Wednesday, December 06, 2006

If you don't feel close to Obama, guess who moved . . .

My mom used to have a little framed thingamajig that sat on a table in our living room that read, "If you don't feel close to God, guess who moved." E.J. Dionne would have us believe that Barack Obama provides a similar type of measuring stick.

AACK at VolunteerVoters highlights a RedState.com post about a recent E.J. Dionne op/ed (here). Dionne is fantasizing about Presidential Timbarack Obama and his potential draw for Evangelicals. I generally agree with the RedState.com post and think that Dionne's creepy electoral leering at we Evangelicals makes me feel dirty.

Bringing it home, AACK seems to agree with the statement that "never really been fans of narrowly partisan politics," but then takes it a bit further to assert--wrongly, I believe, that Evangelicals have been "trained to believe that blind support of the GOP is in their interest." First, I think that Evangelicals have legitimately concluded that the Democrat Party is not "sensitive" or "interested," heck, even "tolerant" of Evangelicals' issues; and until the Democrats make a move, that conclusion is of continuing legitimacy.

Next, the same characteristic--relative indifference to political gamesmanship, that makes them not "have a thirst for partisan politics" makes them less politically savvy and less apt to "make each party bid for [their] attentions." Thus, I disagree with the assertion that Evangelicals "are starting to wakeup to the usefulness of this strategy." Evangelicals may sit out an election, but I don't think they are flirting with the Democrats except in rare, localized races.

Frankly I'd say Evangelicals are more than willing to meet Sen. Obama half way. Dionne touts how ". . . Obama took on the moral message of evangelical AIDS activists -- and then challenged them . . . "; I'll look forward to the day when a Conservative is given the same treatment, such as when someone should point out the irony of "pro-choice" Obama charging, "[w]e're dealing with flesh-and-blood men and women, and not abstractions."

Though he is certainly welcome to the cause, Obama is joining Dubya and other Republicans have been concerned about this epidemic for a long time. And I'm not sure how savvy it would be for Evangelicals to let a slick Democrat politician co-opt their issue, muddy the waters on their principled stances, or to pose as the moral leader on the issue.

No comments: