.

[punpirate]

31. Just as with the privatization of SS...

... the entire "faith-based initiative" is a long-term means of getting the government out of social programs. As government programs are supplanted by private ones, government money to private programs will then dry up, leaving the country in exactly the same position as it was in 1900, with the poor completely dependent upon whatever degree of philanthropy the wealthy choose to provide.

If I can figure this out, Hillary Clinton certainly can, too....

[malachi]

32. I work for a private non-profit that daily deals with religious orgs that

receive money from the gov't. They are completely incapable of finding their ass with both hands. Incompetence is the prerequisite. The people that run this FBIs are the only people prospering. They ALL drive nice cars and dress very well. A waste of taxpayer $ on a par with the pentagon.

[Solly Mack]

33. The Shrine of Solly could use a few bucks

[Liberty Belle]

34. Someone please send Hilary the article about those kids

who were beaten and tortured at a faith-based school, which had absolutely no state oversight, even for safety. I heard the story on Air America a couple of weeks ago.

[Massachusetts]

41. The Democratic Party

NEEDS A F*^$%#CKING ENEMA!!!!!!:kick:


"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide". John Adams:nuke:

[Malva Zebrina]

45. Hillary at the Inauguration with Dan Quayle--pic

[PurityOfEssence]

47. Remember: she was a young Republican for Goldwater

This is disgusting and unforgivable.

[UL_Approved]

49. Sounds like Bush

The move here is astounding. She says whatever people want to hear, which is not unexpected from politicians. I just have to wonder, though, how this is really helping our nation. I hold to an idea that the West will NOT be won through religious pandering. I know from my perspective in Montana, that the majority of people didn't like Bush, but they didn't think Kerry was up for the job. Many people out here are socially conservative, but do NOT go along with this pseudo-religion that the Neo-Cons have dumped on us. Like the Teutonic Myths and the Aryan roots of the German people were fabricated in the 1930's and 1940's, this new string of revisionist doctrine is quite frightening, and it doesn't sit well with people. This is not the answer, it just adds to the problem.

[arwalden]

51. I'm Disappointed In Hillary For That.

We need LESS of this, not more. The money given to "faith based" organizations for charitable works means that the "faith based" organization can divert their own funds (that would have been budgeted into charitable works) into proselytizing efforts.

Raise your hand if you think that this ISN'T happening... anyone? The federal dollars that are funneled to these groups do not supplement their existing funds, they REPLACE them. The group is then free to place their original budgeted funds (and fund-raising efforts) in more practical things like converting and saving souls. (Barf!)

[Malva Zebrina]

62. Exactly--and missionaries who seek to convert Muslims and Hindues

and no oversight involved at all.

[Ganja Ninja]

53. So I 'm thinking maybe I should become a storefront preacher.

Spend most of my time chasing women and drinking. Dealing in dirt and stealing in the name of the lord.

[liberal N proud]

54. She just lost me!

I did support her and thought she was a smart person. Go Barbara!

[Rainscents]

61. She's lost my support!!!

What is happening to "Democratic" party??? I am seriously thinking about switching to "Green" party!

[Biased Liberal Media]

235. She lost my support a long time ago when she was interviewed

on MSNBC I think and said she was against gay marriage and believed marriage was for a man and a woman. That disgusted me. That's not liberal...not progressive. It's staunchly conservative to me.

[Megahurtz]

57. What???????

?????????????

[patcox2]

59. Ed Rollins Buying the Black Pastors for Whitman

Thats what "faith based" is all about. Bribing churches so their congregation will support you. Its the most blatant, horrendous violation of the 1st amendment going on.

When you give a multi-million dollar contract to a church, so that members of the public have to go to that church in order to take part in a program that should be freely available to all, its establishes that church. When you give a multi-million dollar contract to a church that allows that church to build a bigger facility and put out a bigger sign, that establishes that church and favors it over the one across the street.

I have studied this intensively, focusing on what you could call a case study, the story of one Buster Soaries. Christie Whitman appointed Buster her secretary of state (NJ). She also gave his church at least $3 million in state contracts over a period of years to run DYFS programs. This was it, the prototype for "faith-based" privatization of social services. When she went to DEP she gave Soaries a consulting job there, and now Bush has put him on the special election committee, you might remember him as the idiot that said we need to have contingency plans for cancelling the election in case of terrorist attack. But through all this time, Buster Soaries has remained as the pastor of one of the largest black churches in New Jersey (holding two and three jobs at a time) and bringing home millions in State contracts to his church.

A strong case could be made for a direct connection between Ed Rollins comment about "buying the black clergy" and the faith based initiative. Buster Soaries is the posterboy for what its all about.

[Gloria]

69. Yes, I remember that Whitman ploy...Rollins was made the

scapegoat at the time....but, gee, I saw him on TV just a couple of days ago...

[Charlie Brown]

63. Yet another reason why democracy doesn't work

Even the "good" politicians are slaves to their donors and lobbyists (in this country, organized religion). Long live anarchy!

[Bono71]

73. Or "slaves" to a majority of Americans who think the programs

are a good idea. See post above showing statistics.

[Charlie Brown]

78. I see, so discrimination and state-financed churches

are a-ok if they're popular? How many Muslim/Buddhist congregations are getting any money? You think any committe is ever going to okay funding a Mosque or a Temple.

I'm a Wiccan. When do my favored charities get federal grants. Oh, right, they don't. But frankly, I don't want them too. Gov't entanglement with religion always ruins the ability of local communities and donors to manage their own groups. I'm at a loss as to why so many religious organizations have auctioned away their independence to Uncle Sam, who will start mandating how they conduct their religious affairs. A state-run Church is the one thing conservatives and liberals alike agree the 1st Amendment prohibits. Why not fight to keep it that way?

[Bono71]

108. Never stated that they were ok. n/t

[SOS]

101. If 50.1%

of Americans favored the abolition of search warrants, allowing any government agent to smash down your door and rip apart your house, it would still be in direct contradiction f the 4th Amendment.

[Bono71]

109. Agree, my reply was to the post above.

[EC]

66. Well, sure than we can buy off congregations too,

with promises of funds, so they can build even bigger and more opulent churchs...Who are they kidding, those faith-based initiatives don't go to the people...There is no accounting of how the monies are spent...

[jsw_81]

67. She's clearly positioning herself for 2008

The red-state rubes like the god-talk. She will still, however, lose every single southern state should she be our nominee.

[Bono71]

75. Agree with everyting in your post. n/t

[Gloria]

70. Once again, "values" on THEIR terms, not ours....she should read

Jim Wallis' book and learn about Democratic VALUES

[redqueen]

76. Yeah, I'm reeeeally surprised.

Did anyone really not know how 'centrist' she is?

:eyes:

[hughee99]

77. Already looking for red state votes for '08 maybe? n/t

[genieroze]

82. delete

[genieroze]

83. Hey Hillary, go bake some freaking cookies like a good little

rightwinger.

[jswordy]

85. YAWN! Combine that with Dingy Donna Brazille saying...

...yesterday that she "thinks" there may be other DNC chair candidates out there who have not yet announced (deja-vue right back to pre-Iowa), and you see the direction the party is heading. I'm waiting til the smoke clears to see if it will earn my support and grassroots work this next time around in '06. It looks less likely every day.

I'd rather sit out than sell my own convictions down the road like I did in the election just past. To what end did I do that, and work so feversihly on the phone and in person with the voters? So we could lose.

I know! Let's take that same successful general "be Republican Lite" philosophy and DO IT AGAIN!

Uh, no thanks!

[KamaAina]

87. So much for all that hooraw about her running in 2008

She won't get out of New Hampshire. Buh-bye.

[messiah]

88. Thankyou Senator Clinton your my hero!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[Sterling]

157. WTF? You are happy she wants to give the fundies the rope to lynch us with

?

Not very X of you is it?

[VegasWolf]

93. These spineless democrats believe that they can ignore their base

and become repuke lite. The conservatives pander to their base.
Our "leaders" think they can take us for granted because we
have no other choices. Green party, here I come. Fuck the
spineless democrats.

[lawladyprof]

94. Senator Clinton, you are cutting your own throat

and ours. Fundamentalist and religious right institutions will use these funds (my tax money included) to proselytize and indoctrinate their "clients" in conservative politics. Foolish, foolish, foolish.

American madrassas, anyone?

[blindpig]

102. she must enjoy date rape n/t

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[0rganism]

104. Sorry, Hill, this isn't going to fly

The opposition will paint Hillary as a shameless panderer.

The loyal base will be further discouraged.

The infamous "swing-voters" will once again see the Democrats as confused and off-message.

The "moral values media blitz" has achieved its desired result, and McAulliffe's reactive advisors have counseled Democratic politicians to be conciliatory and emphasize religion. Democrats will achieve further losses in the House and Senate in 2006.

[Tinoire]

105. Ah lol... I love it when the DINOs expose themselves like this. n/t

[Ian David]

116. Bush and the Moonies: Moon cleans-up on faith-baed money

Bush supports cross-hating movement
President's father also praises work of Rev. Moon-linked clergy group
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42039


Both President Bush and his father have expressed their support for a group of
mostly black church leaders that endorses the practice of throwing the cross
into the trash – literally.

pastors led ceremonies where traditional sanctuary crosses were tossed into
dumpsters. Over 100 crosses reportedly were trashed.
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=258
http://www.aclc.info /

Writes Gorenfeld, "This , movement leaders said, cleared the way
for a new age and second messiah."

Last week, the movement's leaders presided over a Washington prayer breakfast
featuring messages of thanks from both Bush presidents.

<snip>

Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification Church
who was dubbed the king of peace at a coronation ceremony in the Dirksen Senate
Office Building earlier this year.




More:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1507189&mesg_id=1507247

[Tinoire]

118. Whoooa! What a thread!

I haven't read it all yet but will tonight. Have you checked out who were the event's sponsors? Rangel and Harold Ford Jr. among others.

This is all getting very, very disturbing. I have the links but I have a feeling you may already be aware of that.

[Ian David]

119. Yep. It's scary, scary stuff.

And btw... Bush HAS given faith-based money to the Scientologists, too.

[RobertSeattle]

114. Using RW Logic, if Hillary likes it it must be bad then...

[Coastie for Truth]

117. The Traditional Democratic Base is the Faith Based Progressives

We have a rich tradition of "faith based progressives" in the Democratic Party -- from Pittsburgh's Msgr Charles Owens Rice to MLK to Jesse Jackson to Michael Lerner.

"Faith Based" does not mean "Creationist" or "Pro-Birther" --- it means to look at poverty and injustice and illness and make a change for the better.

Remember the Faith Based Progressives were the foot soldiers of the Women's Suffrage Movement, the New Deal, the Child Labor Act, the Labor Standards Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, the 1960's Peace Movement.

Nowhere is it written that a Progressive must be an agnostic or an atheist.

I am proud to be a Faith Based Progressive.

[Charlie Brown]

128. Disagree, and here's why

The Suffragettes, New Deal, Labor groups, etc. supported these policies because at the time there were no state-initiated wellfare programs or human services departments. Part of the social revolution of the 30s and 60s was the secularization of these programs to ease the burden on private charities (and make services more readily available to the people). One of the big reasons I oppose Bush's "Social Security" overhaul is that it will destruct the most significant legacy of the state's concern for its citizenry.

The rise of these new "faith-based" programs coincide with the right's goal of complete eradication of secular human aid and the strengthening of corporate America's stranglehold on everyone.

We can support Progressive reform by strengthening the STATE departments we have and minimizing the corruption and mismanagement within those departments.

[Coastie for Truth]

141. We are of totally different generations, environments...

I grew up in an AFL-CIO United Steel Workers of America and United Mine Workers community. My grand dad was a Radical LEFTIE clergy man. I marched with Monsignor Rice - and I have been in a Louisiana jail.

[Bono71]

131. Agree 100% n/t

[progressivebydesign]

169. While I've lost interest in organized religion.. I agree with you 1000%!!!

Those who ignore America's new religiosity do so at their peril. We cannot win another election parading as the party of the godless.

[superconnected]

120. I'm feeling a little sold out, right now.

[UdoKier]

121. Did the people of New York know they were casting a vote...

for a republican harpy when they voted for Hillary?

[Dr Fate]

137. Shes not too bad for a Republican though. n/t

n/t

[idlisambar]

146. dumb move

Hillary Clinton just can't play it straight. Does anyone honestly think that she is a good candidate for 2008?

[rooboy]

148. Obviously her 2008 slogan will be "Whatever it Takes" n/t

[VegasWolf]

155. This is too easy for the repukes in 2008. Flip-flop repeat altogether

now flip-flop, flip-flop.

[VegasWolf]

156. The democratic party is toast. Stick a fork in it.n/t

[hollowdweller]

159. Faith based initiatives- Good Gov't sponsorship of FBI's - bad

Hey Clingon balanced the budget but I'd have to say he balanced it a lot different than the GOP would like to. I think that a Democratic approach to faith based initiatives would be a lot different than a Republican approach.

[Larkspur]

161. Did Hillary attend George Lakoff's seminar?

Sounds like she's still playing the same losing strategy the DLC has been using for a decade.

[peacetalksforall]

162. Feinstein and Clinton might as well cross over...they're trending

that way, little step by bigger step every day.

[The_Casual_Observer]

167. The Feinstein tribute to cundy rice was it for me

What a sellout. The Clinton's have taken this centrist bullshit approach. I ask, what for? It would seem that by simply holding to a far left position on everything, they would eventually come out on top, since the whole ball of rw shit has got to explode eventually.

[98geoduck]

168. The Clinton's ARE the problem with the party.

The pendulum has swung so far to the right since reagan, hardly anyone has an idea where center is.

[hollowdweller]

173. I disagree. I think they are the pivot point for the swing back the other

way.

Unfortunately there was nobody that had the ideas, intellect combined with the charisma to continue the swing.

[peacetalksforall]

170. When a major majority of government and civic employees have

a significant say in distribution and when they are also among the christian fanatics themselves or in need of pandering to christian fanatics and their leaders for the sake of the party and those christians are out to get everyone's money for themselves because of religious bias and intolerance for people of other religions - then we have a grand case of discrimination. How could she?

We all know where the faith-based iniative is going just as we all knew where we were going when they had the gun pointed at Afghanistan and shot Iraq.

Remember - she also voted for the war, the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft (if I remember it all correctly).

And she was the one who carryied the bible on Sunday morning.

(I cannot capitalize christians when I speak of people who are trying to force their brand of christianity on me).

[Mr.Green93]

171. She is a genius

steal their rhetoric. Do whatever is needed to get power.

[98geoduck]

172. Hasn't this been their "method" for the last two decades?

I would say there is a madness to their method.

[Sterling]

184. God that is sad.

And that is exactly the kind of advice I would give to people I wanted to see lose everything.

[Mr.Green93]

188. Don't despair.

She knows what she is doing. It is a beautiful thing.

[Bono71]

191. In case you haven't noticed, the national Democratic party is the

entity losing everything. Be labeled as the anti-religion party ain't going to help us win power back.


Rhetoric and action are 2 different animals. There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton would by and large do the right things if elected president.

[fshrink]

221. "Whatever is needed" uh?

Does it dawn on you that it's in the "whatever" part that lies the only difference between an asshole and a democrat?

[msgadget]

236. I wouldn't agree she's a genius and I despise either side

making religion a political issue but, based on the clip below, she's responding to those who say the liberals have only paid lip service to social organizations. Remember, the right convinced many Christians (and blacks) the dems took them for granted:

The dinner was a fund-raiser for the National TenPoint Leadership Foundation and the Dorchester-based Ella J. Baker House. Both youth outreach programs are directed by the Rev. Eugene F. Rivers 3d, a leader of the clergy-based efforts to stem youth violence in Boston in the 1990s that has become a national model for community-police partnerships.

The minister has often criticized established black leaders and liberal politicians, saying they have failed to deal honestly with the problems of youth violence.

Rivers said he hoped Clinton's appearance last night would build broader support for an issue on which some Democrats have been skittish.

"She is in a position to articulate a progressive vision around this issue of faith and values," Rivers said.

Thanks to the GOP strategy religious organizations on both sides realize they've "...earned capital..." and they intend to spend it. IOW, pay attention to us or we're switching to the party that takes us seriously (and gives us funding).

I'm not a Hillary fan, btw.

[fshrink]

177. Where will they stop?

Approving the war. Approving electoral fraud. Approving the violation of the separation of church and state. What's left Ms. Clinton? Roe vs. Wade? Brown vs. Education? Hey! Let's negate the few things liberals managed to give this country over the last century. Oh! But wait! That's a trick! It's just to pretend, re-frame, and win, and once we've won then we'll re-negate everything. There is a large need for people with a conscience, with a backbone and with courage. And Ms. Clinton, you ain't one of them.

[donheld]

189. Free to a good home - were not using it anymore

[AuntiBush]

227. Funeral time?

Be-jeb-eezzee! I hope not! Jefferson just rolled over, again! Poor guy! But, not funny. Shew.

[w4rma]

190. State-funded religion. Oppose the state's actions, lose funding.

This BS comes with strings and I think Clinton knows that, but apparently doesn't care.

The Puritans left Britain for America over this exact issue.

[leesa]

204. F.U. Hillary. Then CANCEL their tax breaks.

This woman is crap. She is a Bush proponent all the way. She wants to destroy our social safety nets and then pretend that the churches can/will take care of people. She has been on board with EVERYTHING Bush has done.

Hillary Clinton is disgusting!!!

[sleepyhead]

243. You're right.

She has supported every single thing Bush has done - from the IWR to the Patriot Act to the lack of security funding for NY after 9/11 to the marriage amendment, and now this. She lost my respect (and most likely my vote) a long time ago. (As a perhaps irrelevant aside, I am one of her constituents and have written her and emailed her many times about various issues and have never gotten an answer. Phooey.)

[David Zephyr]

210. Groan.

Ugh.

[donheld]

217. Bill Clinton was the actual starter of faith-based initiatives

So why does this surprise anyone?

[eauclaireliberal]

218. Can't say that I didn't see this coming:

Holy Joe Zionist Liebermann should have been the first sign that the dems are trying the "Republican Lite" thing. It won't work...well, not for the DNC that is.

[candy]

219. Hillary just goes whatever way the wind blows----it's all about votes.

She stands for nothing!

[justy329]

223. Ummmm yeah

and you kinda want get the votes to win and gain power to push your agenda.

[Nebraska_Liberal]

224. Exactly

This is exactly what this debate comes down to. Should the democratic party continue to be the progressive party in America or will they become some lost centrist party that folds thier views and tries to emulate what is thought to be popular. If they are not going to stand up for a progressive point of view then why should I, a progressively thinking person, even consider voting for any of their canidates? I will not sell my own beliefs short simply to vote for the lesser evil. I have no problem voting for the canidate that best represents my views, no matter what party, and I think many people here feel the same way. Right now I am going to try and focus more of my personal efforts on working for social change, such as volunteering for international organizations that actually help people instead of wasting more time workin for self serving democrats that want to be republicans.

Ned

[Biased Liberal Media]

232. Yup. She's a sell out n/t

[AuntiBush]

226. Yes! She started immediately after

she first got wind of the gal under the ole Oval off table. I was so ready to rally behind her when she stood-up for the vote, then when I heard Boxer was the only 1 to take a true stand, that was it for me!

Senator Boxer is like a breathe of fresh air amid the pukes!

[Pallas180]

228. Pandering to the GOP. She'd better run as a republican cause

as a democrat, I wouldn't vote for her now.

As a matter of fact, I wouldnt have anything to do with the Democratic party anymore.

We should ask Dean to start a new party.

[98geoduck]

229. She resembles the ole saying " Democrats/ Republicans same SHIT different

PILE! I'm sure she'll be jumping on that SS give away as well. American politicians, screwing the working class for all their worth.

[Melynn]

233. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

Another lame stream Democrat has sold out the left? Why that's shocking! Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. After all, pandering to the right wing worked well for President Kerry.

[jasop]

234. "He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government"

[regnaD kciN]

237. Let's be clear about this...

There's nothing wrong with "faith-based" social work. There are many situations where churches and other religious groups can provide a better quality of service than anyone out there. And government has been funding it for years.

The difference is that the government funding has always come with a particular, and quite reasonable, string attached: that the government-funded social work be kept separate from any "evangelism" activity carried on by the same organization. That means that the group cannot require belief in any particular religious doctrine by those it serves, nor can it make any efforts to "convert" them.

Bush's proposal does away with this requirement. It means that the government will be, essentially, funding efforts by a given religious group to convert others to their faith. And it raises the specter of such efforts devolving into "You want a bowl of soup? First, you must listen to this sermon, and ask Jesus to come into your heart and become Your Personal Lord And Savior(tm). Otherwise, starve, you sinner!"

:eyes:

So, we need to make sure we re-frame this. This isn't about "faith-based initiatives," this is about govenrment funding of forced religious conversion. And that's a frame that becomes a sure winner for us.

[AngryOldDem]

273. Thank you for your post

You nailed it.

Having worked with a faith-based agency, I know how they operate. And I also know how inefficient and overburdened most government agencies are that deal with the poor. IMO, from what I have seen, most faith-based groups can more effectively deal with poverty on an immediate basis...they know what the needs are and how to meet them. Efficiently, and with the most cost-effective strategies available.

Oftentimes the government has no clue as to individual situations and prefers cookie-cutter solutions that in the long run hurt more than help. I definitely have no problem with faith-based initiatives, because there ARE ways to make sure that overt religious acts are kept out of the equation.

Bush's plan is unacceptable. But that does not mean we cannot find something better.

[NuttyFluffers]

238. et tu, Hilary? then fall DLC. n/t

[Zynx]

240. We cannot compromise on this issue.

The seperation of church and state is fundemental. I don't care about a few prayers being said at some public functions, but this is far more serious.

[raysr]

247. Did you see

her noding her head to the guy singing Asscrofts song?

[zara]

248. Hillary's positioning is both sincere and strategic, sheeple!

the clintons are conservative democrats. that's what made the Grand Hypocrisy Party's attacks on the Clintons so....shameless. He and she were NEVER the flaming liberal straw-couple the slavering GHP media created, with their steady drumbeat of exaggerations, innuendo, and lies. Clinton was the best Republican president of the last 50 years! Me, forget this unconstitutional linking of church and state. And despite Hillary's best pandering, the GHP supporters are NOT going to vote for her for president. But the Clinton's are shrewd--their tactic here is not to position Hillary for President, but to reposition (triangulate?) the Democratic party with religious voters. Count me in among the secular humanists that the Dems increasingly rely on and pay mere lip service to.

[grahamhgreen]

250. HOW 'BOUT WE TAX THE CHURCHES TO HELP PAY FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS, INSTEAD?

IF THEY WANT TO HELP... .

[Bono71]

256. LOL...good luck getting that one passed. n/t

[GiovanniC]

252. We Cannot Out-Republican the Republicans

I say this all the time.

We cannot out-antigay them.
We cannot out-racist them.
We cannot out-antipoor them.
We cannot squash Constitutional liberties better than them.

They are better at it than we are.
They have had more practice.
They have brand loyalty from the homophobes, racists, aristocrats, fundamentalists, misogynists, and freedom-haters already.

[Bono71]

257. We don't have to do any of that to win...we just need a candidate

that seems comfortable with religion. That's it.

[truth2power]

266. Being comfortable with religion

and promoting these ersatz "faith-based" programs are two different things, IMO.

I consider myself comfortable with religion. In the camp of a UU Pagan I guess you'd say, while believing that others have to find their path to "source" in a way that's meaningful to them. I don't proselytize.

Nevertheless, these faith-based initiatives give me the creeps, big-time! Mixing of govt. with religion. Wrongo!! :evilfrown:

edit> and Hillary really pisses me off in this instance.

[Freddie Stubbs]

269. It worked for Kennedy in 1960

He ran on tax cuts creating more weapons (to cut the missile gap).

It also worked in 1988, when a Democrat used moderate and conservative support to defeat liberal Republican Lowell Weicker. Guess who that was? ;)

[GiovanniC]

270. We Are Not Dealing With Liberal Republicans, For Fuck's Sake

We are dealing with extreme right-wingers.

If the Republicans say, "We hate gays so much, we're gonna round them up, tie them to the back bumper of a truck, and drive them across South Dakota and then set them on fire!", then they aren't going to win any support among gays, but Cletus and Bubba will beat a path to the polls.

If the Democrats respond by saying, "Oh yeah? Well, we hate gays so much that we're going to call them names and punch them in the stomach!", then they aren't going to get support among gays either, and Cletus and Bubba are already punching the Republican ballot because the Republicans hate people better than we do.

What is next? If our next Democratic presidential candidate stands up and says, "Look, I hate gays, I am against women's rights, fuck black people, fuck hispanics, evolution is just a theory so it's not real, poor people can go to hell, let's nuke any country that looks at us funny, people should not be able to sue for malpractice, tax cuts for the rich, our grandchildren can pay for the deficits, to hell with Social Security, fuck Medicare, fuck all welfare, people who are unemployed are just too lazy to hold down a job, the best way to fight global terrorism is to piss off the globe, diplomacy is for sissies, fuck this Constitution bullshit, the environment was made to be raped by mankind, and Christianity is now our national religion!" then he would come pretty close to EQUALLING a Republican, but not being able to out-Republican the Republican candidate. And Cletus and Bubba would vote for the other guy even though they have the same positions, because the other guy has a little (R) next to his name.

[Freddie Stubbs]

271. Nixon wasn't a liberal Republican either

Who won that election?

[GiovanniC]

272. Kennedy Did Not Throw Constitutional American Values Under the Bus

For political expediency.

He also did not with the election by simply agreeing with everything the Republicans stoof for.

[Bono71]

275. Remind me where HC is

"agreeing with everything the Republicans (stand) for."

All she stated was we should "use" faith based programs. That's it.

[GiovanniC]

277. And I Disagree With that Republican Stance

Just like I would disagree if Hillary got up and said that gays are second class citizens, or that abortion should be illegal, or any number of other positions that Democrats are taking.

Hillary cannot disregard the First Amendment in an effort to out-Republican the Republicans, which will not work, campaigns 44 years ago notwithstanding.

But now I have a question for you, since you seem to be on-board with the idea of ceding ground to the Republicans in an effort to try to win elections. How much is too much? Which Amendments can we sell to the Republicans to try to get in power? The First Amendment, obviously. How about the Fourth Amendment? Fifth? Sixth? Eighth? We tried that with the USA Patriot Act and look where it got us.

I am absolutely sick and tired and completely fed up with the Democratic Party looking at the fact that the Republicans have won elections based on hate and destroying liberties and decided that the only way that we can win is to try to be mediocre impersonations of them.

[Bono71]

280. First...

calm down and breath.

Second, the 1st Amendment is alive an well.

Third, take a look at what Bill and Jimmy Carter (you know, the last two guys that won) have to say about their faith. Agree, that faith based programs are step beyond, but Hillary's speech was broad and unspecific. It was clearly an attempt to appeal to the majority of people in this country who want to know their leaders will be comfortable with religion. She was speaking, not legislating.

We absolutely must have the white house in 08, or we are in a deeper hole than we are in now...

[GiovanniC]

281. First...

I am calm and I am breathing.

Second, the First Amendment (and the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth) has not been alive and well for four years.

Third, there is a difference between a leader who says, "I am a Christian" and a leader who says, "I am a Christian and you will live by my Christian morality and I will use my position and my power to advance the cause of my faith." For the record, I am a Christian. My stance is as much for the protection of my religion and others than it is for this government that is supposed to represent us all regardless of our faith.

As for the White House, I have stated repeatedly that a meek "Me too!" to every Republican proposal is not the way to get it (or the Senate, or the House). You want to see "in the hole"? The support these leaders when they take Republican positions on everything from abortions to corporate responsibility to foreign policy and civil rights. Then you'll see what in the hole means.

Give me someone who will take strong, principled stands based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the ideals that this country was founded on. If Jefferson saw this "faith-based" bullshit he'd spin in his grave.

[Bono71]

282. I agree with that (all of it, minus

the Amendment stuff)...but I don't think HC was stating we must all bow before her God (would that be Big Dog?)...

She is sending an olive branch to the people who like to see politicians in touch with their own spirituality...no bigee.

For the record, I would vote for about 10 different dems before I vote for Hillary.

Maybe they will amend the constitution so Big Dog can run again (a guy can dream, can't he?).

[GiovanniC]

283. I Simply Don't See How You Can Look Around This Country

And think the First Amendment is alive and well.

"Free Speech Zones" so that protesters are rounded up like dogs in a cage miles from the thing they are protesting.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704FreeSpeechZones.shtml

Creationist stickers on biology textbook denouncing evolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/national/19evolution.html

A press that is beaten into submission, bribed and purchased for political propaganda purposes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html
http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/archives/000014.html

People fined for having "objectionable" protest signs. ("This war is bushit")
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0111-01.htm

Permits for protests being unjustly denied to protest groups.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4862641/

People being warned to "watch what they say" by administration officials.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-5.html

Shall I go on?

[Bono71]

285. I could list more than several cases the ACLU has won

gaurding the 1st Amendment...it is a 2-way street I guess.

[GiovanniC]

292. Not Following Your Logic

So it's okay if the Republicans try to infringe on our First Amendment rights 10 times, as long as we stop them 5 times?

[bvar22]

290. Thats all the USA needs:

another anti-Labor republican president.

[Freddie Stubbs]

278. Just because it was a Republican who came up with the idea

does not automatically make the idea a bad one. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

[GiovanniC]

279. This Idea Is a Bad Idea That Sounds Like a Good Idea At First

I'm all for various faiths doing things to help people who are in need. They have been doing it for a long time and often they are the best at what they do. However, the faith based initiatives in practice are HEAVILY, HEAVILY tilted toward Christian charities. Furthermore, I have seen these charities in action through my community involvement and I have to say that there are usually strings attached to the assistance they offer -- you are gonna get preached at. They can claim until the cows come home that these religious institutions are offering completely secular charitable assistance to people, but that's not what's happening in practice.

The government should be separate from religion, for the sake of both government and religion.

[Pam-Moby]

284. they are stealing our money!!

This is just another way of the repugs controlling who gets help and who does not. There should not be any money other than money that people have willingly donated for these faith based groups to distribute. If you are not of them you will not see a lending hand!! All of this money belongs in the state and local governments to distribute to who actually needs help. But it also does not surprise me that Hillary has jumped on board with *. She might as well change her stripes now!!

[tiredofthisstuff]

287. BOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roll Roll Roll Over Over Over
:hurts:

[sweetheart]

294. i got 4000 bucks, can you make it in to 100,000

...? Hillary can! Hilalary must know god. Perhaps she can share a
hot commodity trading tip with us all.

Yawn... full of shit... and for someone who i though had presidential
calibur... it must be an abberation, a mistake... oopse... wasted a life
time opportunity. Geesh, and we all exptected so much more... a person
who was willing to take a 'boxer' level or risk to defend the truth
and.... small favour that it is... the constitution as well.!

[DemocracyInaction]

295. Hil the Whore-----------and I didn't read any of your responses

I will fully embrace in '08 a genuine person. She and Bill (and it took me until they got out of office to wake up) are shit. They would sell you and any of your ideals for a buck. They use us as bad as any Falwell and Robertson and Bush uses the fucking dumb ass right wingers. They are trailer trash with ambition. And if they got back into the White House, they would sell you into slavery to puff up their bank account. I'm a Christian--and she offends me. Don't you dare try to use and patronize me, Senator.

[Lizzie Borden]

297. If she ever had my vote...

she's lost it.

[cosmicdot]

298. Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel - nice digs for a faith-based gala

I don't favor this faith-based use of tax money.

How will the funding be held accountable? How will the programs justify themselves? Who is going to administer and coordinate? How many programs will there be to monitor?

We don't like Halliburton raiding the treasury with carte blanche awards, but we'll be OK with dishing out billions of dollars here, there and yonder to hundreds or thousands of faith-based charities?

Once "in" the funding ... can a new administration play politics with whether it's maintained or ended? Is there a better way? How about what we've been doing?

Who is to say what is and what isn't a faith based initiative?

Did this concept originate from a think tank?

'I think' ** has already doled out over a billion under executive order alone -- is federal code even in place or is he acting unilateraly per usual?

Will there be EEO and affirmative action compliance in hiring?

What happens to this unnecessarily created infrastructure down the road after its up and running and dependent upon (and, people dependent upon it) and fed with taxpayer money ... and separation of church and state is upheld in court?

How will it affect the courts' dockets? what possible array of lawsuits might it create?

imo, this is creating conflict; not managing or preventing it

imo, it tears at the wall separating church and state ... I don't think the wall can be restored ...

We should strengthen and improve our federal, state and local programs ... make use of process improvement and best practices exchange of ideas ...



FWIW, the Ella J. Baker House boasts its

Non-discrimination Policy

The Ella J. Baker House recognizes the importance of a non-discrimination policy and accordingly will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, age, religion, national origin, ancestry, marital status, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation or political affiliation in consideration of applicants for employment or applicants for service.

Further, a primary goal of The Ella J. Baker House is to provide services and assistance with respect for the dignity of all who enter our doors and for their individuality and personal situations and circumstances.


wonder how Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's reads? I'm sure they've got their mits or eyes on some $$$


reading posts above I see things as DU's 'treatment of Christians' which is, imo, not the issue at all, and not the case at all ... I see things like radical secularism, and have no idea what that is or how things were different under FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ etc. I read about we're not using the right rhetoric ... without examples of what should replace it ... are Democrats to talk like right-wing Republicans, and that'll do the trick?

Below is a speech given by Bobby Kennedy in 1966. Does it sound Christian in its intent? Does George W** sound like this? Should our politicians emulate the radical neocon Republicans pandering to the right or follow the example contained in this speech?

There is a discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; and millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich; and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere.

These are differing evils, but they are common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility toward the sufferings of our fellows.

But we can perhaps remember – even if only for a tirne – that those who live with us are our brothers; that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek – as we do – nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men. And surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again.

Our answer is to rely on youth – not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. The cruelties and obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. They cannot be moved by those who cling to a present that is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger that come with even the most peaceful progress. It is a revolutionary world we live in; and this generation at home and around the world, has had thrust upon it a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived.

Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the thirty-two-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.

These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.

For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves, on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society.

Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live.


maybe we need a good ol' Great Depression to clarify our moral values ... because we seem to be way off track.