Almost Daily Commentary from Christians for Dean
February 23rd, 2004,
Nader Runs
Within a week of Dean's defeat, Nader announced he is running as an independent. I think if Dean had captured the nomination, Nader would not have run. But now that the Democrats have decided to go with Bush-lite, Nader brings much needed choice to the election.
I'm glad. First its a myth that Nader tipped the election to Bush in 2000. Nader helped Gore far more than he hurt Gore. Why? Because Nader registered hundreds of thousands of new voters, brought many more into the process, who otherwise are so disaffected they would have never voted. A good portion of those folks defected from Nader to Gore at the last minute, when the election looked close. These are votes Gore would never have had, but he got them thanks to the galvanizing force of Nader's campaign.
Its simply not true that absent Nader, all the Nader votes would have gone to Gore. Most of them would have stayed home and not voted at all. A few would have voted for other independent candidates. Some would have voted for Bush.
Here's something that frustrates me about the Democratic attacks on Nader. Nobody argues with his positions. They know he's right. So they make personal attacks, saying he's in the race to feed his ego. What a laughable slander, given Nader's decades of tireless, selfless work on behalf of the powerless.
Now that the Democrats have given us Senator Kerry as a nominee, a man who marches in near lockstep with the Bush administration, I'm glad Ralph Nader is running.
Howard Dean has asked his supporters to support the Democratic nominee. I can't say I expected anything different. But I'm still disappointed, since this is a clear case where Dean has unfortunately put his party over his principles. Dean's message should be this: My enthusiastic support for the Democratic Nominee will be in direct correlation with the degree to which the party enthusaistically returns to its core principles.
-JP
February 19th, 2004,
Dean Withdraws
Dean announced today he would stop his campaign for president. No longer a threat, the establishment has paid tribute to him as the one who galvanized the country to stand up to Bush. On MSNBC tonight, the Rev. Jesse Jackson gave a fitting eulogy to the Dean campaign:, "if the Democrats win, over the inauguration will be the halo of Howard Dean."
For what its worth, I thought I'd offer a few points of analysis on this race. It really all came down to Iowa. The compressed nature of the primary schedule this year was designed that way...to select someone quick and early. Unfortunately it was also quick and dirty. Dean, an anti-establishment candidate was leading in nationwide polls, including major states like Michigan, Ohio, California and New York. He enjoyed a wide lead in New Hampshire and a narrow lead in Iowa. Then through a loophole in campaign finance reform laws, an "unaffiliated" group was able to air half a million dollars worth of attack ads on Dean in Iowa. Normally attack ads like this would not work because it would backlash against the candidate airing them. In this case, the ads were funded by Gephardt and Kerry allies, but because of the loophole, this was not publicized until a month later. Among other things, the ads used visuals to link Dean with Osama Bin Laden, (despite the fact that Dean supported the war in Afghanistan against bin Laden), and another ad repeatedly said Dean would do away with Medicare (despite the fact that Dr. Dean was the only candidate in the race to deliver universal health coverage).
Gephardt also aired a bevy of attack ads with his name on them, which is why he went down in flames. The backlash took him out, but took Dean with him. Prior to this, Gephardt and Dean were the clear frontrunners in Iowa. Joe Trippi called Iowa a Gephardt murder-suicide. Gephardt placed fourth, Dean took third, and Kerry and Edwards garnered the top two spots, giving them the all-important momentum.
Next was the Iowa-concession Dean scream, which was blatantly mischaracterized as 'angry' and in our juvenile polticial culture is a bigger disqualifier than being the #1 receipient of special interest money in the entire Senate, voting for Bush's war, Bush's Patriot Act, Bush's sham of a Medicare bill, and Bush's Every Child Left Behind bill (here I'm speaking of the presumptive nominee, John Kerry).
Another critical point came in recent weeks, as the race effectively narrowed to the final three: Kerry, Dean and Edwards. The media suddenly started calling it a "2-person" race between Kerry and Edwards and calling Dean's campaign dead. Why? I still don't know. It appeared to be totally arbitrary. Dean placed second in a string of recent contests while Edwards placed third. At this writing, even after Wisconsin, Dean currently has more delegates than Edwards. Dean has an internet base of over 600,000 supporters and 300,000 donors and can raise more money faster than Edwards. Dean, through his early fundraising success and frontrunner status, has strong organizations in most upcoming states, especially New York and California. Edwards does not. Yet by repeating it over and over, the media created a 2-person race. What a crock. Dean is still ahead of Edwards.
I'm convinced that Dean dropped out to prevent the humiliation of his major endorsements withdrawing and paid staff leaving for other campaigns in the coming weeks. Unfortunately, Dean's high-profile endorsements were evidently ones of convenience not conviction. When he was the frontrunner, they jumped on the bandwagon, but now that he's behind, they want off. They want to jump on the new frontrunner. When Dean was unfairly attacked, when the media went negative on him and created a 2-person race, Al Gore, Bill Bradley and Tom Harkin should have been out in trio saying "wait just a minute! Dean is in second on the delegate scorecard, and we're fighting for this nomination all the way to Boston because America needs Dean and Dean is the man that can beat Bush!" That could have made a real difference, even at this stage of the game. Instead they all disappeared. Dean's endorsements were his curse, because they were far less dedicated to Dean than his loyal footsoldiers who begged him not to quit.
Where has Al Gore been? When he made the Dean endorsement, many pundits asked whether Gore had reinvented himself as a genuine progressive or whether it was just a politically opportunistic move. I guess we know the answer to that.
Finally, the key issue became electability or "Anybody but Bush." I think that is a totally bankrupt philosophy and criteria, since it leaves open the idea of electing someone worse than Bush. Seriously. John Kerry is most electable because he's a cartoon Abe Lincoln. Kerry voters couldn't even tell you what Kerry stands for.
The primary season should be a debate on issues and the candidates' records. With electability as the primary issue, it becomes focused purely on process, and who can win. And how do we determine who is most electable? The pundits on Fox News tell us.
Dean supporters in upcoming primary states should vote for Dean in the primaries to express solidarity with his movement and give the movement more power heading into the convention and coming years. You can give Dean leverage to influence the platform, get an important cabinet post, maybe V.P., empower him to run again, etc. etc. The point is to vote Dean in the primary to continuing earning delegates for Dean and giving voice to the movement.
As for the general election....
-JP
February 9th, 2004,
Dean vs. Kerry
Dean has not won a state outright, leading some to call for his withdrawal. Yet in 1992, Bill Clinton did not win a single primary in the first 14 contests.
I really hope Dean does not bow to pressure to drop out of the race. After all, at this point in the primaries, only about ten percent of the country has voted. Kerry has captured 426 delegates, and Dean has 184 (AP News). The other candidates are further behind: 117 for Edwards, 84 for Clark, 12 for Sharpton and two for Kucinich. To win the nomination, a candidate needs 2,161 delegates.
Dean has captured second place in the last three primaries, holds second second place in nationwide polling, and is second in overall delegates. Dean recently won the D.C. primary (with a larger population than many states) and the ex-pat caucus in Tokyo, picking up 9 delegates.
Its a Dean-Kerry race. Some in the party and the media are pressuring Dean to drop out before Super Tuesday on March 2nd. Now why on earth should he do that?
The whole point of Super Tuesday is to have an election to decide on a nominee. It is a vote of the people, not a coronation. Ten percent of the country has voted so far and Kerry's lead is less than 250 delegates. A single big state could wipe out that lead. Kerry is the flavor of the month, but he has not yet been fully vetted by the scrutiny that comes with being the frontrunner. Let the democratic process move foward. Trust it.
Some may wonder why we like Dean and not Kerry.
First, Dean took a courageous moral stand against the Iraq war. Kerry cowardly voted for the war.
Second, Kerry is the #1 recepient of special interest money in the entire U.S. Senate (read in the Washington Post). In contrast, Dean has restored integrity to our democratic process by raising his money in small contributions from ordinary Americans giving an average of $87 dollars.
Kerry's record-setting ties to special interest money make him beholden to the powerful lobbies that ensure that real reform can never happen.
In contrast, Dean has an impressive record of real achievements in areas of fiscal responsbility and social justice: he delivered health coverage to nearly every child in Vermont and balanced the budget in Vermont 11 straight years.
Howard Dean represents fundamental change and a clear moral distinction from George W. Bush.
Kerry supported the Bush Iraq adventure, Kerry supported Bush's scandalous No Child Left Behind bill, and Kerry supported Bush's recent Medicare bill. Kerry should be admired as a war hero, but his experience in Vietnam only makes his vote for the Iraq war a greater travesty. He should know better. He criticizes the war now, but at the critical time when he could have made a difference Kerry was a poltical opportunist and a coward.
Making Kerry the nominee will rob the country of the most important debate we can have this election cycle: the Iraq War and America's new pre-emptive foreign policy. The Iraq war is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars and represents a radical new American foreign policy doctrine of pre-emption and unilateralism. It has created record deficits and crippled the economy. We need this debate in America, and Dean is the one who can best take it to Bush.
People voting for Kerry are generally uninformed about his Bush-lite record, and are merely joining the bandwagon and the media lovefest.
In the coming weeks lets hope the distinctions between Dean and Kerry will become clear and that people who care about peace, social justice and the integrity of our democracy will make the right choice.
-JP
January 21st, 2004,
Our Response to the State of the Union Address:
Good News! Christians don't have to vote Republican anymore!
The big story in Mr. Bush's state of the union address is not what was said, but what was not said: the entire 54-minute speech ended with no mention of the unborn's right to life.
This was a historic omission: President Reagan spoke out against abortion in every single State of the Union address. As did George W. Bush's father. In fact, this is the first Republican State of the Union since 1981 to be silent on the issue of abortion. News analysts took note, including Patrick Buchanan, who stated, "Bush and the new big-tent Republican party have gone in the tank on right to life." After years of mere lip service to the cause, Republicans like Bush are now not even pretending.
I receive a lot of e-mail from Christians who oppose Dean and favor Bush based on one single-issue alone: abortion. Since abortion kills over a million unborn Americans every year, in their mind it trumps every other issue on sheer body count. But if Bush really believed in his heart that a million people are dying every year, it would be the centerpiece of his speech. Instead, it didn't even get a mention! Dozens of other initiatives were proposed, details expounded on, but not one sentence on right to life in 54 minutes! Unless Bush appears at the National Right to Life March this Thursday and calls for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, I think the last viable reason for a Christian to vote for Bush is gone.
Prior to the State of the Union address tonight, the American Life League held a rally at the corner of Constitution and Delaware. "It is reported that tonight's State of the Union address will focus on domestic priorities such as health care," said Jason Jones, director of America Life League's youth outreach. "This gives the president a golden opportunity to make a clear, unequivocal statement in favor of life."
The golden opportunity came and went and one thing is clear: Bush has no intention of going to the mat to end abortion.
So now how do we vote? Christians must continue to advocate for the unborn in other arenas outside of presidential politics, but we must also widen the scope of our political concerns to other pro-life issues that put even more lives at stake: world hunger, AIDS, access to health care, peace, creation care.
The bad news is that now no major party is a serious advocate of the unborn. The good news is that we Christians don't have to be Republican anymore. As of January 20th, 2004, Republican no longer has to be synonymous with Christian. Lets reclaim our independence! Lets call both parties to be consistently pro-life, pro-justice, and pro-peace, and vote only for candidates that best reflect our values and convictions as followers of Christ.
JP
p.s. Christians For Dean supports Feminists for Life. Please visit and join their movement!
January 19th, 2004,
Our Analysis of Iowa Results
Of course we were hoping Dean would win Iowa. But here's the silver-lining:
1. New Hampshire is an obstinate, independent-minded state with a penchant for picking someone other than who Iowa picked. So the stage is set for someone other than Kerry to win in NH.
2. Kerry success equal Clark doom. They both tend to draw from the same type of voter (people who think we need a war veteran to beat George Bush). So Clark's campaign is already on the attack against Kerry. This will hurt Kerry and drag Clark down (in much the way Gephardt's desperate campaign against Dean dragged both down in Iowa). This leaves room for someone else to emerge in NH, like Dean or Edwards, or even Lieberman. The important thing is that Clark is hurt tonight, and I think Clark represented the biggest threat to Dean long-term. Clark was anti-war along with Dean, neutralizing Dean's strongest point of appeal; and Clark has military experience and Southern roots, Dean's two biggest vulnerabilities as the primary campaign heads into southern states.
3. The other positive aspect of Iowa's results is Edward's strong second-place finish. This means he'll be sticking around and the race will not thin out anytime soon. I think a crowded field works to Dean's advantage, especially now that he's not the obvious frontrunner anymore. Dean has an extremely loyal base while the other candidates must split the rest.
This did not work so well in the Iowa caucuses, because as MSNBC reported, many Gephardt voters threw their support to Kerry and Edwards at the last minute, because they could see Gephardt was not going to win. Also, one reason Edwards did better than expected, is because Kucinich told his supporters to caucus for Edwards. This was a move not based on principle, but on tactics. Kucinich wants to hurt Dean so he can capture the left vote he is currently sharing with Dean. Of course this runs counter to everything Kucinich has been saying about voting your convictions not on tactics-I've lost a bit of respect for Mr. Kucinich. This kind of delegate-brokering only happens in caucuses and won't happen in the upcoming voting primaries. If Iowa were a voting primary, it might have broken down like the Zogby poll indicated with Dean running a close second to Kerry.
4. Dean is no longer the obvious frontrunner. He's more comfortable campaigning as the insurgent, and now the other candidates will begin attacking each other instead of ganging up on Dean.
JP
January 18th, 2004,
Jimmy Carter calls Dean "my fellow Christian" - but so what?
Holier-than-thou critics who have never met him but still call Howard Dean a religious phony must read it and weep: Dean attended church with Jimmy Carter today, and the former president introduced him to the packed Maranatha Baptist church congregation as "my friend, our visitor and a fellow Christian."
Should we take his word? Carter is a professed born-again Christian, he's built houses with Habitat for Humanity, worked tirelessly for world peace (with a Nobel prize to prove it), taught Sunday School at his church in Georgia for decades and, most importantly, he knows that Job is in the Old Testament.
But how well does he know Howard Dean? Carter has known Dean for 24 years (Dean worked on his 1980 campaign). They've visited regularly, especially in the past year, and Carter calls him a personal friend. Also, Carter's son Chip, has been working for Dean for the past year.
Did political motives prompt Carter's remark? Hardly, since Carter was very deliberate in avoiding an official endorsement of Dean. I guess he just really meant it: "my fellow Christian."
But who cares? Is it truly relevant? If Dean were an avowed atheist would I still vote for him? Let me answer that by posing a hypothetical question: If a Christian is running against a non-Christian for the presidency, should a Christian always vote for the Christian over the non-Christian? Or are there circumstances where we ought to support the non-Christian, and if so, what are those circumstances? Discuss amongst yourselves.
As for me, I'm praying for a Dean win in Iowa tomorrow.
JP
January 13th, 2004,
Hey Mr. Bush, won't you be my neighbor?
The latest alleged proof Dean is not Christian enough is another out-of-context quote from a town hall meeting in Oelwein, Iowa. The Boston Globe reported it, and even Christianity Today joined the fray, citing Luke 10:25-37 to sarcastically insinuate that Dean is a religious fake because he said "George Bush is not my neighbor." And then a pastor e-mailed me, daring me to put a link to a video of the town hall meeting on the website. I am proud to offer it here (Search for "Howard Dean" on the C-SPAN video library, then click on the Oelwein, IA Town Hall meeting 1/11/04 - the question comes at the 5:33 mark).
If you watch the town hall meeting and listen to the question and Dean's complete reply you'll find the following:
1. The questioner invokes the "love thy neighbor" command to suggest that it is not right to criticize President Bush. His point is clearly ridiculous and deserves refutation. Jesus himself was an outspoken critic of those who deserved it. In fact, loving our neighbor will sometimes require that we criticize our government.
2. Dean begins his remarks by saying Bush is not my neighbor, and goes on to list all the ways in which Bush has failed to be a good neighbor to his fellow Americans in Iowa:
"George Bush is not my neighbor. George Bush has done more to harm this community right here with unfunded mandates, standing up for corporations that have taken over farmers lands that have made it impossible for people to make a living.
Sending our kids to Iraq without telling us the truth first about why they went.
Think of seniors struggling to pay for their medications, and 400 billion dollars of our taxes goes to help them but most of it goes to the drug companies and insurance companies
Think of farmers struggling to stay on their farms and the president stops legislation that would ban packer ownership of farms so that small farmers could make a living again.
Think of school boards struggling to keep adequate programs in their schools and finding out they have to raise local taxes and cut programs because 'No Child Left Behind' has cut funding.
The president is always my president, but he is not my neighbor if he takes 500,000 children off their health insurance and leaves them with nothing.
The president is not my neighbor if he takes 84,000 high school and college students off their PELL grants and makes it tougher for them to go to college.
I don't think that's being a good neighbor to ordinary working people."
Understood in full context, Dean's phrase "Bush is not my neighbor" cannot be interpreted any other way than to mean "Bush has not been a good neighbor to me and other Americans." If you read Luke 10:25-37 you'll find the story about two leaders who passed by a suffering stranger and did nothing. Then a Samaritan came along and took care of him. Jesus asks, "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert of the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise." Its clear from this passage that the neighbor was the one who cared, and the other two were not neighbors!
Finally, critics leave out the conclusion to Dean's reply, in which he clearly says that he considers Bush his neighbor and loves him:
"I love my neighbor, but I want that neighbor back in Crawford, Texas, where he belongs."
Dean correctly points out "loving thy neighbor" does not prevent us from criticizing a president who has not been a neighbor to his fellow Americans. We can love our neighbors (Bush included), but when a president is not a good neighbor to us they do not belong in leadership.
Taken in context, Dean's blunt remarks show a better grasp of the Good Samaritan parable than the Christianity Today writers.
Has Christianity Today become mere right-wing propaganda or will it do some responsible reporting on the far more obvious contradictions between Bush's faith and policies?
P.S. Reading the parable again, the modern-pay parallels were strking: Bush is the modern-day priest or Levite on the road to Jericho, a man who professes to be religious but shows no mercy to the poor and suffering. Dean is the modern-day Samaritan, an alleged heathen who speaks out and acts with compassion for those ignored by the Christian Right.
JP
January 12th, 2004,
Why we like Dean's Civil Union Law
Lets assume that God disapproves of homosexuality and its a sin. I understand why a Christian would then preach against homosexuality and refuse to engage in homosexual acts. But why, as a Christian, would you become politically active in efforts to deprive homosexuals of civil rights? I don't understand the biblical mandate for this. Where did Jesus tell us to lobby government to remove civil rights protections for anyone? Should we also remove civil rights of divorced people? This whole anti-Gay political agenda of Christians makes no sense, has no biblical basis, and presents a hateful, unwelcoming face to an often oppressed group. From my perspective what we Christians need to do is imagine new ways of being salt and light in this social realm.
.
All the time, money and energy we are now using to fight gay civil unions should be redirected towards more worthy goals like curing AIDS, caring for its victims and preventing discrimination and hate crimes against gay and lesbian people.
JP
1/12/04
January 7th, 2004,
Consistently Pro-Life
When I read breaking news stories like this one (US Kills Iraqi couple) I am saddened because the war was not necessary and now these folks and thousands others have died.
What does it mean to be pro-life if we don't speak out in defense of the powerless who are caught in the crossfire (or in the crosshairs)?
Some will respond that civilian casualties are inevitable in a war. Right! That's precisely why war should always be a last resort, and should always meet the principles of just war.
Can Bush still be credibly called a pro-life president?
JP
January 5th, 2004
THE BIKE PATH FLAP
News writers and conservative pundits are questioning Dean's religious commitment because he switched churches over a bike path controversy.
Here's the real story: 25 years ago in Burlington, Vermont, Dean switched churches (from an Episcopal to a Congregational church) when his Episocopal church opposed a community bike path project that Dean was active in leading. In this week's The New Yorker, they detail the full extent of the project which included "securing public access to the waterfront in Burlington, creating 20 acres of new parkland, and rewnewing an area that had been a hangout for derelicts."
It seems to me the Episcopal church really blew it by opposing this endeavor. They put their own property self-interests ahead of joining in a community project that would enhance and serve the city in which they minister. The church-onwed land in question was a stretch of unused old railroad tracks that ran across their property. A church committed to its neighborhood should have enthusiastically supported such a project, especially since its own laity were involved in developing it. The church should have been leading the way on this initiative. Instead they filed a lawsuit to stop it!
The fact that Dean switched churches as a result doesn't bother me a bit. Many, perhaps most of us, have switched churches at some point in time in our lives, and many have done so for far less valid reasons than Dean's. Maybe we didn't like organ music, or we didn't like a particular person in the church, or we preferred a different style of preaching or worship, or we preferred a bigger church or a smaller church. Its hardly fair to immediately conclude that someone who switches churches is somehow insincere in their faith.
Dean switched to a church that affirmed and shared his civic-minded vision for loving his neighbors through a community betterment project. I say good for him.
To claim this as evidence that Dean is a religious phony, to question his religious sincerity and call him a fake, to say he "worships bicycles instead of God" (as some conservative Christian pundits have done) is just unconscionable and absurd.
As Christians, we should lead the country into a new political discourse of thoughtfulness and accuracy and leave behind the exaggerations, distortions and arrogant, holier-than-thou personal attacks.
JP
January 1st, 2004
RESPONSE TO CAL THOMAS
A few conservative columnists recently attacked the sincerity of Howard Dean's faith. A prime example is this silly article by Cal Thomas in the Tallahassee Democrat, Dean has a strange way of showing his belief in Jesus.
According to Mr. Thomas, Dr. Dean's great sin is saying this:
"Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind. He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2,000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it."
Mr. Thomas accuses Dean of saying Jesus was a great moral teacher but not God incarnate. But Dean never said that. Dean never said Jesus was merely or only a moral teacher. In seeking to unite rather than divide, Dean DID make a statement that all Americans can embrace. Dean's mission is to lead a nation of diverse people and faiths. He's running for President, not Pope or Evangelist-in-Chief.
Mr. Thomas unfairly presumes that one short quote defines Dean's entire personal faith and beliefs, and proceeds to publicly question it, asking:
What exactly does Dean believe about Jesus, and how is it relevant to his presidential candidacy?
In his short editorial, Mr. Thomas also takes shots at Congregationalists, Californians, and Jews. Well, Mr. Thomas, keep distorting and attacking if you must; but it seems to me your politics have become more important than the fairness and love your faith requires.
Unfortunately, Mr. Thomas' style is typical of the religious right; which is why its understandable so many Christians are beginning to feel uneasy in the religious right camp.
By the way, in the last election, George Bush called Jesus his favorite philosopher, but failed to recite the Apostle's Creed in the same breath. Does that make Bush equally guilty of calling Christ 'merely a great moral teacher?'
To borrow a line from Mr. Thomas, what exactly does Bush believe about Jesus Christ and how is it relevant to his decision to go to war, destroy God's creation, and shift the tax burden to the poor while the rich get richer?
If you look closely at Christian Coalition/Religious Right literature over the years, Jesus is conspicuously absent. I just visited the Christian Coalition website and I read the Home page, the About Issues page, the Our Vision page, the Our Mission page, and there was not a single mention of the name Jesus. This is actually not so surprising, given their entire agenda has little relationship to the life and teachings of Jesus.
So I really look forward to a protracted national dialogue about who Jesus Christ is and how he is relevant to our politics. I think its more than obvious who's been squeezing God into their agenda.
JP
December 29th, 2003
MY FAVORITE DEAN QUOTE
Howard Dean is the first candidate in my generation that avoids pandering and instead treats voters like adults, actually expecting us to be able to handle the truth. (What a concept!)
The perfect example of this is my favorite Dean quote, which was reported in a Chicago News Tribune profile:
"Repeal the tax cut, we can't afford it, he argues. Bash China for American job losses if you will, he says, but admit your own complicity. Get angry about health-care costs, but cut down on the fast-food meals and start exercising.
"We go to Wal-Mart and buy all that stuff that's made in China, and then we wonder why our jobs are going someplace else. Think about that," Dean tells supporters in Iowa recently. Then he later adds: " . . . You can't expect to be well and eat 27 gallons of french fries."
Such an odd way to run for president, shunning the cherished campaign tradition that Americans are blameless and embracing the medicinal logic -- and the political illogic -- that some popular things simply aren't good for you."
Folks, the doctor is in, and America needs him. We've been pandered to for long enough. We need the truth. We need boldness. We need leadership that expects something of us.
-JP
December 27th, 2003
DEFENDING DEAN'S FAITH
A week ago, Newsweek political writer Howard Fineman made a correct prediction on The Chris Matthews show: Howard Dean would be attacked by rivals as being too secular to appeal to mainstream America. The Kerry-Gephardt-Lieberman gang have no traction on anything else, so now they will question a man's religious sincerity and insinuate he's too "secular."
A week later, Lieberman fulfilled this prophecy. The New York Times on December 23rd reported it this way: "Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut called on Tuesday for strengthening the role of religion in public life and took a veiled swipe at Howard Dean, who has run a steadfastly secular campaign."
A day later, Dean remarked to the Boston Globe that his faith in Christ has indeed influenced his ideals, saying that ''Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind,'' Dean said.
The response: Dean opponents and conservative media have attacked Dean for adopting a new "Jesus strategy" or pandering to Southern religious people.
It seems pretty clear this whole thing began with his opponents invoking God for their own political goals, as Howard Fineman warned us.
While others insidiously appropriate spirituality for their own political ambitions, Dean has been admirably private about such things. (For a look at the worst offender, consider George W. Bush - See the Jim Wallis article).
The simple-minded will conclude that Dean is too secular because he doesn't end every speech with a token "God bless America."
The people of genuine faith will respect him for not utilizing God and spirituality for political purposes. People of genuine faith will realize that his committments and values have much in common with the major themes of Christ's life and teaching.
As the campaign continues, look for Howard Dean to invite Christians to join the movement that is striving for justice and peace instead of war and greed.
-JP