Bush campaign looks to organize churches (CNN)

what kind of proof do you want?

do you watch the news? there are always stories about candidates or issues being discussed in local black congregations.

comparing jeff to limbaugh or drudge?? come on...he's not trying to sell air time or ad space. he has no incentive to lie to you.

i refuse to accept your non-acceptance. so there. i'm taking my ball and going home, too. nanny nanny boo boo.

 

No. But it's been such an ingrained practice, we need to quit putting up with it. It's unacceptable that the NY Times and CNN do it as well.


That's a very mature attitude.

 

and yours was equally mature. calling someone out because they don't have "proof" like this is a freaking court of law.

it is absolutely common practice. and i think the policy concerns are a bit different when a poster points something out and when the NY Times writes a deliberately deceiving article. come on.

 

So you don't think that what the hip-hop community is doing this year will get the black vote out? I'm not saying it will or won't just asking your perspective.

 

I would say one difference is that the Black Church takes it upon themselves to get out the vote amongst their congregations. Now some candidates may take advantage of this, but its not what's going on in the article. In the black church its more of a process started by the Church's themselves other than the Democratic party going to the Churches as described in the article.

 

Yeah, the hip-hop community is trying to get out the black vote but I don't know if its going to be as effective. I applaud them for that, but its nothing like having the same group of people in your building (church) week after week, getting them to fill out voter registration cards, on the day of election providing transportation, etc.

 

I agree. I am glad to see them trying to make a difference but I don't think it can be as effective as churchgoers voting.

 

At our Catholic church, the Associate Pastor was essentially "fired" for encouraging folks to vote a certain way during his sermon. He was very careful not to name names, but it was quite obvious what he was trying to do. It was interesting, because while I was agreeing with everything he said, I was quite uncomfortable hearing it during the homily.

By "fired", I mean he was transferred out of our parish pretty quick after that and is currently doing Archdiocese work and is not involved with any particular parish.

 

Forbes (I think) had an interesting article interview with Russell Simmons. He says the Hip-Hop National Action Network is non-partisan. Clearly he's against Bush (if you read the article he says it), but his point is just to get people to vote and fill out registration cards.

Any attempt to get more Americans to vote is a good thing. Educating the uneducated voter is step 2.

 

I'm a native Houstonian and a recent Rice grad.

It's tough - I think a larger proportion of the Texans are conservative, while the majority of out-of-staters are liberal. I think it's pretty balanced, but that was my personal experience.

I never encountered any political leanings among professors while at Rice, either. (For example, Dr. Jensen at UT is a well-known liberal speaker.)

One other note - people often use the choice of commencement speaker as an indication of school political leanings: Rice has had in the past few years Morris Dees (my speaker - a well-known lawyer who is considered liberal) and Alberto Gonzales (Bush's legal counsel).

 

Speaking of Russell Simmons... (From today's New York Daily News)

A stubborn Kid Rocks the Bush vote

It was a lazy afternoon at Russell Simmons' spread outside downtown East Hampton.

The hip-hop and fashion mogul, his younger brother Joe (aka Rev. Run, who's filming a pilot of his own reality show for the ABC Family Channel), movie director Brett Ratner and his girlfriend, Serena Williams (recovering from her defeat in the Wimbledon final), were getting a little antsy on a rainy Monday, wondering what to do with themselves.

Then Kid Rock arrived.

So they all decided to drive into town and take in a movie.

They jumped into various vehicles and headed for the United Artists East Hampton theater on Main St.

Standing in front of the box office and perusing the titles, Simmons suggested that everybody catch the 7:15 showing of "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Kid Rock balked.

"I don't want to see that, it's all propaganda," the rock star said - sparking a prolonged political debate right there on the sidewalk.

"Russell, don't you understand, everything we got in this country, we got from fighting," Kid Rock argued, according to Simmons' account. "It's just a movie. ... I'd rather go to the bar across the street."

Kid Rock refused to see the movie, and said goodbye. The others bought tickets and went into the theater.

A couple of hours later, Simmons returned to his parked car. On his windshield was a scribbled note:

"Vote Bush. Bush Rocks," apparently written by Kid Rock himself.

Only in the Hamptons, kids, only in the Hamptons.

 

Rice's student body is very liberal, no question about it. The undergraduate population is about half Texan and half other. The Texans are probably split 50/50 and the other is probably split 90/10 liberal.

There are some *rabid* liberals at Rice who protest everything. Just look at SizzleChest.

 

Jeff, I'm not naive. I've been active in local politics before and, as a longtime Democrat, I very aware of the traditional "get out the vote (and vote for us!)" drives by the Party in minority neighborhoods. I'm fine with it. Hell, you should see the local Circle C Republican organization in action. They got Wal-mart, of all people, to build a store anywhere else but in our neighborhood. That's almost unheard of. So, yes... it works both ways. Democrats very active in the inner cities, trolling for votes, and Republicans trolling in the suburbs.

This is different. They're trying to change the law to allow ministers to hand over names, addresses and phone numbers, and probably e-mail as well, to the Republican National Committee so they can use the info to re-elect the President. It steps across the line separating church and state. That distinction is pretty clear to me, anyway.

 

I don't know about "rabid". I can tell you I had many more encounters with traditional conservatives than liberals. No one was ever spiteful or demeaning. We just had different experiences, I guess.

I'll ask - what the heck is SizzleChest?

 

First, I am not conservative. I have NO idea where that thought occurred.

Second, I completely understand the reasoning behind the voter drives among black congregations. Up until really only recently, many black churches in the south were the only real assembly halls to voice the issues of the community. Sunday was part church, part town hall meeting. Stumping for votes in those churches is not only required, it is expected by the congregations who find it disrespectful if candidates DON'T attend services, speak with them and shake hands.

My point was that if conservatives want to adopt this tactic and churches want them to do it, it is their decision. I guarantee that democrats will take just as much advantage of that change in the law, assuming it occurrs, as republicans will. It would be a significant advantage for them to have those lists because it is much harder for dems to get lists of people in impoverished areas due to the fact that people in those areas tend to move much more often than those in the suburbs. I'm sure consultants would dance in the aisles if they could get their hands on those names legally - not that they don't use them already because they do.

As for proof, I don't know what you want me to do. Provide documentation? I was THERE when Mayor Brown stumped at 3 churches every Sunday for six weeks. I was there when hundreds of vans rolled into minority precincts to pick up voters and roll them to the polls. I was there when during the arena campaign dozens of rallies at churches were organized over several weeks and members of the Rockets organization attended. I was there when Calvin Murphy spoke on behalf of the Rockets at the black ministers breakfast and asked them to get their members to the polls to vote YES on the arena referendum. I set up the freakin' auto dialer that called into Asian, Latino and African American neighborhoods using lists from God only knows where.

I mean, for Pete's sake, they reported all of this in the newspaper. The campaigns all acknowledge it and report it in campaign finance reports. EVERYONE knows it happens.

That was my whole point all along. Maybe white churches are shocked and pissed that they are becoming the target of this campaign and, if they are, they should demand that the practice be halted. The church won't give out info unless their members allow them to. They ultimately have the final say so on the matter.

But, this isn't new. It isn't unique. Ask anyone who has worked on a campaign. Ask any consultant. It isn't some big secret.

 

Jeff why do you think that it has now become an issue? If it has been going on forever, why are people concerned about it now?

I think people here realize that it’s a part of politics (and always has been), but as has been noted, it seems to have crossed the line. And for the republicans to now want to change laws; it just seems underhanded and wrong in some way (at least to me).

 

It does seem somewhat different from Clinton visiting a predominantly black church and campaigning on Sunday -- that sort of thing (likely because of the racial/ethnic component) seems more of a "community based" type of interest group politics than anything else. When a preacher speaks on his behalf, I don't know if the impression among the audience, be it the speicifc one or the larger one, is that he is speaking for God, or that God is speaking through him, in support of Cllinton.

This sort of thing by GWB, fairly or unfairly, seems like something different altogether (part of which is fueled by GWB's much publicized sense of self-divination); the underlying message, perhaps because of the lack of the racial or ethnic group component, seems to be "God wants you to vote this way" moreso than in the former example.

 

I think it is a big deal for three reasons:

1. White churches don't usually do this sort of thing. Knowing from my years of growing up in the Lutheran Church, the most important thing a preacher needed to remember was that the service needed to let out at a quarter to noon during the fall so no one would miss the start of the football game. It wasn't a community atmosphere where people gathered to talk politics or problems. It was strictly for fellowship with other Christians.

Black churches have services that can last several hours at a time. They often serve lunch after and a big part of the day is spent talking about the community. So, for them, it is natural to invite candidates.

For white churches, I think many people who have attended or do attend, I think they find this to be awkward and uncomfortable. Many people do not like to mix their politics with religion.

2. Black churches are almost all democrat. African Americans vote in a HUGE block - something like 97 percent democrat. A suburban church might include several different races and a range of political ideologies. There is a higher percentage of those who would vote either democrat or independent as compared to a predominantly black church. (more like 60 percent conservative/GOP even in the more evangelical ministries)

So, naturally, members of churches are going to be divided over whether or not this is ok.

3. With the GOP trying to coax churches out of lists of names, phone numbers, etc, it makes more affluent people uncomfortable because there is a greater chance they will be unwilling to surrender that information voluntarily. In most black churches, folks often volunteer to participate in large numbers and usually don't mind getting calls or letters from candidates.

---

I think mostly it is because it is new for the GOP. A lot of people in churches they are targeting are very likely uncomfortable with the mixing of religion and politics. And, if they are, they have every right to complain to their church leadership.

Since there is no way for the GOP to FORCE churches to hand over this information, it is incumbent upon the churches to use their judgement and decide. That's why I don't find it that odd or out of line. At worst, the GOP can loosen the rules and then ask. The church leaders have the ultimate say so in what happens next. If they hand over information and their members get pissed, well, that's on the church, not the GOP.