This is COMMON PRACTICE. Why do you think that African American ministerial alliances endorse candidates in elections? Why do you think Les Alexander flew a dozen black ministers to Florida to discuss the arena referendum in 2000? Why does every democratic mayoral and council member candidate court the major African American church ministers? It has been done throughout the country since blacks were able to vote. In the past 10 years, it has become more and more common among Hispanic churches as well. It is no surprise that conservatives are targeting their own church members for the same thing. I'm just saying it is no surprise that this is happening and people have a right to stump for votes how they see fit. I personally hope that it doesn't help the Bush campaign, but I have no problem with the method since everyone else does the same thing.
Yes, but both have agendas. Both are trying to win the votes of people because they have certain beliefs that appeal to those groups. It makes no difference.
Rice has a very liberal slant. Tex we know that for you a conservative Tex Democrat is practically a communist. Sure hasn't been my experience with a lot of them. My next door neighbor is a Rice U prof who agrees with me largely, but says that as Rice gets away from mostly Texans/Southerners and has more kids from the coasts and upper midwest it is becoming more diverse. What do other Houstonians think about Rice U.?
Jeff, I don't think the two "makes no difference." Certainly, Democrats have appealed to church-going Blacks and, more recently, Latinos, but what the Republicans are doing is on a whole 'nother level. Here's a quote from the article rimrocker posted, if you didn't read it: July 6, 2004 | WASHINGTON -- Winning the souls, or at least the votes, of conservative evangelical Christians is central to the Republican Party strategy under President Bush. But when Republican congressional leaders last month tried to push through the House Ways and Means Committee a top priority for evangelical Christians -- an easing of Internal Revenue Service rules barring preachers from using their tax-exempt pulpits to endorse political candidates -- it suffered a surprising setback. Although House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other prominent Republicans backed the tax law change, there was one problem: The committee chairman wasn't on board. Rep. Bill Thomas, the cantankerous California Republican who chairs the tax-writing panel, stunned the House leadership by derailing its attempt to attach the controversial change in the tax law to an unrelated bill, the Hill newspaper reported. It's not clear whether Thomas objected to the substance of the provision, which opponents have decried as a violation of church-state separation, or whether he was just being ornery. His spokeswoman said she didn't know the details, and Thomas could not be reached for comment. But for White House political chief Karl Rove, who has staked victory in President Bush's campaign on turning out evangelical voters in November, the incident underscored the precarious nature of his strategy. With Democrats revved up to defeat Bush, independents leaning toward Democrat John Kerry, moderate Republicans turning away from the party and many gay Republicans having left it altogether, it's now more important than ever for the White House to get its conservative evangelical voter base to the polls. And if Republicans can't change the law preventing churches from devoting tax-exempt resources to partisan politics, the Bush-Cheney reelection effort appears ready to stretch the rules as far as possible. The campaign recently asked religious volunteers across the country to hand over their churches' directories for the Bush-Cheney database and to distribute pro-Bush "voter guides," prompting an outcry from religious leaders. Even Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious liberty commission and a prominent Bush supporter, recoiled at the idea of churches becoming directly involved in a political campaign. "I am appalled," Land said in a statement. "I suspect that this will rub a lot of pastors' fur the wrong way ... It's one thing for a church member motivated by exhortations to exercise his Christian citizenship to go out and decide to work on the Bush campaign or the Kerry campaign. It's another, and totally inappropriate for a political campaign, to ask workers who may be church members to provide church member information through ... directories."
Oh, no, you mean they tried to peddle influence by offering incentives to the churches? C'mon. There have been PLENTY of campaigns where "contributions" were made to church building funds by political parties in search of votes. Black ministerial organizations have gone to Austin and Washington on many occassions, brought there by prominent democrats who hoped to win votes by promoting their causes on the hill. Labor unions, big business, churches...it is all the same game. Every year during elections in Houston, campaigns have big RALLIES at churches on Sundays during early vote. They bring free food and entertainment and invite the entire community to participate before, during and after church. While they are feeding everyone, vans and buses line up and drive people to polling locations to vote - often called "roll to the polls". This is done in every major city in America with a large African American, Hispanic, Asian or elderly population. It's target votes and they want to do everything they can to get them to the polls. If you want to take it a step further, every campaign has workers who target "friendly voters" in nursing homes. They visit them and either take them to early vote or to take them mail-in ballots and make sure they get mailed. This is all done under the banner of GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts and happens in both democratic and republican camps. The main difference is that the GOP would NEVER go into the projects to recruit voters and the Democrats would NEVER go into the suburbs. They each recruit their own and just help facilitate the turnout. Fact is, it is more important for democrats to get into communities because they have the largest percentage of eligible voters who tend not to vote. The GOP can often get away with TV ads and letter writing campaigns knowing many of their voters will go to the polls on their own. With dems, particularly in impoverished areas, they need to go into the community and drive these folks to the polls if necessary. The GOP is just borrowing a page from the democratic campaign field operations handbook. It is very effective and extremely common. The whole reason Mayor Brown won the election in 2001 was because they rented just about every van in the city of Houston and physically went into neighborhoods and escorted people to the polls on a rainy election day. It was a stroke of brilliance and completely allowed under campaign rules. And, most importantly, it worked. I know everyone is looking for something here, but anyone who has worked in politics and on campaigns knows that this is really commonplace. I guess everyone is shocked because the GOP just hasn't ever taken advantage of churches. Sure, they go to "civic clubs" or invite big businesses to hold employee pep rallies that are really just folks doing block walks paid for by a corporation. I did one of those during the arena campaign in West U. with workers from Reliant and Clutch the Rocket mascot! Like I said, I don't see what the fuss is about.
The only problem I have with it is that the GOP has asked for member directories. I wouldn't have any issues with GOTV systems, candidates or supporters visiting churches, or even pastors (reverends, priests, whatever) talking about politics. There is a big difference between those activites and having churches give out their member's addresses and phone numbers, IMO.
Obviously, that is up to the individual church. If I attended a church, I would be in total agreement with you about that. I wouldn't want my information given out. But, I just think that is something that has to be dealt with by the individual churches. They don't have to give anything to the GOP if they don't want and it is incumbent upon the leadership of those organizations as well as their members to decline if they don't want that information given out. Hell, if they'll give those directories out willingly, there isn't a marketing agency in the country that wouldn't want them, let alone a political organization.
By the way, back in 1976, my grandmother attended the First Baptist Church of Dallas. One day, President Gerald Ford came by on a campaign stop and spoke to the congregation. Apparently, Dr. Criswell, the pastor at First Baptist, really talked up Ford and implored the church membership to vote for him in November. My grandmother, a staunch Democrat, was certain that the Devil had possessed Dr. Criswell at that moment because she just couldn't believe Dr. Criswell, a man she loved and respected very deeply, could ever support a Republican without some sort of demonic influence.
I don't care if it's been done before. I'm bothered by it. As a Christian, I'm particularly bothered by it. The assumption that because I worship Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior means that one guy is ordained to have my vote is literally painful to me. Really bothers me. The minute you start putting on get out the vote rallies and endorsing a candidate is the minute you cease to be a non-profit, according to the IRS. Obviously that's selectively enforced. But this is the President of the United States encouraging that. Yeah...I'm bothered by that.
Max: I don't blame you. It would bother me too. And, for the record, I don't think it is a good idea and wouldn't want a church I attended to practice it. But, there are certainly others who disagree and it is a fairly common practice.
If you can point out a single instance where it has happened, I will be surprised. I believe I would have heard about this happening no matter the side of the aisle it came from.
I think you'd be surprised about a lot of things that happen in a lot of local campaigns. I don't know off the top of my head of any such instance, and it's unlikely I will look. But there's a whole lot of things I've seen go unreported in Dallas that it wouldn't surprise me if such things as this had happened on a more local level (by either party) and never been reported. I mean, outright absentee ballot fraud doesn't get reported in the Dallas Morning News. I don't think they'd report something like this if it happened on the local level.
Not surprised. SHOCKED. Freaked out. Maybe appalled. Seriously. Most people just don't see what goes on in elections, particularly on the local level. It is nuts and it is not exclusive to either side.
The black church is probably the only black institution that can get out the black vote so it is somewhat different. The black church has always been heavily involved with organizing blacks in the political process going back to the Civil Rights movement. But its not that different.
So you don't have any proof? I'm kind of tired of Limbaugh, Drudge and the like just making up things and spreading rumors as truth by repetition. I refuse to accept this as well. For the record, every time a conservative tries to rebut something I have written, I back it up with some documentation. Not you personally, but it seems some conservatives only believe the Weekly Standard.
