The interesting thing about the article is the turn at the end of article, emphasizing that no Democrats will be dropping by the event. GOP candidates turn up volume for broadcasters:
"Some attending the NRB convention said they wished Democratic candidates also would come to Orlando.Good point Mr. McManus, but--as the saying goes, if you don't feel close to Evangelical Christians--the largest consumers of religious-themed broadcasting, then guess who moved? No doubt, there is an emerging bloc of government-is-the-answer voters who are increasingly asserting that they are also religious. However, that phenomenon merely demonstrates that a person's worldview--more than a person's religion, is the best predictor of how that person votes.
'In my view, there's often way too much Republican flavor at NRB,' said Rusty Wright, a California author, lecturer and radio host. 'I'd like to see more bi-partisanship.'
For Democrats, to write off potential evangelical supporters because of the historic support for the GOP is like Republicans writing off black voters for the same reason, said Erwin McManus, pastor of the Mosaic Community in Los Angeles and a convention speaker.
'I think the Democrats should have showed up,' said McManus, noting that he estimates that 80 percent of his 3,500-member congregation opposes the war in Iraq. 'I feel frustrated. I'm open to candidates in both parties. I would be far more excited and open about going to the Republican receptions if there were Democratic events as well.'"
On another note, I see that my favorite band--Little Big Town is performing today at Sea World . . . I hope that all of these candidates adopt some boondocks philosophy.
8 comments:
why are you so hell-bent on involving religion in politics?
Though I don't like to respond to "anonymous" commenters and disagree with how you are "hell-bent" on framing this issue, I'll just say that it seems obvious that a person's religious views influence (dictate?) his/her policy preferences.
To be honest I've listened to the NRB "demonize" the "Liberal Democrat Conspiracy" all through the Clinton years in order to mobilize the voting base to elect the republican backed candidate in 2000. Then I've heard even more vitriol against the Democratic Party afterward. Now that public opinion has turned against the republican administration these same broadcasters are calling for bi-partisan cooperation. When Bush was re-elected in 2004 you believed you didn't need the Democrats period.
The Democrats of this country simply DO NOT TRUST THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT! and that includes the NRB. You can't beat a group of people over the head for 12 years then one day turn around and say "hey, let's work together"
If you honestly want to hear differing opinions and points of view for the purpose of reaching true cooperation between political parties then start proving it by having an open heart to that idea. Most Democrats feel that the NRB have a set in stone agenda and will not listen to any dissenting opinion. They feel your events are simply forums for that agenda and a steel trap for anyone who tries to say otherwise. They just don't trust you...and I understand that opinion. If the NRB wants to really reach a middle ground of cooperation between parties they'll have to prove it by turning down the evengelical demonization rhetoric. Because the real fact is that these are people who just have a different opinion and the Religious right really doesn't have it all figured out. Once that is realized we'll all be better off.
"You can't beat a group of people over the head for 12 years then one day turn around and say 'hey, let's work together.'"
Yeah, tell me about it . . .
But I'm not sure I've heard a whole of calls for bi-partisan cooperation . . . anything other than anecdotal assertions to back that up?
"Yeah, tell me about it . . ."
So who do you think you're the victim of...?
I'm not comfortable with the term "victim," but you seem to have been only listening to one side of the debate over the past umpteen years (12 was your magic number--I guess you're saying that the GOP congress has been unwilling to work with Democrats all these years?).
There are definite differences between the political parties, and being the majority definitely can (and should, frankly) matter, but certain procedures should be honored whether or not it fits the war-room-media-strategy agenda of a party, for example.
That being said, the post and linked article are about candidates for President wanting to attend and address the NRB convention. I was referring to the systematic, unrelenting demonizing of GWB since the moment NBC un-called Florida for him in 2000.
But I hope you'll take the time to respond to the substance of my response to your comment as opposed to a throwaway line.
By the way, I need to say I'm flattered that you would comment on the blog, Rusty. I am a former Campus Crusade for Christ staff member and appreciated your ministry from way back (the 80s!) Somehow I didn't connect up your name with the article with your comment (McManus was my main "windmill" in that post). And I'm still assuming that you are actually the person posting as Rusty Wright.
Thus, I don't want to be dismissive of your viewpoint. I know that you have an "insider's" perspective on the NRB and I will concede that the majority of religious broadcasters, if they dare comment on politics in their broadcasts are almost definitely going to be more critical of Democrats than Republicans. I think some of that is inherent and defensible (for another post--see the archives) but I really was focusing on characterizations of this convention as shutting out Democrats in light of the fact that a presidential candidate can have a staffer simply call up the NRB, ask to have a turn at the lectern, promise to not inflame everyone there, and be placed on the agenda.
I have a lot of respect for you and your work, but didn't appreciate what I believed to be a mischaracterization (by a reporter and some quoted) of the NRB.
Me again, cancel what I said about you and the NRB. I just realized that you are a different "Rusty Wright." I'm still kind of flattered that you would comment, but . . .
Post a Comment