Opening the Day: Obama Continues Going Right, on Faith-Based Programs

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:28


It's a slow week.  

  • Obama wants to expand Bush's faith-based initiative.  Meanwhile, the Please Vote Against Telecom Immunity group on MyBO is up to 7000 members and is the fourth largest group on the site.  (Update: Faith-based groups apparently can't use the Federal money under Obama's plan to discriminate.)

  • Arianna Huffington blogs a great piece, Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers.

  • Clark isn't backing down.

  • The NRA is going to spend $40M against Obama, largely using his 'bitter' comment.

  • Venture capitalists are getting crushed.

  • The recession is crushing state revenue.  It's going to drive up taxes all over the country.

    State tax revenues, adjusted for inflation and tax cuts, fell 5.3 percent in the first quarter of 2008 compared with the same time a year ago, according to a report to be released Tuesday; it was the third quarter in a row that total adjusted revenue declined.

  • George Packer is pushing hard for Obama to renounce his position on Iraq and not withdraw.  This is stupid, though it's worth keeping in mind Obama's plan maintains residual troops in Iraq.

  • George Soros gave $500 to Ed Towns primary challenger Kevin Powell.

What are you reading?
Matt Stoller :: Opening the Day: Obama Continues Going Right, on Faith-Based Programs

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Opening the Day: Obama Continues Going Right, on Faith-Based Programs | 67 comments
Dear Lord (4.00 / 1)
Obama wants to expand Bush's faith-based initiative.

After the past couple weeks, I'm forced to wonder, is Obama just a Trojan Horse?

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
Faith based hiring and firing? (0.00 / 0)
I'm really not bothered by faith-based social services, although it's hardly an excuse to decimate other social services.
But allowing faith based hiring and firing? Yeah, I'd say it may be one of his many Sister Souljah moments.
[ Parent ]
Great (4.00 / 7)
So I can be denied a job for which I am qualified because I'm an atheist? That's some regressive, repugnant bullshit right there.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
The AP misquoted him on hiring (4.00 / 10)
He clearly said that faith-based organizations could not receive federal grants and use the money for proselytizing and that they could NOT discrimninate on the basis of faith in such programs.  (Obvuiusly they can with respect to clergy.)  Their correction still got it wrong.  See here.  

Faith-based organizations like soup kitchens do much of the food programs in cities and are very important.  Many programs are run out of churches.  This is important as we slide into recession.  Obama has first-hand experience with the role of churches in social and economic services.

The problem is NOT with funding the non-religious aspects of churches' work, it is with having no oversight and in fact giving the money to cronies as a way of party building.  This is what the Bush Admin did.  But the basic idea is not wrong.

There is a real movement in evangelical churches to move away from issues like gay marriage and abortion and concentrate on issues like poverty and global warming.  Really.  And it is attracting younger evangelicals, who are idealistic like their secular counterparts.  Many church-goers now see the pitfalls of being too closely allied with one party and, indeed, with electoral politics.  These movements are to be encouraged, IMHO.  Obnma understands this.  As with so many of our arguments here, the fact that he praises the work of churches does NOT mean he denigrates people who don't participate in religious organizations or have soem sort of religious faith, but neither does he denigrate those who do.  Besides, in addition to according with his own beliefs and values, it makes sense in areas with high church attendance to stress these principles.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
well put.
[ Parent ]
Per Atrios ... (4.00 / 2)
it seems as if the media made a mistake on the hiring thing .. but still .. a bad idea .. as Atrios implies .. who is going to do the oversight necessary?
[ Parent ]
The federal gov't (4.00 / 1)
Just because the Bush Admin was totally corrupt in allocating and administering federal grants does not mean that a well-run adminiastration could not do so effectively.  While the Bush/Cheney fiasco has undermined the idea that government can do anything well, under the Dems it can and has and will again.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
I see. It's okay (4.00 / 1)
if Obama does it, becuase we can trust him, just like FISA.  Hmmm.

Who needs a constitution if we can just trust Obama?  

[ Parent ]
Not what I'm saying (4.00 / 2)
I'm saying that to think that federal oversight is impossible is ahistorical.  Democrats by and large care about governing and about helping people, and that's why they do a better job. A Dem administration attracts people who actually like policy and its implementation--people who want to make a positive difference.  There are lots of such people.  That's one reason we try to elect Dems--because there is amuch higher probability that we will have an effective government with Dems in office.  Compare FEMA under Clinton (well-run agency headed and staffed by actual experts) with FEMA under Bush (incompetent agency headed and staffed by unqualified cronies).  That's the difference.  It isn't "trust Obama" its knowing what Dems are about.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Obama is not moving to the middle (4.00 / 2)
He is moving to the right.
How so? (4.00 / 2)
What he's proposing is utterly constitutional, and under the Court's current jurisprudence, to exclude otherwise-qualified social services providers from gov't contracting on the basis of their religious beliefs might constitute unlawful discrimination.  (Think about the Rosenberger case).

The key is to place clear limits against religious outreach while services are provided.

[ Parent ]
the faith based programs were a front for christians (4.00 / 3)
to get federal dollars. the program should be dismantle for the signal that it sends in terms of people of all faith as well as those who aren't religious at all. if he wants to do a good works program that's not about faith but instead gives money out regardless of faith- that's fine. that would actually be agreeable. i am for faith, just not in obvious long term "but Obama did it, so I can go even further" ways.
[ Parent ]
They were under Bush but need not be. (4.00 / 2)
Originally, there were grants to social service groups, but religious-based  groups coundn't get them.  Yet they provided a great deal of social services, like soup kitchens, in poor areas.  The original legislation was to allow funding of church-based groups, which is ok.  They still fund the non-faith-based groups, and should (and under Obama would) require that the programs serve everyone and not proselytize as part of the program.  Again, the fact that the Bush Admin screwed up a good idea doesn't make it a bad idea, it just argues for more vigilance unde rthe Dems.  Which I would certainly expect Obama to require.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
I mostly agree, but still find it problematic (4.00 / 2)
because there is this big potential for abuse. There would have to be a lot of oversight
[ Parent ]
that and FISA (4.00 / 1)
giving up on the fourth amendment is very right wing, Nixonion.
[ Parent ]
Well, they have to be clear about it. (0.00 / 0)
Muslims get money too.  So can Scientologists.

You can't dismantle such funding -- I think the Const'n wouldn't allow it.

[ Parent ]
Not sure wht your constitutionl point is about? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
neutrality towards religion (0.00 / 0)
These organizations have a first amendment right to be religious.  You can't block then from engaging in gov't contracting for the providing of secular services on the basis of their also doing religious things.
[ Parent ]
I am a lawyer- I m familar with the first amendment right (0.00 / 0)
both the establishment clause and the clause dealing with blocking religion- still not sure what you are talking about.
[ Parent ]
it's the next step from Zelman and Rosenberger (0.00 / 0)
And esp. Zobrest.
[ Parent ]
I think thats a stretch (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
After the past couple weeks, I'm forced to wonder, is Obama just a Trojan Horse? (4.00 / 1)
Oh, no, Mr. Bill....

Obama's all about Change, and Hope, and Courage, and Restoring the Constitution!"

Right???

RIGHT??????

Huffington's piece is devastating (4.00 / 5)
Quoting Obama's own words:

What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics -- the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions....

One thing shared by Dukakis, Gore and Kerry: They all had a smell of fear, they were so afraid of screwing up.

Now add Obama to the roster.

500? (4.00 / 1)
LOL.  Why would Soros bother to give less than max?

Moving? (3.20 / 5)
So . . . why is everybody so surprised that Obama's a centrist?  He ran to the right of Clinton in Iowa, after all.  Too much orange-aide probably.
I certainly never thought of him as the "progressive" choice.
Well... (4.00 / 3)
He was approximately my fourth or fifth favorite choice for the nomination.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
Not surprised but I am surprised at the apologists (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Do you really believe in the 50-state strategy? (0.00 / 0)
Because it means campaining in all 50 states, and in all regions, even where people are more conservative than in the coasts and urban areas.  It means speaking to voters in ways that they will hear.  He's not always speaking to each of us.  If you really believe in the 50-state strategy and spreading the field, this is part of it.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
50 State Strategy is Worthless if This is What it Gets (4.00 / 1)
Speaking to voters in ways that they will hear is not synonymous with compromising key principles in order to play it safe.  This faith based stuff turns me off, but I'm much more willing to accept it if I know my candidate is solid on core stuff--defending the Constitution against the smoke screens of national security and defending against terrorism.  Coming on the heels of his FISA capitulation, this too easily comes off as just another Dem ready to pander like hell in order to get elected.  Weak. Wimp.

It also ignores what I still believe is real disquiet out there and a strong sense throughout the nation, but perhaps most felt most strongly when one travels beyond the coasts and the big cities, that government--Bush, the Reps and Dems alike in Congress-- have completely sold out our interests.  And just wait what will happen if gas prices continue to rise.  Becoming McCain lite (Jerry 101 below nails it) simply gets us a New Coke vs. Old Coke election when all the signs are there for a major shake-up. New Coke might carry the day at first, but eventually angry folks reattach themselves to the old or just drop away altogether.  

[ Parent ]
I'm talking about the faith-based speech (0.00 / 0)
Not about FISA.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
and I acknowledged that... (0.00 / 0)
...but in the wake of FISA and the rest it is easily seen at best as just a sop to the masses in red America (a position that is very much in synch with business as usual and therefore McCain) and at worst a continued sell-out of the new politics thingee, which got him the primary victory and the adoring press.  But really, as the daylight narrows between Obama and McCain what will be the reason for folks to support him?  If it really is a matter of same old product, simply new packaging and marketing, what does a victory get us?
[ Parent ]
but does it also mean (4.00 / 1)
dismissing other groups of supporters?

Imagine the uproar if Obama gave a speech on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in which he discussed the ideological bankruptcy of Ronald Reagan.

Doesn't his rhetoric of unity and a new way of politics mean not dismissing any of his supporters, but figuring out ways in which they can talk to each other and find common ground?  That's something I'd love to see in action, and I mean that seriously.  Right now it seems to me to be mostly rhetoric.

Besides which, he's now taking positions to the right of a good number of so-called red state voters.

[ Parent ]
I think so too (0.00 / 0)
Besides which, he's now taking positions to the right of a good number of so-called red state voters.

[ Parent ]
Genetics, Environment Shape Sexual Behavior of both gays and straights (4.00 / 1)
it's really fucking sad (4.00 / 4)
that Obama is doing this.

McCain was racing to move to the left just a few weeks, to moderate his views so that he could appear to be Obama-lite.

Now, Obama is acting like he's behind in the polls and needs to turn into McCain lite.

I know its weird for a Democrat to be the prohibitive favorite to win the Presidency, but here's an idea.

ACT LIKE YOU ARE WINNING!!!!! GOD FUCKING DAMMIT!

ahem please excuse my outburst.

You mean both moved to the middle for the general election? (0.00 / 0)
I'll be damned, that never happened before.

This whole move to the left, move to the right (stand up, sit down, fight, fight, fight!) isn't really the issue.  All candidate moderate towards the middle for the general election.  When Republicans do it we all seem to think it is diabolically brilliant (compassionate conservatism, anyone?) but when Democrats do it they are just wimping out.

And to some degree, that is correct.  Moving to the center in tone isn't much of a problem, but abandoning policy choices is; then you seem like a wimp for abandoning your principles.

I disagree that the faith-based stuff is moving to the right, though.  What made this a right-wing thing was how it was implemented.  (And in reality, in never really was.)  If this program basically just directs public money to private charities, as it appears it might, I see no problem.  Unfortunately, the trust level with Obama is at a low at the moment, but certainly a version this could be quite a good thing.

[ Parent ]
I live in Ed Towns' district (4.00 / 1)
and have been very excited about Kevin Powell since he announced he was running.  

This morning, on the way to the Kingston-Throop subway to go to work, was the first time I've seen Powell volunteers - there were 5-6 folks out getting signatures to put Kevin on the ballot.

And I have to say, after speaking with them and getting a sense of their energy, I am pumped!!!  This man is special - he's got a Donna Edwards thing going on (or dare I say, an Obama thing?) having served as a post-Civil-Rights-generation community organizer for many years, and now running in a safe-Democratic urban African American District.  He was an early supporter of Obama, and notably, asked him a great MoveOn.org video question.  

Incidentally, Ed Towns has a whole lot in common with good old Al Wynn.  Exhibit A is his opposition of net Neutrality thanks to cozying up with his telecom donors.  This alone should be a reason for the netroots to care about Powell and make some noise about this race.  

My passion is environmental policy - I work as the Sustainability Coordinator at New York University - and I found out from the volunteers this morning that his campaign team is convening over the coming weeks to develop a strong policy platform, and would likely appreciate the help.  

I plan to volunteer both to help Powell build a relationship and connection to the netroots, and specifically to develop his environmental policy platform and consider some of the opportunities to effect other progressive policies through this first local opportunity I've had to contribute.

I may ask for help from the rest of you here at Open Left, as the race heats up and we see whether the challenge has legs.  Given that Towns was held under 50% in 2004 (albeit in a three-way primary), I think we have a real shot at this one.

Drop me an email if you want to exchange notes or work together on this!  

How are taxes going to go up .. (0.00 / 0)
state wise? .. can states raise taxes during a recession? .. it would cause further economic pain .. that's why you surpluses during good times .. so you can run deficits during the bad times
Most states have to balance their budgets (4.00 / 1)
It is a constitutional requirement in most states, unlike for the federal  gov't.  If programs are deemed necessary or are popular (education, health care, law enforcement and prisons), they have to be funded by fees and/or taxes.  No choice.  They can raise taxes during a recession, even though it isn't a good idea, but if their revenues fall because of falling incomes, it is a problem.  They can also start early-release programs nor non-violent offenders and pare back travel etc, but sometimes they are in a real bind.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Called It, Dinni (0.00 / 0)
Here

I bet you all thought good ol' Barry was gonna RESTORE the Constitution, dincha?

What it means to have a black prez (maybe) (4.00 / 3)
African Americans tend to be more conservative than not, and this reflects an African American perspective in my opinion.  I don't think this is him "going" right - I think this is fundamental to who he is.

I posted about it here: http://www.windonwater.net/ind...

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



Absolutely (4.00 / 1)
Many people do not appreciate the role of churches in the black community, and in more conservative communities generally.  I think Obama does and straddles the Harvard intellectual vs person of faith divide pretty well.   It And he has spoken in black churches about homophobia and fatherhood as well.  

Your post is very eloquent and well worth a visit.  Highly recommended.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
support some ability to hire and fire based on faith. open the flood gates baby! (0.00 / 0)
perfect - from now on when I do hiring I'll explicitly be asking if you are a fundamentalist, a mormon, a baptist, or evangelical, or scientologist. Any yeses will get you a ticket to the door. You lie and I find out? I'll sue you for lying on your application so I can fire you without continuation of any benefits.

Two can play at this stupidity.

Is this "I'm an idiot" week at camp Obama or something?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Nope - doesn't work like that (4.00 / 1)
First off - Obama's camp clarified that he is NOT supporting faith based hiring and firing.  BUT even if he had, it would ONLY be within the realm of religious work - which can NOT be publically funded, and is protected by the constitution.

Moreover - most people don't hire and fire based on religion - they hire and fire based on specific things their religion is against (outwardly homosexual behavior, abortion, etc.)  So, no - your argument is just argumentative, not based on real stuff.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
I have yet to see what he clarified (0.00 / 0)
I looked around after posting my tirade and nobody seems to have any source docs or video or press release or whatever. It would be nice if the media and blogs could bother sourcing all these claims.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
what is this supposed to mean (0.00 / 0)
"He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer [sic] funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy."

from the AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

whats the non-taxpayer funded portion? what does that mean? like if they get 1M from the govt and 1M from member donors they can discriminate by half? and we're obviously not talking about clergy. how would even that be ok?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
What it would mean (if true) (0.00 / 0)
is that any activities that are funded by taxpayer dollars (charitable organizations run by churches, for instance) could not discriminate, but the church itself, as part of its internal operations, could. SO, an openly gay guy working as the church rector? Maybe not.  As the program coordinator for homeless services? Yes.

HuffPost has clarifications here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

and JedReport has text of the policy here: http://www.jedreport.com/2008/...

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Gays aren't protected anyway. (0.00 / 0)
Maybe in some cities, but not by states and certainly not at the federal level.

Religion is protected, which means that the fundamentalists have MORE federal protections than the people they seek to marginalize (ironically enough), but giving tax money to churches essentially creates a double standard by which secular groups cannot discriminate on the basis of religion for any reason, but churches can, and now they can even discriminate while still receiving federal funds.

It's nice work if you can get it.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Religious groups do lots of things. (0.00 / 0)
Take for example the Catholic Church.  They can require clergy to be Catholics, certainly.  And no tax money can go toward the curuch itself.  However, Catholic Charities is a separately organized group which provides a myriad of services such as soup kitchens, child and adult day care etc.  They can receive federal grants for some programs.  But they can't proselytize and can't require staff to be Catholic.  At least that's the way I understand it.  Read this Steve Benen post. He has first-hand experience.

Some religious groups actually have businesses they operate.  Those definitely can't discriminate.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
but do Catholic hospitals perform abortions? (0.00 / 0)
I don't have a problem with faith-based groups getting governmental funding per se, as long as the funding playing field is even, as long as the separation between their religious programs and their social programs is not simply an accounting trick, as long as there is real oversight, and as long as those social programs are required to follow all antidiscrimination laws, etc.
[ Parent ]
no, they don't. (0.00 / 0)
No government funding goes towards performing abortions. G.D. Hyde Amendment.
[ Parent ]
brain freeze! (0.00 / 0)
You're right, of course, but doesn't even the Hyde Amendment have an exception for life endangerment?  And some states do provide funding.  But my larger question/point really concerns the access that women do or do not have to family planning services at Catholic hospitals, and how that impacts women in parts of the country where that's the only game in town.  Or the availability of condoms and accurate information about HIV/AIDS and services for people living with HIV/AIDS.
[ Parent ]
I replied to this above (0.00 / 0)
No tax dollars can go to the actual church operation.  But groups like Catholic Charities are set up as a separate group, even though they get donations from churchgoers (among others) and they can;t discriminate in who they serve or hire in a secular job.  Read the HuffPost item that Queen Tiye linked to:  
UPDATE: An Obama campaign official told the Huffington Post that the AP's claims about Obama allowing hiring or firing based on faith are false. From a portion of Obama's speech today:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."



John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Yet tax dollars (0.00 / 0)
can be used to offset costs, yes?

As a ferrinstance, my church runs a food pantry which DOES NOT receive federal money, but say it did.

Currently the church is paying the director's salary but what if Uncle Sam, or Uncle Obama, gave the food pantry a grant to pay that salary? That frees up money in our operating budget that we used to use to pay the director to use for whatever purposes we see fit.

And that's the problem. It' all well and good to call for "oversight," but the fact of the matter is churches don't file tax returns, and few of them ever make their financial records public in any way, shape or form. They don't have to.

The Office of Faith Based Accounting (or wahtever) says it's all on the up-and-up, but who's watching them?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
The secretary at my parent's church is a Hindu (0.00 / 0)
just saying
[ Parent ]
The secretary at my (0.00 / 0)
Episcopal church is a Baptist because, let's face it, Episcopalians aren't big on the grunt work.

The sexton is . . . catch as catch can.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Only churches are allowed to do that. (0.00 / 0)
Not regular people.

That's why they weren't given our tax money to throw around before.

Bush changed the rules so that now, not only do they not have to pay taxes themselves, they don't have to follow the same non-discrimination laws as everyone else, AND they get free money (our money) from the government to promote their bullshit abstinence programs or whatever.

And Obama is, apparently, cool with that.



Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Correct form of triangulation (4.00 / 1)
From the Jed report someone linked above:

* The rationale for including faith-based organizations in his anti-poverty policy is not that they are better suited to deal with poverty issues than are secular organizations, but simply that many of the groups already working on poverty issues are faith-based, and that it makes sense to work with as many groups as possible.

* Secular nonprofits are part of the policy as well; religious organizations receive no special privileges not enjoyed by secular nonprofits.

* No federal grant money can be used for proselytizing

* Even if the programs are run by religious organizations, the programs themselves must be secular in nature

* The groups cannot discriminate whom they serve based on religion

* Their hiring policies must comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits discrimination based race. color, religion, sex, or national origin.)

* Obama believes the program would be authorized under current law

The bold was mine.  There is nothing wrong with this; in fact it is a very good thing.  Remember, Bush introduced his faith-based initiative to look more liberal while appealing to his base; the whole "compassionate conservative" thing that never materialized.

Directing federal money to proven poverty projects run by private groups is a great idea.  If Obama can make this look moderate or even conservative, more power to him.

It's a terrible thing. (4.00 / 1)
If you honestly believe this money is not being used to prosletyze, I've got some nice, Iraqi WMDs to sell you.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
High profile fed investigation in my town (4.00 / 1)
as we speak on a charitable recipient of fed money (allegedly) forcing young people in the program to attend church (it is in their program's literature), among other things.  Although not a church per se, the program is indeed very publicly Christian-based. Took a mayoral campaign and dogged news reporters from the local paper to get the feds to jump on this.
[ Parent ]
To some degree, of course (0.00 / 0)
People working at a soup kitchen are hoping to save some souls as well.

But from what I read above, there is a clear line between what is church and what is secular; the state only supports the secular.  There is a reason I highlighted:

Secular nonprofits are part of the policy as well; religious organizations receive no special privileges not enjoyed by secular nonprofits.

This is what really mattered to me.  Obama is using Bush's opening to expand our support of all nonprofits.  As I said before, this is the good kind of triangulation.  Many on the religious right support helping the poor.

[ Parent ]
What she writes is well documented (4.00 / 1)
It's not just to 'some degree' which is why I have problems with it.
[ Parent ]
According to this article (4.00 / 1)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

It's pretty clear what this was all about -- a gravy train for Bush supporters. Obama wants to make them Obama supporters.

It's a very corrupt, cynical and anti-liberal program.

If people are down on their luck they deserve help, and the government should help them because we are all in it together. They shouldn't have to go begging to churches, especially not for their own tax dollars!

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
implementation (0.00 / 0)
Any program can become a gravy train for supporters.  Bush ran the entire federal government that way.  Even FEMA became just another place to give supporters jobs.

That this program is yet another example of Bush's corruption doesn't mean everything about it is bad.

[ Parent ]
Go read Charles Dickens (0.00 / 0)
then come back and tell me why putting churches back in charge of distributing public money is a good idea.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Hi Sadie (0.00 / 0)
No one says that that's what's happening.

I just heard a snatch of the speech - still haven't read the full text.  BUT - Obama is pretty clear in his direction - Faith-Based AND Neighborhood Outreach.

If you want to to compare and contrast - think of it this way.  Obama started his career as a community organizer - with a direct understanding of just how much these community programs really do mean to people in the community - including the faith-based ones.  George Bush had no such background.  It is easy (for me) to see, just from those two facts, that Obama's reshaping of the policy (and that's what it is - as opposed to the original reporting of him "expanding" Bush's policy, Obama's gutting it and recreating it from the inside out) is bound to produce quite different, improved results over the former iteration.

Anyway - your Charles Dickens analogy is certainly understood by me - but in quite the reverse... my father's community center fell apart in the Reagan years when funding of community services dried up.  The community, which had begun to show signs of life now looks like a 3rd world country.  I shared a bit of my story here: http://www.windonwater.net/ind...

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Amazing FISA News from Utah (4.00 / 2)
Unbelievable news from Utah.  Just got wind that Morgan Bowen, Democratic candidate for Utah's 1st District currently held by Republican Rob Bishop will have a press release out later today taking a stand again the FISA bill, and retro-active immunity.

For those who aren't familiar with Utah's political landscape, it is the land of Blue Dog Jim Matheson - who of course supports retro-active immunity.  Matheson traditionally calls the shots in the state, often leveraging his position as the only Democrat in the state's federal delegation to squash real leadership against the Blue Dog agendas.

Please show Morgan some love.

Shameless Blog Plug: The SideTrack

Opening the Day: Obama Continues Going Right, on Faith-Based Programs | 67 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox