Dean not the only candidate talking about religion. . .

[Brian_Expat]

In the latest Clark speech, he gave a platform that strikes me as being very close to Bush's pitch in 2000:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=31073

“I’m running to bring a higher state of leadership to America,” said the former NATO supreme commander. “I’m running on patriotism, faith, family and bringing the country together.”

To compare to Bush's platform, consider that in 2000 Dubya promised to "bring pride back to America," "bring faith back to the center of American life," "rebuild and protect American families," and of course, be a "uniter not a divider."

Why is Dean being labelled as a "panderer" for discussing his personal Congregationalist faith, when other candidates like Clark have made "faith and family values" a centerpiece of their campaign and not been dinged for it?

Note: Edited to add link.

[eileen_d]

1. Well, I don't think Dean is a panderer.

As for Clark running on "patriotism, faith, family and bringing the country together" -- why the hell not. Are these issues Bush owns? Is Dean not running on these issues?

[Sean Reynolds]

2. None are.

We've got to show America Democrats can have faith too. BUT unlike Republicans, they don't let it dictate their policies.

[Brian_Expat]

3. Well, it seems to me. . .

That Dean is being accused of "pandering" by talking about those same issues by a lot of Clark supporters in particular. Why is it OK for Clark to run on those conservative principles, but "pandering" for Dean to address them in his own way?

[madfloridian]

7. You were certainly putting Dean down on the other thread.

That is wrong.

[eileen_d]

10. No, it's not.

It's not wrong to put down politicians when they make silly mistakes.

What country am I living in, anyway? Christ on a motorbike!

[maxr4clark]

28. Patriotism and faith and family and togetherness

...are all very American values. Faith is an especially American value, since America embraces people of all faiths, not just the one the President prefers. Religious tolerance is one of the founding ideas of our form of government, and it is time that the Democratic party started running with that as part of its platform. It is the right response to the kind of Christian fundamentalism being pushed by the Republican party.

I also think the distinction Clark is drawing between the kind of patriotism he is "running on" and the jingoism Bush is counting on for his control of the American voter is very important. If someone doesn't start making that point, and making it well, we'll have Bush and be attacking more Arab countries in the next four years. Clarkis drawing the distinction between real patriotism, which embraces dissent as the ordinary process of democratic government especially in time of war, and Bush's kind, which is the same kind Hitler used to rule Nazi Germany. Granted, these characterizations are mine not Clark's, but that IS the difference he is making.

We also need to stop allowing the Republicans to use "family values" as code for "anti-choice" and "a wife must serve her husband". I have a family that is very important to me, and I am neither anti-choice nor do I try to dominate my wife (you can go to the Clark blog and ask her, emilyr). Clark, as I see it, is fighting to take back the English language from the twists the Republicans have put into it in the recent past.

Ever since Nixon, this country has badly needed to come back together. Early in 2003, I had hoped that Kerry would represent the voice of reason, which everyone in the United States could relate to and could see as the right choice over the posturing that little George does. He has disappointed me, not only by not becoming a candidate we could all rally around by the start of the primaries, but also for the viciousness of his attacks against Dean and Lieberman. I cannot see how either Kerry or Dean can seriously try to bring even the Democratic party together at this point, let alone the entire country.

Clark has earned my respect for running a clean campaign. Any candidate that wants to try to heal the rift in our country between the neocons and the liberals, the pro-choice and the anti-choice, is going to have to start by running a clean campaign. He or she will have to continue by phrasing these choices as rational choices, showing people of both sides respect; Clark is doing that. Clark appears to me to follow John Rawls' view of government, in which everyone is accorded respect for their own private view, but in which we work to find common ground on which to make our decisions for the benefit of all. That is the kind of democracy I am voting for.

[White Mountain]

4. faith and Jesus ain't the same

Faith is more generic. Jesus in the south is specific. No courage in Clarke's statement. Dean, on the other hand made a bold statement.

Just me too ism on Clarke's part.

[JohnKleeb]

5. I had no problems with Dean discussing his faith

have no problems with Clark either.

[Donna Zen]

6. I saw him give that speech

He also called for a strict separation of church and state. Clark position is that Democrats live their belief in helping others, while republicans use religion to divide us. He also redefines the "family values" as the value of having a job, the value of a good education, and value having medical insurance.

[Brian_Expat]

8. The question is. . .

. . . how is that message markedly different from Dean, who came under fire for "pandering" for mentioning his religious values?

Is Dean claiming superiority because of his religion?

Is Dean claiming that having a job, education and health care are bad?

If not, isn't Dean's position on these issues pretty much identical to Clark's?

If so, why the Dean-bashing over his faith?

[robbedvoter]

11. He didn't suddenly announce to the press that he'll be talking Jesus

after he said last month "We don't talk about religion around here" For starters.
He didn't develop phony southern accent while preaching in churches...It's the consistency stupid! (note: I didn't call anyone stupid - just paraphrased Carville's slogan)

[madfloridian]

14. Yeh, I read that about the phony accent.

Interesting you should bring that up. A friend called me about seeing him there and I asked about the accent mentioned in the article. She thought it was a hoot! She said what accent, he was tremendous.

A reporter says something about a phony accent, which apparently was not even there. That is just silly.

Now I have a feeling that all of you are thinking Clinton's possible endorsement of Clark will make him surge.

Guess what, I do not think that will happen.

I happen to have rather liked Clark at the beginning. I do not know where his followers came from. They start movements like Ex-Deaniacs and Stop Dean, and then act innocent. They go out of their way to make remarks to us.

You can push people just so far. You have done that.

[Brian_Expat]

17. The real problem, I think. . .

. . . is that some people don't like Dean's religion because it isn't fundamentalist, and thus are willing to hop on his case.

[unfrigginreal]

9. I see that Clark was taught well by the DLC

Run on the same platform as your Republican opponent and hope for the best. And as we all know, and verifed in 2002, the voters will vote for the Real Republican every time.

How does Clark plan to convince people to switch their vote to him from Bush if he doesn't offer a contrast? It's certainly not going to help that he was "tremendously admiring" him in 2001 either.

[robbedvoter]

12. Ugh, you may want to read the news on your candidate, before rehashing

old GOP points...

[Donna Zen]

13. How is it different?

This is from my notes, but I was writing fast:

"Republicans use religion to divide us....all religions teach that if you have more then it is the time to help others."

I have no trouble seeing the contrast, he is making.

Letting the republicans beat us with the "values" club, would seem rather foolish to me. We are walking the walk not the friggin republicans who delight in "thou shalt cut all social programs."

tremendously admiring

Don't you think it is way past time for you to read the entire speach, so that no matter how reluctant you are to learn that Clark's speech outlines a foreign policy that is completely the opposite of junior's, you could give up your foolishness.

[unfrigginreal]

24. Here's the problem that I have

When Clark makes the statement that he's running on "patriotism, faith, family and bringing the country together" he's basically parroting the same platitudes that the Republicans use. Yes, I'm sure that he would define all of these issues in a way that is much closer to our values, but why run to their strengths? Why isn't he running on a platform of issues that are important to the Democratic base like Jobs, Healthcare, Corporate responsibility and the Environment, etc? That wouldn't preclude him from beating the Republicans with the "values" club.

I think that we would do better by agressively pointing out that Republicans don't care about the issues that are important to us rather than just pointing out our differences with the Republicans on their issues.

[QC]

25. Why hand those issues over to Bush?

While they might sound corny to some of us, issues like family and love of country are very important to many people. Bush talks those issues and then acts contrary to them. Why not point that out? Why sit idly by and let him claim them?

We have let the Republicans claim an undeserved monopoly on patriotism and other issues for far too long.

[unfrigginreal]

29. You don't hand them over

but you don't make them your signature issues either. The first priority should be to champion causes that are important to our base. We need to force the Republicans to show voters how they would be better on our issues too.

[lcordero]

15. Unlike what a lot of people in this thread say

I think that it is very, very smart to do so.
Gov.Granholm made a hard-hitting statement about faith and the GOP.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10742456&BRD=982&PAG=461&dept_id=467998&rfi=6

There are a lot of conservative people out there who I think will react positively to this.

[QC]

16. I was brought up one of those conservative Christians.

They know which testament Job is in by the time they are in fifth grade.

[lcordero]

19. where they conservative Christians or semi-Levites?

[Brian_Expat]

18. What will they react positively to?

Conservative fundamentalists believe gays are destined to hell and shouldn't get "special rights."

Clark is for gay rights.

Conservative fundamentalists believe abortion is murder and should be illegal.

Clark is pro-choice.

What part of Clark's religious pitch will appeal to them?

Further, if the religious pitch is just to get fundamentalist votes, isn't that "pandering"? If so, why is it OK for Clark to do it, but not Dean?

[clarknyc]

20. Good questions.

I hope that you get some credibly honest answers.

[lcordero]

21. I don't know but people should get off of this shit that

this is "pandering" or that is "pandering".
Saying that you will do what the people want is REPRESENTING the people. I do not vote for officials to lead me, I vote for them to REPRESENT me.

[QC]

22. Nothing.

Hardcore fundamentalists are not going to vote for a Democrat.

Evangelicals, who are a whole other thing, often do. But they tend to be quite knowledgeable about Scripture, and they are probably not going to be taken in by someone who seems not to have the familiarity with it that they expect of their ten-year-old children.

If I were to announce my expertise in literature and then proclaim that Shakespeare was the greatest novelist Nebraska every produced, you would doubt whether I knew what I was talking about.

Same deal.

[Brian_Expat]

23. Sure, but Dean didn't announce expertise. . .

. . . just plenty of knowledge. Perhaps enough to be dangerous.

Besides, none of the Democrats understand the Bible to the degree that Betty Proudwomon understands an Andrea Dworkin book. :)

[QC]

26. Bri, have you visited the "Civil Rights/Equality/Privacy" forum?

There are some interesting threads there.

[Brian_Expat]

27. I will check it out! n/t

[OKNancy]

30. Wes Clark's life has been a journey of faith

First, I'm an atheist, however I admire people of faith, especially if they live it ( Jimmy Carter).

If one reads about Clark's life, one can see a pattern that revolves around his faith. First moving to Arkansas and choosing his own church as a really young kid because it had the prettiest stained glass windows. Of course that church was a Baptist church because that is what you find most often in Arkansas. He went on his own.
( I did this too, so I know the feeling)

Then he finds out as a young adult that his father was Jewish. He finds out all about that from his father's relatives. Then, he marries a Catholic girl and goes to Vietnam. In Vietnam he meets and counsels with a priest whom he greatly admires. He decides to convert not only because of his wife, but because of an inner struggle. The struggle to be a man of faith and yet a "warrior". He was drawn to the Catholic concept of a "just war". Also you can see the Catholic doctrine in his statements of good works and "if you can do good, you should".

As a mature man, his journey changes paths again. He has always been a "do-gooder" and he realizes that he is actually a liberal. He has said that Republicans care about things and Democrats care about people. He is still a Catholic, but now attends Presbyterian services because he finds them more aligned with his views. In my experience in the Presbyterian Church ( the liberal one - there are two branches) they are out front on the anti-war, Peace Corps, social justice, and the intellectual side of religion.

So, for Clark to mention faith and patriotism in his speeches is entirely understandable. Clark is an idealist, who believes in man's better nature. For me, I have no worries about where he stands as far as church/state relations are concerned. He answered that on, of all places, the Bill Mahar show. He said that our founders were men of the Enlightenment ( read to mean - realists, scientists and thinkers). He said they didn't count on God to come down with some divine wisdom...( left unspoken - like George Bush).

Clark's equanimity with religion makes me feel secure. You know, there are good people out there and I think Wesley Clark is one of them.

[maddezmom]

31. great post OKNancy

I don't contrast Wes to Dean, but to the current occupant of the WH.

[drfemoe]

32. Well since he wrote speeches

and raise $$ for the Rs for so many years, I'm not sure he can wrap his brain around progressive ideals or platforms. Ya know?

[TeacherCreature]

33. it's called hypocrisy

And that is the TCTroof!