PDA

View Full Version : Latter-Day Republicans vs. the Church of Oprah


Ultra Peanut
12-17-2007, 04:27 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Frank Rich; Home. Rrrrrun.

That claim just happens to be true. As the jaws of his scandalized co-stars dropped around him, Mr. O’Donnell then raised the rude question that almost no one in Washington asks aloud: Why didn’t Mr. Romney publicly renounce his church’s discriminatory practices before they were revoked? As the scion of one of America’s most prominent Mormon families, he might have made a difference. It’s not as if he was a toddler. By 1978 — the same year his contemporary, Bill Clinton, was elected governor in Arkansas — Mr. Romney had entered his 30s.

The answer is simple. Mr. Romney didn’t fight his church’s institutionalized apartheid, whatever his private misgivings, because that’s his character. Though he is trying to sell himself as a leader, he is actually a follower and a panderer, as confirmed by his flip-flops on nearly every issue.
. . .
But Washington is nothing if not consistent in misreading this election. Even as pundits overstated the significance of “Faith in America,” so they misunderstood and trivialized the other faith-based political show unfolding this holiday season, “Oprahpalooza.” And with the same faulty logic.

Beltway hands thought they knew how to frame the Romney speech because they assumed (incorrectly) that it would build on the historical precedent set by J.F.K. When they analyzed the three-state Oprah-Obama tour, they again reached for historical precedent and were bamboozled once more — this time because there really was no precedent.
. . .
What the communal fervor in these three very different states showed instead was that Oprah doesn’t have to ask for these votes. Many were already in the bag. Mr. Obama was drawing huge crowds before she bumped them up further. For all their eagerness to see a media star (and star candidate), many in attendance also came to party. They were celebrating and ratifying a movement that Mr. Obama has been building for months.

This movement has its own religious tone. References to faith abound in Mr. Obama’s writings and speeches, as they do in Oprah’s language on her TV show and at his rallies. Five years ago, Christianity Today, the evangelical journal founded by Billy Graham, approvingly described Oprah as “an icon of church-free spirituality” whose convictions “cannot simply be dismissed as superficial civil religion or so much New Age psychobabble.”

“Church free” is the key. This country has had its fill of often hypocritical family-values politicians dictating what is and is not acceptable religious and moral practice. Instead of handing down tablets of what constitutes faith in America, Romney-style, the Oprah-Obama movement practices an American form of ecumenicalism. It preaches a bit of heaven on earth in the form of a unified, live-and-let-live democracy that is greater than the sum of its countless disparate denominations. The pitch — or, to those who are not fans, the shtick — may be corny. “The audacity of hope” is corny too. But corn is preferable to holier-than-thou, and not just in Iowa.

a1na2
12-17-2007, 06:34 AM
Just say no to drugs peenut.

Ultra Peanut
12-17-2007, 07:39 AM
http://i17.tinypic.com/7wrlo3n.jpg

chagrin
12-17-2007, 08:07 AM
Am I the only one who found that whole Oprah introducing Obama thing terribly disturbing? I think I actually heard his campaign collapsing. Seriously, there's brainwashing and there's Oprah, holy cow!

In the Democratic race, there's only Clinton and Obama of that I am pretty sure of. So all the Repubs need to do is let them hang themselves; they are doing quite a good job with the whole "we're rock stars" routine.

Cochise
12-17-2007, 09:33 AM
Am I the only one who found that whole Oprah introducing Obama thing terribly disturbing? I think I actually heard his campaign collapsing. Seriously, there's brainwashing and there's Oprah, holy cow!

Recently, Obama had been polling well among educated and wealthier Democrats, but Hillary was doing better among the poor and uneducated.

I'm assuming that's why they brought in Oprah.

StcChief
12-17-2007, 01:10 PM
Recently, Obama had been polling well among educated and wealthier Democrats, but Hillary was doing better among the poor and uneducated.

I'm assuming that's why they brought in Oprah.
Truth... continue on with the "suttle" race card

Baby Lee
12-17-2007, 01:18 PM
Truth... continue on with the "suttle" race card
Still no traction with the 'can't spell for shit' demographic?

Cochise
12-17-2007, 01:26 PM
Truth... continue on with the "suttle" race card

I was merely suggesting that Oprah is probably quite popular with low income Democratic voters.

SNR
12-17-2007, 05:11 PM
Truth... continue on with the "suttle" race cardAuf Englisch, bitte?