Big Dawg Rules! He tells the truth some of us are too dumb to understand.

[Merlin]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-bill-clinton,0,2516186.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

"I think the current divisions are partly the fault of the people in my party for not engaging the Christian evangelical community in a serious discussion of what it would take to promote a real culture of life," Clinton said.

We can't win over all evangelicals. But we can win over a huge porion of them. I personally know literally dozens who were right on the edge in this campaign. What kept them from crossing over is their sense that we are amoral and spiritually ungrounded.

We are not amoral of course, nor are we devoid of spirituality. Liberals generally believe strongly in the moral values of making the world a better place, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and on and on. And liberals resonate with the strongly spiritual idea of making the world a better place for all, rather than just grabbing what we can for ourselves.

We must start speaking our beliefs to them in language they understand. We can indeed gain the support of a great many Christians because many of them are very uncomfortable with the broader agenda of the right wing.

We may even have to dumb down to do it. I remember having to do that to get along and fit in with the majority in my high school class an eon ago.

We need to do whatever it takes to win. How is it some DUers can't wrap their head around such a simple concept?

[Baja Margie]

1. I agree

But I'm really becomming impatient trying to explain it to them, well, at least my interpretation. I think some of the folks around here are acting like "them", stuborn and enraged and just plain, sorry, dense.

Goodnight Irene, hasn't anyone around this joint taken any polisci classes ?

[Q]

2. "We need to do whatever it takes to win."

- It's the 'winning is everything' mindset that has fatally weakened the Dem party. The DLC Dems have been morphing into Republicans for decades...thinking that all they had to do is say what THEIR base wanted to hear in order to get their vote.

- Meanwhile...the New Democrats have completely forgotten their OWN base. Clinton and Kerry never even mentioned the Black vote...even though they also turned out in record numbers. They didn't even try to appeal to the working class poor and union vote...because they have sold them out for the 'middle class' and phantom swing voter.

[Baja Margie]

5. what?

If I'm not mistaken, Kerry met with the Black Caucus, and the NAACP. Bush shined them on, totally. I gotta go, it's LATE here.

Heh Q, start a topic on this, maybe tomorrow, we won't be back til late, like around who knows, maybe 11:00PM. I'll look for it.

[demokatgurrl]

26. I believe that was the statement of the poster, not Clinton.

[hiphopnation]

64. Agreed.

This has a whiff of pandering to me. Pick apart the language ... a 'culture of life'? What the fuck is that supposed to mean.

By accepting the terminology of the debate as framed by the right we ratify thier position. You know, the one that says "don't tamper with a cluster of pre-embryonic cells but send soldiers off to die and excecute the mentally retarted." Stop them in thier tracks. "cluture of life" you say? You know nothing of life, Mr. Evangelical so you can shove it.

Take back the language.

[Cheswick2.0]

75. we can drop the phrase "a culture of...) frim the language altogether

it's idiotic corporate speak.

[DemBones DemBones]

100. "Culture of life" is a Catholic phrase that encompasses all the liberal

ideals of helping the poor, avoiding war, ending the death penalty, as well as opposition to abortion and euthanasia.

[Cheswick2.0]

123. sorry no Dembones

"A culture of" is a phrase taken right out of Corporate speak 101. the catholics might have adopted it later. It's obnoxious and it is now code for anti abortion. Please don't tell me the catholic church gives a shit about life after birth. I see no evidence of that. The pope can say all he wants about the death penalty and poverty, but the rest of the church is not listening and they certainly aren't voting on those issues.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

3. I'ts cooler to hate religion.

Fuck winning by actually listening to our last WINNER!


Sigh...

[Generator]

60. No it's far cooler to believe in seperation of church and state

This "Democracy" is going down the tubes because of religion. Who knew we would have to fight religious fundamentalism in our own country?

[really annoyed]

90. True!

And now it's going to tear the Democratic party to bits and pieces.

We either get religion or die. We either abandon the First Amendment or die. We either abandon the gays and the evil abortion vixens (read that in another thread, laughed so hard) or die.

Gee, our future is so bright!

I'm thinking I might have to get another party if we give up on religious freedom to win over conservative bigots.

Or, do we need two Republican parties?

[hiphopnation]

67. I respect Clinton for this ability.

He's a total pro. I'll listen to what he has to say but I refuse to blamed for fundies and evangies forcing me to hate religion. Evangelism has that effect on me I just can't help it. I'll come to terms with religion, or not, by myself, thank you.

[Cheswick2.0]

76. he may be our last winner (Gore is really) however he has presided over

lots of losses since he won in 1992. Unfortunatly, as much as I care for the man, he is no political genius when it comes to other people's races.

[Cheswick2.0]

124. funny you should say that

Who hates religion? Some of us just happen to think Clinton is wrong on this and besides his own victories he isn't so hot at getting democrats in office. We have been losing ground ever since he became president.

[ulysses]

4. ...

We may even have to dumb down to do it. I remember having to do that to get along and fit in with the majority in my high school class an eon ago.

We're not exactly talking about a high school clique here. Were anyone's rights dependent on whether or not you dumbed down socially in high school?

We need to do whatever it takes to win. How is it some DUers can't wrap their head around such a simple concept?

How far do you want to dumb down in order to win? What further parts of the Republican and evangelical agendas do we accept as our own? Whose rights should we toss overboard in order to make the fundies like us?

Look, you want to engage the evangelicals in a meaningful discussion, then go on with your bad self. I even agree that there's a lot we could and should discuss with them regarding peace and economic justice. But I don't see a lot of them budging on civil liberty issues such as abortion and gay rights, and I don't have any intention of budging either. They're uncomfortable with the broader GOP agenda? Great. Let them come to the opposition party and talk.

[evilqueen]

77. heh

They're uncomfortable with the broader GOP agenda? Great. Let them come to the opposition party and talk.

Better yet, let them talk to their own party and promote compromise and cooperation. Let them convince their own party of the importance of civil rights, compassion, and economic justice. Why are they talking to Clinton? Hoping to make us conform and abandon our whole platform, or what?

[Forkboy]

114. I'm not sure if some have the room to spare to be dumbed down

[Cheswick2.0]

125. really...we are freaking dumb enough already?

do we have to go back to the stone age just to elect democrats?

[MadHound]

6. In other words become even more right wing that what Clinton did.

No thanks Bill. Your act has played out long ago, so sit down and STFU. This is the man who got the ball rolling on the renewed homosexual bigotry in this country with his Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. This is the man who cut out the social safety net with welfare "reform" . This is the man who greatly accelerated outsourcing in this country with the passage of NAFTA. This is the man who rewarded the media's RW corporate bias by allowing even further monopolization with the '96 Telecom Act. This man is not a Democrat, and he has no damn place telling us what we as a party should and should not do.

His conservative beliefs dragged the country even further to the right, and his sexual shinnanigans stained not only a blue dress, but the entire party by association. Why people lionize this man, I have no clue. Instead of being listened to with respect and awe, he should be demonized and scurged from this party for the fraud that he is.

Flame me if you wish, but first tell me one liberal thing that Clinton did in his entire tenure. If you can, then I'll listen. But until that can be proven, we should discount anything that this man has to say.

[RunningFromCongress]

7. I'm sorry but if people can't understand simple things like:

A) Making a law banning abortion is no different than making a law requiring it.

B) Banning abortion would only lead to a nearly the same ammount of abortions a year in a much less clean and safe environment putting the mothers life at risk as well.

and

C) It's not about marriage it's about equal rights

I DO NOT WANT THEIR VOTES...We can get the support of CATHOLICS and many moderate Protestants, but WE CANNOT EVER GET THE SUPPORT OF EVANGELICALS.

What our party needs to do is talk to people who believe that the bible is a STARTING POINT..we do not need to waste our time talking to people who take every word in the new testiment as literal fact. B/c nothing we will ever say to them will change their minds. FOCUS PEOPLE FOCUS!!

[QC]

19. "WE CANNOT EVER GET THE SUPPORT OF EVANGELICALS"

Do some research on this. We got 40% of their vote in the 2000 election and 21% in this one.

Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton are evangelicals. Evangelicals and fundamentalists are not the same thing, though people here often use the words as synonyms.

[RunningFromCongress]

28. As I understand it;

an evangelical takes the writings in the bible as exact word from god open to no interpretation. At least that's what CNN told me :P

I don't proclaim to understand all the denominations of christianity; so if I was wrong with my definition then I'm sorry.

However, I believe the "numbers" showed that 4 million evangelicals didn't vote in 2000. At all. Mainly b/c of Bush's DUI. Bush won by 3.5 million votes (using the 'no massive fraud' reasoning). That says something.

But to say we need to reach out to people who believe homosexuality is an abomination; is just wrong. Those people have no place in the democratic party. Having differences within the party on economics, health care, etc.. is one thing. But on basic human rights is another. I would rather lose and be right, than win and have sold out rights to do it.

[Doohickie]

54. Not so. Evangelicals are not necessarily "Bible literalists"

Evangelism is the movement that is primarily concerned with "spreading the Good News". Angel simply means messenger or newsbringer, and the "ev" prefix essentially means "good".

Whether or not you see their message as good news is not the point. The point is that the evangelical movement is primarily about spreading Christianity.

In the last 20 years or so, the flavor of Christianity associated with this movement is conservative and fundamentalist. As a member of a more moderate Christian denomination (Presbyterian USA), our church is wrestling with how much of the fundies tactics can we adopt to spread our vision of Christ, a vision that is more about love for others and social justice than it is about selfishly grabbing at the brass ring of heaven. Can we make our services more entertaining, for instance, without making them mind-numbing, watered-down shadows of our current services? Can we incorporate contemporary music and technology and still retain the essence of our faith, an essence that is quite different from the religious right?

We are doing this as a church. The reason I bring this up, however, is that perhaps that is what we should be doing as a political party as well. Some of the shift to the right is in the substance of their message, and some of it is how they package the message. So maybe the key is not to change any of our positions to suit them, but rather to package them in a way they will accept, read, and understand.

To me, the biggest stumbling block is the right is particualarly good at putting other views down without dragging themselves down along the way. I think their sense of self-righteousness makes them somehow immune to getting muddy themselves while spreading mud. We, however, seem to understand shades of gray an nuance and let that muddy the waters. We know we're not perfect, and in that knowledge, we somehow allow some of the mud we try to throw at them to splatter back on us.

[RunningFromCongress]

115. Ok fine, substitue literalists w/ evangelicals where it applies

[Cheswick2.0]

130. nope

the people who take the bible literally are inerants or literalists. Many evangelicals/borns again and fundamentalists are democrats and liberal. Some are literalists and some are not.
I know it is tempting to stick people in boxes, but you need a lot more of them and they need to be more clearly labled.

[southlandshari]

102. kick

for simple truth

[G_j]

8. if some Christians want to dust off their bibles..

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE 'EVANGELICAL'
Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet

The evangelical right doesn't have a monopoly on "moral
values," nor do they have a monopoly on proper and rigorous
biblical interpretation.

In fact, having been deeply steeped in a fundamentalist religious tradition my entire life, I'll go so far as to say that these Bible-thumpers are just that – people who thump on the Bible without bothering to open it up and wrestle with the prophetic tradition contained within.

Progressives, liberals and leftists can't engage them on this because they don't have the vocabulary. They've allowed their fear and ignorance of the Bible to prevent them from seeing that it contains some of the most radically egalitarian, progressive ideals in Western civilization.

<snip>
But what kind of good news? "Jesus, in his first sermon – his Nazareth manifesto, you might say – said, 'The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.' To be evangelical means to preach and live and act in a way that is good news to poor people."

<snip>

"They love the Bible. But they're not paying attention to whole vast areas of biblical teaching that call for economic justice. You can't be evangelical and associate yourself with Jesus and what he says about the poor and just have no other domestic concerns than tax cuts for wealthy people."

..more..
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20450/
----------------
** I agree that 'fundies' are very lacking on what the Bible actually says, but then again my experience is that many are not prone to 'listening' to, or having a real discussion with others either.

[Merlin]

12. This is great. Thanks. We can use this with the fundies.

We don't need to convert these people. We just need to let them know that it's OUR side that reflects the teachings of Jesus.

We can persuade them with their own damn book.

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
- I John (ch. III, v. 17)

[terrya]

9. And yet he's caving in to them on gay marriage.

I see a glaring inconsistency here. What does the fuck does Clinton want, anyway?

[Merlin]

10. What do you mean "caving in." Gay marriage is a piddling insignificance

Do you remember that 1 out of 3 gays voted for Bush?

Do you remember that gay marriage is NOT what most gays are concerned about. Civil unions IS.

Nobody suggests caving on civil unions. But for us to defend gay marriage is like trying to dry up the ocean.

Choose your battles carefully. Discretion is the better part of valor.

[charlie]

13. He caved

He advised Kerry to campaign in support of the state amendments. 8 of those amendments also banned civil unions.

[Merlin]

15. And that would have been a damn smart thing for Kerry to do.

Kerry was against gay marriage. REMEMBER?

But the Bushies had convinced their minions he was for it.

Clinton was urging Kerry to take this action as a means of dramatizing the position he already held.

Think about it. Not with you heart, but with your head.

[charlie]

18. Kerry also affirmed his support for civil unions

Supporting amendments that banned civil unions would've reeked of opportunism. And Bush would've been happy to add the inconsistency to his arsenal of flip-flop charges.

[Merlin]

34. Nobody was asking him to support ammendments banning civil unions.

Get it straight, please. Clinton asked him to announce support for ammendments banning gay marriage.

That move would have reeked of common sense and the desire to make clear that he understood the difference--which is more than many on this board can understand.

[madfloridian]

39. He said Dean was unelectable because of the "civil unions" bill.

Before Iowa he was calling Dean supporters and telling them to support Clark because Dean was unelectable....the civil unions bill did it.

Trouble is, Clark was in favor of civil unions, I think.

Not exactly honest of Clinton.

[Merlin]

43. That may be true. But it's not relevant to this discussion.

This discussion is about whether and how to appeal to those Christians who damn near voted for Kerry but were put off by the propaganda against liberals generally and Kerry specifically.

I wouldn't put it past Clinton to have pushed that angle to beat Dean. Dean has the vision and unfortunate drawbacks of the pioneer: he is noble in his quest, and you can tell he's a pioneer by the arrows in his back.

[madfloridian]

46. Clinton hurt us among Christians. Not forgiven.

In a way, it is relevant. I have a thread going about Dean saying almost the same as Clinton...but making it clear we don't need to pander....we need to talk.

One gives the impression of giving in, one does not.

[Merlin]

52. Call it what you will. We need to speak them in their own language.

That involves using the language of Jesus and supporting our assertions with biblical references. We need to hoist them by their own petards.

And Clinton has indeed hurt us among Christians. But nobody in their right mind is suggesting that Clinton himself should be the emissary to this group.

[Cheswick2.0]

131. it is not of piddling insignificance if you are gay

I once saw a post by a Nader supporter here who said abortion rights were a side issue. Excuse the hell out of me, but not if you have a uterus.
Unless I have made a mistake and you are gay, perhaps you should ask some gay folks here how they feel about the issue.

[matcom]

11. wwoooohhoooo I'm Dumb I'M DUMB!!!!

:bounce:

when evangelicals embrace CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL and get their noses out of the Old Testament, i'll consider opening a dialogue with them. until then.....

I'M DUMB!! I'M DUMB!!!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[matcom]

16. i'll stick to the lower half thank you

your right. i shouldn't have used the broad brush. the other 0.4% SHOULD be taken into consideration.

bad me.

[StopTheMorans]

29. F*ck the evangelicals; I'd rather lose them than compromise ALL of the

values that the Democratic party stands for.

[Merlin]

35. Listen to that complete and utter hyperbole!

"Compromise ALL the values that the Democratic party stands for."

Don't you even READ????????

The godam Democratic party does NOT stand gay marriage.

Think for god sake!

[matcom]

44. but I do

therefore, if my party wants to move right, i'll move out

[Merlin]

45. Aw geeze.

It's suddenly "moving right" in your mind to support the position taken by the nominee and the party's platform.

Sounds more like the thinking of a spoiled child, no offense.

[Bush was AWOL]

55. adios then

enough of these my way or the highway types.

[matcom]

58. right

you sacrifice the civil rights of others. i'll stand and fight for those who need it.

enjoy

[Bush was AWOL]

59. I'm sacrificing civil rights?

Is the Democratic Party?

What rights that are granted in the constitution are being sacrificed?

[sangh0]

62. Gays have never been able to marry legally in the US

so to say that a gay marriage ban repesents a "loss" of some kind is just not true.

Secondly, if gays do have a right to marry, and I believe they do, then amending a State constitution does NOTHING to weaken that right, as SCOTUS has already decided that the states cannot infringe on a right that is recognized by the Constitution.

Ther were several instances where Martin Luther King Jr REFUSED to fight back against some injustice even though his supporters were urging him to take action. Though they disagreed, they didn't accuse MLK of "abandoning" them merely because they disagreed.

But then, they actually supported MLK, as opposed to the very conditional support some DUers give to those they say they support.

[really annoyed]

84. It Is A Loss....

Amending several state Constitutions to forbid marriage AND civil unions for people of the same-sex constitutes a hugh loss for any sort of progress.

Some states have even gone to the point where ANY sort of contract between unmarried persons is invalid - Virginia coming to mind.

And any hope of getting these amendments overturned in this political climate? Probably not.

But oh well!

[hippiechick]

17. "A culture of Life" ... Bill's been drinking the kool-aid ...

Never thought I'd see the day when he too, completely sold out to the BFEE.

:(


:hippie:

[DemBones DemBones]

94. The BFEE has merely begun to use

the Catholic term "culture of life" and they don't use it properly, either, since it refers to opposing capital punishment and war as much as euthanasia and abortion. Clinton may be using it properly.

[Cheswick2.0]

126. wrong..................."culture of" is corporate speak

it was adopted by the fundie/coporate coalition and then adopted by the catholics over the last few years when they decided to join the ecumenical order of "YOUR SINS ARE BIGGER THAN MINE" along with all the other right wing christians.

[xequals]

20. I disagree. Clinton is only a "temporary fix" political figure. He

or his ideas cannot help your party find something permanent and strong to stand on.

The biggest mistake Dems could make is to speak the theocrats' language, because the argument would then be framed according to their terms.. according to people who live in a haze of irrationality. Once you cede the rational, intelligent high ground to them .. even language and rhetoric-wise -- you lose. Your party will lose something much worse than one election once you go down that path. You can't beat them in a game of "fundie think", nor should you want to. Dems should speak of American values - the secular libertarianism this country was founded on -- and frame their arguments as such, strongly and patriotically.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

22. I agree...

I have long been saying while Clinton may have succeeded in gaining the presidency twice (I think Ross Perot helped enormously), he is not a good leader for the party because his thinking tends to be narrow and a whatever it takes to win attitude. This is ok in the short run, but definitely not in the long run for the country's well being.

Al Gore and John Kerry tend to be much more principled and also more analytical and thoughtful, as befits a true leader. Al Gore also is the only one among all the Democratic poobahs to identify the core problem we have: the media.

Everything else and every Democrat is irrelevant until we learn to deal with the stupid short-sighted media people. (It may be that if they get their acts together, Clinton may not have to pander so much either...)

[Snellius]

21. The issue of abortion is fundamental to their theology

Do you listen to these people? Turn on any evangelical TV program in your area: 700 Club, CBN, Joyce Meyer, the Copelands, Benny Hin. Even here in NY they are all over the place first thing in the morning or late at night. Tell me there is any compromise with this kind of good vs. evil fanaticism. To them, abortion is as much a part of their religious cosmos as heaven and hell. It's the way they convince themselves that anyone who disagrees with them is a godless baby killer. What we should be doing is standing up to this arrogant zealotry and stop pandering to them because we are afraid of offending their self-righteous superstitions.

[Perky]

23. Of course we can win over Evangelicals

If we appeal to Faith and Family... And I believe Criticize the Fundies for being more concerned abput political power and kingmaking then they are about the lost.

As an evangelical of some 24 years.....I am telling you that we can split the evangelicals by speaking their language. Big Dawg has it right.

[Merlin]

41. Absolutely right!

Well said.

Now all we have to do is to get this across to our liberal bretheren. That may be more difficult than persuading the evangelicals.

[spooky3]

24. I see nothing wrong with opening a dialog. I have a problem only with

doing whatever they want even if it is contrary to Dem. principles and values.

[realcountrymusic]

25. Sorry Bill

I don't make deals with Nazis.

rcm

[southlandshari]

105. Remember this post

next time you demonize the right-wingnuts for using slurs and stereotypes to generalize all of us progressives.

Because your post symbolizes an unfortunate, blind, headlong, flying leap - DOWN - to their level.

[demokatgurrl]

27. Oh PLEASE Bill don't start using Bush's phrases-

"culture of life", another one of Bush's bullshit euphemisms, like "clear skies" and "help America vote".

And goddam it, I am really gettin ticked off - not particularly at Clinton but at the PARTY- hearing over and over again how we have to pander to the religious right. Soon we will be rounding up atheists and throwing them in jail for subersive activites. It's really scary, to me.

[Merlin]

40. Your scaring your own self. Try thinking instead.

We lost the fucking election, didn't we? The reason we lost is because WE GOT LESS VOTES THAN THE OTHER GUY.

In order to get more votes the next time WE NEED TO GET SOME OF THE OTHER GUY'S VOTES AWAY FROM HIM.

To do that, we need to appeal to SOME of his voters. Many Bush voters were on the edge right up until the end. They are the ones wo are afraid of the rightist agenda, but who have been propagandized into believing people like you and me are completely amoral and without a sense of right and wrong.

We have to convince them otherwise. To do that WE NEED TO SPEAK TO THEM IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. Capiche?

[DemBones DemBones]

97. Bush** took the phrase "culture of life" from us Catholics,

trying to get more Catholic votes. It encompasses all the peace and justice initiatives, which, except for reducing abortion, are widely embraced by liberals.

[Cheswick2.0]

127. nope sorry

I heard the Phrase"culture of" many years ago in coporate meetings.

[meow2u3]

30. The hardest thing for educated people to do

is to speak the language of the average person without sounding condescending.

Here's why the perception of ordinary, working-class Americans of the so-called "cultural elite" as snobbish and patronizing persists. It's the cultural "language barrier." We have to quit bashing rural America and accusing them of being simpletons when in fact we just were rarely, if not never, exposed to their way of life.

[DinahMoeHum]

36. which is why developing / strengthening Dem bases in the South

should be done by the Southern Democrats and progressives themselves.

People down there won't listen to a Yankee, but they WILL listen to one of their own kind. But we Yankees can help them with money.

:kick:

[southlandshari]

38. You are right

And there are lots of us Southern progressive Democrats willing to go all out to get the job done.

Money is fine, but not necessary. My first choice of ways non-southern Dems can support us is to stop all the idiotic South-bashing and stereotyping on places like DU which are supposed to be open-minded and tolerant.

[Wind Dancer]

68. As a southern progressive Democrat,

I can promise you the RW "end-timers" have infiltrated the churches and we are fighting to convey the hypocrisy to these radicals. You can't get through to them, they have been brainwashed and believe that our beliefs aren't Christian.

While volunteering, this was the one complaint I heard the most from fellow Democrats, they are appalled at what the RW have done to our religion.

Their hatred for gays and Muslims is scary - they completely ignore the teachings of Christ in every aspect. They are waiting for the rapture and believe it's God's plan to attack the ME, convert all Muslims, yada yada yada.

Personally, I am far more progressive than most southern moderate Dems and believe gays have the right to marry. There are many progressive Christians and I believe the media is full of BS when they spin this "values" nonsense.

[southlandshari]

98. As a fellow southern progressive Democrat,

born and bred, left for two decades of living and learning around the globe, and recently returned, I deeply appreciate the fight you and so many others like me are fighting against the far right in the South, particularly in the church community.

I am not naive. I live in Alabama, my home state, the reddest of red southern states (although there were several NON-southern red states that had far fewer counties vote blue this past election). I am also a strong, progressive Christian and teach the youth Sunday School class in my mainstream Presbyterian Church. I can bear witness to the fact that there are many of us open-minded Christians here in the Deep South, and to dismiss the southern church community as a whole would be a tragic mistake.

When folks say that "we can't get through to 'them'" regarding southern Christians, I completely understand the frustration. But I am here to tell anyone who will listen that it can be done. I am married to a Palestinian Muslim named Jihad. How do you think that goes over at family reunions in Dixie? Well, surprisingly, after getting past some initial surprise and answering some very basic questions, my husband and I were warmly welcomed into the fold of my pretty typical (read: pretty dadgum conservative) extended southern family.

That was ten years ago. Now my family would more easily kick me out than they'd get rid of him. They gave him a chance because they knew and loved me. And all this is (in my simple mind) illustrative of what others have already said on this thread. Southerners (and anyone else for that matter) are not completely rigid, inflexible or unreasonable. They WILL listen to people they trust with messages that make sense. Hell, isn't that true for all of us?

[eyepaddle]

140. removed by eyepaddle

[Merlin]

37. Excellent! Well said.

You have got your head wrapped around this.

Somehow we must get this across to our fellow DUers who cannot see the forest for the trees.

[SeekerofTruth]

69. I Disagree. Educated people don't call other people 'average'.

I'm highly educated and I talk to 'average' people all the time because I don't consider them 'average'. How condescending are you being by calling some people 'average'? Truly educated people don't speak down to anybody. Only the 'cultural snobs' do.

Now, with that said, I find your point very interesting that the 'working class' party of Democrats doesn't understand working class America that exists within the red states. Isn't it IRONIC that small working class towns in red & blue states voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

I'm sadly believing our party being the party for the working class, is losing it's way.

[UpsideDownFlag]

31. hmm, he's become a little unhinged since the elections, imho. nt

[DemCam]

72. He's not the only one.

Seems like several have become "unhinged", imho.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. Gosh, his "ministering" a troubled Monica didn't help create this, did it?

As far as I can tell, nobody STOPPED Clinton from helping to create that impression. While I regard his presidency as a mixed bag, he seemed to only do well for himself..the party lost seats under him in both houses and Dem state houses across the country turned red between the 90's and now.

Clinton lecturing me about morality is the epitomy of fucking irony.

[indie_voter]

33. I think he was a really good president

However I completely agree with you, Clinton played a huge part in shaping current perceptions.

[sangh0]

63. Millions of children received health care

Millions of americans were lifted out of poverty. Thousands of teenagers did NOT get pregnant.

He can talk to me about morality whenever he wants.

[Madame X]

74. That's not exactly the point that was made, was it?

Pres. Clinton hardly spoke to them in "their" own language when he was in office, so I find it laughable for him to wish to start now. "They" loathed and despised him then and still do, to an almost murderous intensity. "They" also used his actions with Monica Lewinsky (whether right or wrong) to smear both him and the Democratic party.

Morality is not the issue, it is a chimera created by the Republicans to try and make us fight on their turf. The sooner we jettison that idea and stop trying to act like pale reflections of them, the better off the country will be.

[sangh0]

80. Actually, it was EXACTLY the point that was made

even if, for reasons you made clear, Clinton isn't the best person to carry that message.

[mitchum]

108. What nsma said!

I do envy your bullshit detector :)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. You mean like these folks???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1344607

I don't WANT to "speak their language".

And if they are stupid enough to buy the spin that the Democrats are "amoral and spiritually ungrounded" then, frankly, they are too stupid to be voting.

[JHB]

48. And yet, they DO vote, too stupid or not.

You gonna wrestle that bear, or not?

[JHB]

47. I think he's about 30 years late in saying it...

...AND I think he should place more emphasis on the "partly" (please avoid the urge to "blame the liberals first", Bill).

That said, it's something that needs to be done among all "red" constituencies, not just evangelicals. Be travelling salesmen: knock on the door, don't scare them, try to get your foot in the door, and SELL SELL SELL!

[Dora]

49. I'm not going to change my habits to convince someone else

that I'm as spiritual as they are.

Just because I choose not to attend a church doesn't mean I'm amoral or that I lack spiritual depth. If the Christian middle can't bring themselves to engage me in questions about my faith, I'm not going to go to Church on Sunday just to prove a point to them.

Those in the Christian middle who see themselves as "tolerant" of those of us who appear to lack spirituality have in fact condemned themselves to ignorance of our widespread and deeply felt spiritual convictions.

When I became a grownup, I realized that if I wanted to know something, I had to ask questions and I had to be prepared to accept or challenge the answers. And if I chose to challenge, that meant asking more questions.

What is the Christian Middle asking these days? They've been catered to and kissed up to for so long that they've become lazy, ignorant, and complacent. They have forgotten their true faiths, have embraced sloth over service, and chosen greed over generosity. The only thing I hear the Christian Middle asking is "Where is mine?" and "What will you do for me?"

Pah, I say. PAH! I will NOT reach OUT to THOSE who want me to say that I believe the same things they do, rather than ask me what it is I DO BELIEVE.

[geek tragedy]

50. It's simple--talk about REDUCING the number of abortions and pay

honor to a broader ethic of life--the Franciscan ideals of resisting war, alleviating poverty, and taking care of the environment.

None of that requires one ounce of dissent from core Democratic values, and would make a huge difference.

[DemBones DemBones]

96. THAT is what the culture of life is all about -- and it's a CATHOLIC term,

not a fundy one or a Bush** one.

[Cheswick2.0]

128. it was both a fundie/corporate (same thing) term before the Cathilics

used it.

[springhill]

51. How is it that some cannot wrap themselves around this......

You are in denial. We don't have free elections anymore. They have been taken away from us. We won the election. There are more people that think like we do. It was not about morals. It was about subverting our democracy. Period. All this nonsense about doing this and that, getting out the right "Christian Message" is just a bunch of bullshit. You go ahead, work your asses off on the issues for another four years and see where it gets you, because it will be nowhere.

As for Clinton, he spews the same crap over and over and over again. If he doesn't get what kind of people we have in office right now then maybe he is part of the problem.

[Tomee450]

53. Great post.

It seems that some really believe that the election was lost even though there is evidence of irregularities and all votes have still not been counted. I don't agree with Clinton. If the party moves further to the right, it will lose a lot of members. The Democratic party will have become just another wing of the Republican party.

[Merlin]

91. Neither you nor your buddy springhill can do math very well.

If you could you'd see that none of the credible allegations of voter fraud add up to anything like Bush's plurality.

Go ahead and delude yourselves if you like. But don't misrepresent what is being said here. Nobody is saying we should "move further to the right." We're saying we must learn to express our positions in terms of moral values and in the language evangelicals can understand.

Do you think you could maybe pause for just a few seconds and actually try to understand what I have just said?

[springhill]

112. I don't know what math has to do with your original post........

but I think I have probably done a lot more research on the votes total (Florida in particular) and it is not possible. No way. Now, if your argument is that the media says it ain't so, there are a lot of things they dismiss out of hand at first, then they have to eat their words when the evidence gets to be too overwhelming. No WMD anyone?

In any case, on your post, I did read it and I respectfully disagree with you.

[Merlin]

117. The Florida county registration vs votes comparisons are a red herring.

It was a great observation by TruthIsAll, and he even made it to MSNBC and ABC. But unfortunately, it's not what it appears to be.

The counties he points out that appear to vote in percentages opposite from their registrations are all up in the Alachua area. I don't know if you've ever visited there, but it is the most fundamentalist, rigid, ruthlessly structured area I've ever visited (ok, so I've never been to Mississippi). I'm talkin' "Deliverance"--except it's a modern community money-wise, but the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the righteous and saved. So that was my first thought when I saw what TIA was trying to peddle.

But the clincher is this. Each of these counties has voted contrary to its registration in each of the last presidential elections going back to at least 1988--the last year with number I could check.

So this ain't gonna fly unless we can prove they've been gimmicked for the past 16 years -- in which case it's really on us.

Anyhow, I appreciate your respectful post. Feelings mutual.

[Bread and Circus]

56. Big Dawg and his "big dick" is responsible for a lot this "moral values"

mess.

[Larkspur]

66. Agree. Bill's screwing around with Monica in the Oval Office...

has screwed Dems for a long time.

[Politicub]

57. I think it's pretty chilling

"Culture of Life" sounds like a GOP code word for something henious.

:scared:

[pookieblue]

78. The Culture of Life

is a relgious foundation. In their mission statement they say they want to protect all life from conception to death. They have a website.

From what I can tell, they are against all forms of Birth Control except "natural methods", think that single women should abstain from sex and that married couples should only use "natural methods".

edited to say, it kind of scares me to hear * talk about in his speeches. I hope that is not the direction America is headed. Back to the 1800's.
I have no problem with other's beliefs... but don't try to force them on me. As a single woman, I resent others wanting to tell me how to live.

[DemBones DemBones]

101. "Culture of life" is a phrase that Catholics have used for years to

encompass all the things liberals like (helping the poor, avoiding war, doing away with the death penalty) and some they don't (ending abortion and euthanasia.) It's all about saving lives.

Bush** started using it because Rove told him it would help him get Catholic votes.

[DoBotherMe]

61. "Let's talk about sex babee"

That's the discussion that needs to be undertaken.

[Larkspur]

65. B.S. Bill, Thomas Frank has a better answer...

What the Democrats Missed at the Populist Revolution
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/2004race/10354/index.html

Another one of Frank's op ed's was published on Oct. 11, 2004 and it describes pretty bluntly the major problem with the Dem leadership
The Powerless Elite
How the Democrats have abandoned majoritarian politics for the monied set.
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/columns/nationalinterest/9988/

[Merlin]

89. Ahem, Bill and Thomas Franks are saying the same thing.

Which is to appeal to the onetime populists of the farm belt on the basis of moral values. Have you read Frank's book?

True, Frank pushes the class thing further than Clinton ever did. But Clinton certainly talked a lot about tax cuts for the rich being a bad idea, about the need for a living wage, about lifting the poor out of poverty. His record in that regard wasn't all bad.

[dbonds]

70. Because

Winning at this cost is not winning. If we compromise our beliefs then we are nothing but an election machine. I thought we stood for something.

[Snivi Yllom]

71. yeah, you can win those voters if you hide the homos in the closet

No thanks Bill, we have enough homphobia.

Now go play in your library.

[Edmond Dantes]

73. Go, Merlin!

[Edmond Dantes]

79. kick

[buddhamama]

81. What makes this statement the "truth" ?

There are some issues Evangelicals will not be swayed on regardless of the dumbed down language and catch phrases. Marriage/Civil Unions for the GLBT community is just one example.

If we Do "whatever" it takes to win, then what exactly have we won?
Nothing. We'd lose the very Principals and Values that made us different to begin with.

[Merlin]

87. Obviously by "whatever it takes" I meant we must make the effort...

to communicate to evangelicals in their own language.

Instead of despising them and blowing them off, as you seem to want to do, you appeal to their sense of values.

By the way, I will bet you that a substantial percentage of evangelicals supports gay unions. Are you aware of the difference between that and gay marriage? I ask because you seem to lump them together into a single thought, when in fact they are very different.

One can surely oppose gay marriage without opposing either gays or civil unions.

[buddhamama]

118. You speak in generalities

yet I am the one "lumping" together. Come now.
You assume too much.
I have absolutely no problem talking to evangelicals.
Truth to be told, I am a little offended by your suggestion that we'd have to dumb down the language. Evangelicals aren't stupid. The majority aren't even ignorant. Their religious beliefs do cause them to see the world, its problems and how to fix those problems differently than me, but that doesn't make them stupid.

Of course I am aware of the differences between Gay Unions and Marriage. I do not agree with making exceptions, though. If heterosexuals can be married than so too can the GLBT community. Either make all Marriages Civil Unions or All can be Married. Equality.

Ohio and Georgia voted against Domestic Partner status altogether. I'll have to check but I believe other States went the same route.
Once again, you assume what evangelicals will accept as to Marriage/Civil Unions.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Cattledog]

83. All evangelicals are not nuts...

to assume so is naive and political suicide.

[Merlin]

93. That's a pretty good description of your ridiculous post.

First of all, "getting elected, period" ain't all bad. Second, before you blow off one-quarter of the electorate, try doing a little math:

We lost the fucking election, right?
Ok. Why? Because THEY got more votes that WE did, right?
Now if WE want to get more votes than THEM then: WE NEED SOME OF THEM TO VOTE FOR US! HELLO! Capiche?

Now, what Clinton is suggesting--stick with me here before you zone out of flip back to MTV--is that we learn how to communicate with evangelicals in language they understand. That means talking about OUR programs in terms of moral values.

Unlike your cutesly, flip dismissal of all evangelicals, a significant percentage of them--according to exit polls--came very close to voting for Kerry. So we don't have to get all of them. Just enough to win the godam election.

[bacchant]

109. Thanks for straightening me out

Hmm... let's see here

"Ok. Why? Because THEY got more votes that WE did, right?"

Actually that is yet to be determined

"...communicate with evangelicals in language they understand. That means talking about OUR programs in terms of moral values."

So, they need us to tell them that programs that promote peace, compassion, tolerance, fairness, and equality, are moral? If they're not capable of gleaning that from the teachings of Jesus, what makes you think they're going to listen to the democrats?

[Merlin]

116. Sure. Any time.

"If they're not capable of gleaning that from the teachings of Jesus, what makes you think they're going to listen to the democrats?"

I say again, exit polls showed a significant number of Bush voters were right on the edge of voting for Kerry.

As you know, many people retain the last message they receive.

Also, these people are extremely heavily propagandized and it takes enormous courage on the part of any of them to break with their peer groups. Yet huge percentages have serious doubts about the right wing agenda, and serious conflicts with the fact that Democrats more adequately reflect the broad sweep of Christian ideals. So there are many minds here who can be ours for the picking if we will SPEAK TO THEM IN THE LANGUAGE OF MORALITY AND THE BIBLE which they are driven--in their own mileau--to speak and to live by.

(Ill. Sen.) Paul Simon once said "You can buy in any language. But in order to sell, you must speak the language of your customer." That injunction applies here.

[LoZoccolo]

121. Worse than recruiting for the religious right from the right...

...is recruiting from the left, as you do, sir.

21% of white evangelicals voted for Kerry. Maybe you want to give our right-wing opponents more of a mandate, but I don't. In my opinion, your ratcheted-up frothing tomfoolery is deserving of more censure than what the Republicans do - because you should know better. Quit nursing whatever emotional habits you have with this issue and work for us, not against us. And at least face facts - bother to look this stuff up before you engage in this bullshit.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

85. As a Secular Person, I Have to Say the Hate Toward Evangelicals Here

Is really very disturbing.

DTH

[really annoyed]

88. Well...

I'm sorry if I'm not "tolerant" enough toward the intolerant. Give them an inch, and they take a mile.

I have nothing against Christians or Christianity. However, I am sick of people who use religion as an excuse to be hateful. I'm sick of people who think we need to give up the First Amendment to win more votes. If you are a Christian, it doesn't mean you have to give up on the First. Far too often, I only see non-theists speaking up. We need more Christians to speak up.

I say this as a "spiritual," but secular individual myself.

And even if they spoke up, they would just get labeled as "liberal" Christians! We are doomed before we even start.

The Democratic party will never been seen as a "Christian-friendly" party unless we go conservative. That is the truth.

Like a Catholic woman told me once, The Bible goes before The Constitution. There you go. That is the mind-set. Feel free to work with it.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

92. I'm Sorry You Choose To Paint With Such a Broad Brush

I personally think that attitude is part of the problem.

DTH

[Cheswick2.0]

129. it is not that you are intolerant...it's that you don't know what you are

talking about. Not all evangelicals are conservative.

[Capn Sunshine]

86. Howard Dean agrees with this

He said that it's been a mistake to just give the religious over to the right when we as Democrats have actual core values that are MORE spiritual and meaningful than the lip service paid by the Republicans. "They remind me of the Pharisees" he said. Loudly proclaiming their faith yet not backing it up with works. Doing their best to undermine the social safety net. preaching intolerance instead of inclusiveness.

Why can't we stand up for our core beliefs and compare them to religious goals for humanity? It's a gimmee.

[bacchant]

95. The only way to survive is to cooperate with them

We can be like these guys

[many a good man]

99. I have a radical idea

Let's pass a law that says you don't HAVE TO HAVE AN ABORTION if you believe its wrong.

Here's another one: if you think homosexuality is immoral, then we'll make it a law you don't have to go to bed with somebody of the same sex.

If stem cell research bothers you, then don't use any medicine that comes out of it and there won't be any legal penalty.

Shoot, maybe all three should be Constitutional amendments. Or how about one big general one: "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's, and leave everybody else the fuck alone." Of course, Bill Clinton would say it in better words than mine...

[DemBones DemBones]

103. So if some people want to have a war, we shouldn't say war is wrong?

That is a logical extension of what you're saying.

[many a good man]

106. Huh?

Maybe allowing conscientious objectors to a avoid service would be the correct logical extension.

I think its fine to try to persuade anybody who'll listen to you to follow your moral code. Just don't codify it if it means taking away someone's rights. As hard as they fight for Old Testament values, we should be fighting for tolerance. The Constitution's on OUR side.

[sonicx]

110. the logical logical extension would be...

"if you don't like war, don't fight in one."

[many a good man]

111. I don't like war, either. But somebody's got to fight.

I don't mean Iraq. I mean America. Why do I feel like WE'RE being occupied?

[sonicx]

113. i agree. actually, i don't think it's fair to compare war to gay marriage

anyway...

;)

[Malikshah]

104. Where *is* that fire extinguisher???

Or at least give me a shovel.

MOTS CW 2 strikes already.

Who's game for a third strike???

[Andromeda]

107. Bill is correct.

As much as it galls me to have to "dumb down" in order to reach these people it's the only way we're going to reach them.

The religious zealots saw John Kerry as a Massachussets liberal just like Ted Kennedy.

The point is that the South has absolutely no idea what the word liberal means except what they hear from Rush Limpballs and the religiously insane Jerry Falwell.

[SemperEadem]

119. the difference is

" Liberals generally believe strongly in the moral values of making the world a better place, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and on and on. And liberals resonate with the strongly spiritual idea of making the world a better place for all, rather than just grabbing what we can for ourselves."

Liberals believe in properly funding these principles to make them a reality. Repugs don't. They believe that it should all be done for free and that they shouldn't be called upon to do their part, outside of praying a mediocre, half-assed insincere prayer.

[Q]

120. I supported / defended Clinton against the RWing hoardes....

...for the entirety of his two terms. But near the end of his term...I finally realized that he was an egocentric that was more concerned about HIS future than ours. He gave away more of the Democratic party than practically any other Dem president. And he's applauded for this?

- His wife may have forgiven him for his Monica and other adventures...but it weakened the party to the point where we became apologists for HIS lack of morals.

- Clinton should RETIRE and shut the hell up unless he's asked to campaign for someone. In no way does he represent the majority of the Dem party.

[Edmond Dantes]

122. We had 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton.

I don't care whether he is egocentric or where he parks his penis.

What I care about is the welfare of our country.

[lefthandedskyhook]

132. Clinton is still pulling toward the center even though it moved

All we need is:

1) Reliable & verifiable non proprietary voting (if we DEMAND it with passion and unity it has a tiny chance)

2) An equal voice in truly mass media (this will take big money, time, and a coordinated, deliberate effort)

If we do these things we will win hands down.

[shrike]

133. Anyone else noticed that Bill's batting average is zip?

He campaigns for our candidates in 2002 and we lose bigtime. He campaigns for Davis in California and we lose. He campaigns in 2004, and we lose -- bigtime.

I'm not blaming him for these losses, not at all. But the old magic is gone. Clinton can't work miracles anymore and we should stop pretending he can. Clinton should follow Carter's example, go off and do good in the world. We need new blood and new ideas.

[Gyre]

134. Clinton is being an "armchair quarterback".

But class was never his strong-suit.

You said: "We need to do whatever it takes to win. How is it some DUers can't wrap their head around such a simple concept?"

You and "Big Dog"'s premise is flawed. 1st: The dems will not do 'whatever it takes to win'. For instance, we wouldn't start stringing up black folks to win a few kkk votes in Alabama. Presumably, we wouldn't start a war and kill innocent people just to drum up visceral support for the president because that's immoral. There's lots of things we wouldn't do 'to win'.

There is no proof that this group actually exists. Kissing up to a mythical contingent of jesus freaks, who are theoretically poised to cast their vote for you (if you were only a less-inclusive kind of democrat), would be like bending over backwards until your spine broke. This is not a rational "cost-benefit" strategy. It is what is called a "red-herring". Who really believes that jesus freaks on the edge of voting dem would elect to affirmatively vote for the chimp instead of just staying home? I don't.

Chasing the votes of this 'group' will weaken and divide us, and it will not give us any more votes than we actually got in 2004. So we remain flat with the jesus freaks, and we lose groups who are judged as "not worthy" by the jesus freaks, due to us alienating them because we wrapped our arms around their enemies. The net result is that we end up whores and losers too.

I think we dems are capable of "wrapping our brains" around the issue you raise. We just disagree philosophically. Maybe for you, whenever somebody has a different philosophy, that makes them 'stupid'. Based on that, I can see why the jesus freak vote appeals to you; those are your people.

Gyre

[mmonk]

135. The only language these people understand

is they and they alone can ever be right about anything and they cannot tolerate difference or anything that challenges their hate, ignorance, or worldview concerning "faith". You need to address them on an issue such as economics or foreign policy failures which we share. This does not tread ON THEIR PLAYING FIELD for that playing field is one of ignorance and emotion and will not be changed. If we play on their playing field we will lose every time. Big Dawg is INCORRECT.

[BlackVelvet04]

136. I disagree

As long as the left supports a woman's right to choose they will never win over the evangelicals.

[lancdem]

137. I agree, too, Merlin

Evangelicals are not monolithic, and many of them care about what progressives are fighting for. We need to make that link, and we can.

[patricia92243]

138. How much of this is a direct quote from Clinton, and how much your own??

[IrateCitizen]

139. Not all evangelicals are fundamentalists

I have some evangelicals in my family. They are very devout, but they are certainly not Bush-bots. My younger cousin won an appointment to the USMA, but dropped out after his plebe year. When my dad asked him why, he said, "I saw what Bush was doing, and I really didn't want to end up in a situation where he'd be sending me halfway across the world for a dubious reason."

These people are evangelical Christians.

So is Jimmy Carter. Yet, I'd hardly call him a Bush-bot.

Many of the Evangelicals are lost causes. I also have several of them in my family, and they live in the South. But there are many out there who also believe fervently in "Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do also to me." They're the ones we need to reach out to.