Liasson finds "irony" in "a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith"
SUMMARY: On NPR's Morning Edition, Mara Liasson asserted there was "irony" in "a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith." Liasson did not explain what she thought was "ironic" about such an action.
On the August 7 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, national political correspondent Mara Liasson asserted there was "irony" in "a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith," stating during a report about the presidential candidates' efforts to "court white evangelical voters": "The irony of a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith is not lost on [former Republican presidential candidate] Gary Bauer, a leading conservative religious activist." Liasson did not explain what she thought was "ironic" about such an action.
Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of the media advancing the false notion that Democratic candidates shy away from discussions of religious faith.
From the August 7 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition:
STEVE WALDMAN (Beliefnet.com editor-in-chief): If Obama can show himself to be a person of faith, it also helps him combat the idea that he's an elitist, that he's not a mainstream American. Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic.
LIASSON: The irony of a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith is not lost on Gary Bauer, a leading conservative religious activist.
"If Obama can show himself to be a person of faith, it also helps him combat the idea that he's an elitist, that he's not a mainstream American. Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic"
This is the part MMFA should have highlighted. How ridiculous. So by showing politicians attending church every Sunday and shaking their minister's hand for a photo op after services somehow means they are "churchgoing"? Why of course, nobody would even imagine that it just might be campaign strategy.
Reagan comes to mind. And I may have missed it but I don't see young George getting his picture taken coming out of church each week.
And I may have missed it but I don't see young George getting his picture taken coming out of church each week.
That's because George is nursing a hangover from Saturday nught every Sunday morning. If you think that clown stiopped drinking when he said he did, I know a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchasing......
If you think that clown stiopped drinking when he said he did...
I've had my doubts, too, Writer. I'll bet Laura Bush could tell some stories...
Remember the prtetzel? How he "fell asleep" watching (I believe) the Super Bowl?
"Fell asleep." Riiiiight.
Remember the prtetzel? How he "fell asleep" watching (I believe) the Super Bowl?
"Fell asleep." Riiiiight.
How many people do YOU know who ever fell asleep during the Super Bowl?
The utlimate "just plain folks" / elitist collision: W. Bush - From an old east coast money family raised neck deep in west texas oil.
Yea we the people have already experienced this elite pandering to the common man in extreme form. George W. Bush whose pre presidential fame primarily landed on his lap due to his noble birth, yet he struts around like his only car - a pick up truck - is mostly rust.
Of course our political discourse relies mostly on sterotypes and sound bites. Therefor Bush's drawl, extreme faith and hostility to intellectual complexity is a quaint reflection on his sincerety and connection to the people.
Obama's "problem" is that he does not play the stereotypical role he is supposed to play as a "liberal of color". Therefore it seems that whenever he does not "play the role", his actions are suspect to some observers
The George Mason University study says it all...
Most reports from the elite corporate media (ABC, NBC, CBS evening news) were neutral. But the stories where opinions were expressed: 72% of opinion stories about Obama were negative, while only 57% of opinion stories about Grandpah were negative.
Obama is getting beat up in the supposedly liberal MSM. You can imagine what's happening on the corporate cable channels like Fock News.
It's "ironic", in rightwing narrative lexicon, because ONLY rightwingers have that vital connection to GOD, and all others are posers. It's the "Republicans are moral, Godly, and decent" versus Democrats who are Godless Commies myth, and the so-called "mainstream media" is only too happy to perpetuate this myth any way possible.
What might be a real irony is that rightwingers like Tommy support Republicans who wear their religion and "born again" status on their campaigning sleeves.
Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic"
Exactly what neighborhood do these people live in?
"Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic"
By who's standard is this? Mara Liasson? Steve Waldman? NPR?
I take this to be an affront, if not an outright disrespect to me and people like me that are agnostic (like me), athestic, or of another religion that is not Christianity!
Who the hell do these people think they are allowed to make this claim on what is 'mainstream' or not?
No one 'knows' what mainstream truely is! This is coming from NPR.... the public fricken airwaves??
I will be formally sending in a well written protest demanding an apology for this to NPR!
In the United States, Christianity is a mainstream concept whether you like it or not.
In the United States, Christianity is a mainstream concept whether you like it or not.
In the United States, Christianity became mainstream WHEN Republicans realized there was money and voting power in Evangelicals and MADE Christianity a test for one's fitness for public office
That is such BS. Christianity has been around a lot longer than the Republican party.
Oh yea...? How long has Christianity been the political machine it's become in America?
That is such BS. Christianity has been around a lot longer than the Republican party
Let me be a little clearer.
Christianity in politics did not become a requirement in judging one's for fitness for public office UNTIL Republicans realized the money and voter power of Evangelicals.
THAT is not BS!
Your reply is the real BS. The poster did not claim Republican party existed longer than Christianity.
I'm a little mystified by the controversy here.
Christianity is mainstream. It is the belief system of the vast majority of Americans. It's not that Christianity "became" mainstream because of politics, it's that politicians kiss up to religious elements because Christianity is mainstream.
This is really nothing to complain to NPR about, or to anyone else. And I'm saying this as an atheist. If we can't recognize Christianity as "mainstream", then the word has no meaning whatsoever.
In the United States, Christianity became mainstream WHEN Republicans realized there was money and voting power in Evangelicals and MADE Christianity a test for one's fitness for public office
But only a particular BRAND of Christianity. There are manu evangelicals out there who don't even consider Catholice to be Christians - they think the Catholic Church is a cult - they think the same thing about the Mormans.
In the United States, Christianity is a mainstream concept whether you like it or not.
Your reply begs the Captain's question...what is mainstream? And what is ironic about a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith? Although there are many people who hold organized religion in disdain, myself included, does Liasson actually believe that all liberal Democrats are non-religious. What she is engaging in is stereotyping. Would it be ironic if Barack Obama couldn't dance?
Brabantio, sometimes I wonder why I bother coming here if these are the responses I get.
This shouldn't be a point of contention so thanks for telling it like it is.
BRABANTIO,
You're absolutely right. In the reality of politics, you must "showcase" your faith no matter what side of the aisle you're on. It's easier for a nonbeliever to accept a believer than it is for a believer to accept a nonbeliever.
In closing, I am of the opinion that Liasson knows not of which she speaks.
Brab,
Your explanation of Christianity being "mainstream" in America is superb. I for one appreciate your ability to look past your own beliefs and recognize the obvious. Quite frankly, I learned from your post, I appreciate that as well.
Being an atheist means being in a minority, it means that I surely won't see an atheist as President in my lifetime. - Brabantio
It means that we won't see an admitted atheist as President. I wouldn't be the least surprised if we've already had a few personally atheistic Presidents from both Dem and Rep, lib and con.
I'm confident that there are more of us out there than the surveys indicate. There are a lot of people who profess a belief in magical superbeings who, if they actually came face-to-face with one, would react with "Well I'll be. He/she/it really does exist."
Except that he/she/it doesn't.
Doesn't the term "mainstream" generally refer to ideas, beliefs and attitudes rather than race?
And anyone can associate ideas, beliefs and values to a particular race. "Mainstream" can mean just about whatever the speaker wants...that's the point.
"What I mean is that "mainstream" is a term of convenience that can be used whichever way one wants"
So if an atheist describes atheism as being "mainstream" it's not only convenient but an accurate use of the word "mainstream" as it is defined?
I don't think the word "mainstream" carries any kind of connotation, it is rather an apt description of accepted prevelant trends, actions, etc. To accept your point that ""mainstream" is a fluid term that can mean anything or take on any connotation the speaker or listener wants." we would have to accept the notion that even though 75% of Americans consider themselves Christian, Christianity is only considered "mainstream" because whoever says so, is simply implying it as such. I cannot accept that because "mainstream" has a definition and since we know most Americans identify themselvs as Christian, Christianity in America is considered "mainstream" as "mainstream" is defined. Anti-semitism was "mainstream" in Nazi Germany, not because it was implied as such, but because the majority of German citizens bought the propaganda of Goebbels and Hitler and therefore held anti-semitic beliefs. Your point of applying an ancillary context does not, IMO, change the definition of "mainstream." Applying an ancillary context certainly allows the speaker to apply a negative or positive connotation to what is already generally accepted or known to be true.
But that's not the case here, as far as I see. When it's being attributed to something inappropriately, then that should be criticized, but this seems to be valid usage. The idea that the word "mainstream" is meaningless because someone might connect certain ideas and attitudes to race seems rather odd.
You could make the same argument for just about anything, because you can always abuse terminology. People could dishonestly claim something is offensive, but if Savage comes out and calls Obama a "dirty n*****", that's genuinely unacceptable. It doesn't really matter that the term can be abused when it's actually being used correctly.
What's difficult to understand is the basis for attributing some motive to Bruce's words. If there's a legitimate way to use this word ever, then someone has to tell me how Bruce somehow deviated from that. He's a Republican, therefore he's using it as a bludgeon against non-Christians, or what?
Anything that's subjective can be evaluated, by definition. Some usage is more appropriate than others, of course. That doesn't mean that a subjective term can't ever be used, which seems to be the argument as it now stands.
I'm not denying that this is done generally.
I'm glad you understand my point in that regard...
"When it's being attributed to something inappropriately, then that should be criticized, but this seems to be valid usage."
I have no idea how the above quote would lead you to believe that point was ever in contention. Yes, words are used inappropriately, and that should be criticized.
As I said, that does not seem to be the case here. I could have said the exact same thing in response to Capt. Foster, and then there would be no discussion about how the right wing twists words to their own purposes.
There are known knowns, and there are known unknowns (how does that go?)
My assumption was that Christianity as a mainstream concept was a known known.
My bad. I'm still right, but I shouldn't have assumed agreement on that point.
In the United States, Christianity is a mainstream concept whether you like it or not.
Christianity may be mainstream, but fundamentalist evangelical "Christianity" (such as that practiced by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, John Hagee, Joel Osteen, Rod Parsley, etc) is considered "lunatic fringe" by many. Including myself.
Which is why I placed the word Christianity in quotes in the last partagraph. I do not consider any of those fundamentalist evangelicals to be true Christians because they are corrupting Jesus' message of love and peace and using it as a weapon of hate. And that is why I believe that if there is a hell, Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy are down there right now waiting for the others to show up.
What is ironic is how a person can be a commentator for National Public Radio and Fox News all at the same time!!!
I don't understand how she can be so split in her political ideals. The same goes for Juan Williams!
They both need to pick a side and STAY THERE!!!!!!!!!!
All you have to do is think back on how the funding for public TV and radio was yanked by the republicans during their days in power. The reps wanted to destroy these media completely, under the guise of controlling the federal budget and the free-market concept. They were stopped ... barely.
Think back: the public media, in the good old days, didn't have to run weekly fund drives and daily pleas to their audience to be written into their wills. Also, although its against the public media charters, public TV now runs commercial ads, before and after their shows (they still run their shows uninterrupted however).
NPR and Public Television are like Fox now.
-- Liasson did not explain what she thought was "ironic" about such an action. -- Chrissy Schwen
Which begs the classic question...If you don't understand what Liasson is talking about...why write the article?
Because any reasonable interpretation of her words propagates an unfair generalization about liberals, and therefore qualifies as conservative misinformation? Maybe?
"Which begs the classic question...If you don't understand what Liasson is talking about...why write the article?" - Wesley
Perhaps, Wesley, you would be so kind as to highlight where Crissy Schwen pointed out they did not comprehend Liasson's use of "ironic".
If you are not able to do that to our satisfaction, well, I guess it begs the classic question... Wesley, if you do not understand the purpose of using English phrasing, why are you attempting to use English in your posting?
Clams, I used to get pretty naggy about that one (begging the question), here and in real life. It is one of the most abused terms out there. I'd slacked off a little, maybe giving it up as one of those things where words end up meaning what the majority misunderstand them to mean.I haven't posted a link to the definition in months.
You've inspired me to keep up the fight. I'm literally on fire about the issue again.
"MMFA assumes that Liasson used "ironic" to refer to Dems shying away from religious issues . . . . But mmfa only assumes to know what she meant by "ironic." Doesn't it "beg the question" to know what she actually meant by "ironic"?"
I thought that the premise of your question relied on the "assumption" angle here. If there's no viable alternative to interpreting it as insulting, then it's not "begging the question" to "know what she actually meant".
I was referring to Wes comment. I really didn't mean much by mine at all. I don't see any other alternative explanation for what Liasson meant either. If I interpreted Wes comment correctly though, I think his use of the phrase "beg the question" is okay. . . . in that mmfa assumes (according to Wes) what it can't or hasn't proved . .. .
Essentially I was posting aimlessly.
Which begs the classic question...If you don't understand what Liasson is talking about...why write the article?
There's a lot in this world that YOU don't understand, Wesley - yet you continue to post here.....
Ha-ha, NUMEROUS INSTANCES huh???? Nice bait and switch. Liasson specifically said "showcasing faith", not values. The link had numerous instances (OK six but who's counting :) ) of statements of liberals supporting values.
By that MMfA means TWO instances according to the link. One by Hillary (who would say anything to get elected) and the other by the now radioactive Johnny "I am the son of a mill wuukaa" Edwards:
My relationship with the Lord and my relationship with my family is everything to me. ... [My faith] informs everything I do, not just my politics."
I guess his faith told him to cheat on his dying wife?
It is telling that MMfA can't even dig up decent comments on a major liberal player advocating thier faith. Again, nice two step!
C Casino posted:
The two links that MMFA provided weren't meant to show examples of "decent comments on a major liberal player advocating thier[sic] faith," as you claim. MMFA clearly explains that those two links show, "the media advancing the false notion that Democratic candidates shy away from discussions of religious faith.
Wrong. Go back and read the links. MMfA clearly states "numerous instances" of liberals making statements of faith. MMfA clearly then shows"numerous instances" of MORAL statements, but not FAITH statements. Get it? Hence the old bait and switch.
Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of the media advancing the false notion that Democratic candidates shy away from discussions of religious faith.
There are two weak one's as I pointed out. If there are really "numerous instances" then why put a quote from the recent scandal ridden Johhny "mill wuurka" Edwards?
I'll give you hills as I'm sure you could mine just about any quote from a clinton...triagulation if you recall!
Maybe that's because most of us follow Jesus's admonition to pray in secret, and "not in the street, that they may be seen of men. I say to you: They have their reward."
I guess his faith told him to cheat on his dying wife? Hog-p, Edwards' wife has an incurable cancer. She's getting treatments and is so far maintaining her health. Not only is your "gottcha" statement offensive, it's ignorant.
I guess his faith told him to cheat on his dying wife?
Like Gramps McCain's faith told HIM to divorce his disabled, disfigured first wife and take up with much younger (and richer) Cindy Lou?
What, does he express his faith like this:
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
And:
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
I may no longer be a religious man but l do believe that this is far more important than the 10 commandments. You don't have to be a person of faith to see how this is a better way to be regarded as a decent human being.
We tend to forget that all of Christian thought is summed up in the Sermon on the Mount.
I agree with you, Mary, Colonel and Unitarian. The right seems obsessed with the Bible's fire and brimstone at the same time they find work arounds for the Beatitudes.
I know more religious non-believers who live their lives according to this Sermon but not many religious followers who do. Why is that?
What has become mainstream is not Christianity, but some bastardized form of if,, Americanism if you will.
http://snipurl.com/3fb8z
To bad religions turn into human organisations.
Think a thread way back split that 75% of the population a few ways. 30% are evangelical which used to be the backbone of the theocratic powers. Many of them are coming to disaprove of the politicism of their church.
As many as 10% percent of the evangelicals remain strong supporter of the theocratic dream.
Who do you think has more faith in the ideals and the future of America: The Unitarian Universalists upon whom the right-wing kooks open fire? Or the self-righteous neo-cons who trash our Constitution and send our brave troops off to die under false pretenses?
We aren't the ones who have to ask ourselves "Whom would Jesus bomb?" or "Whom would Jesus torture?" Somehow, I bet Ms. Liasson forgot to ask Gary Bauer those questions.
Well, maybe but according to the bible "god" had his people kill every man woman and child in one chapter. Then because his people "didn't" do that, he punished his people....
So I would guess that the christians of the bible DO believe in what you suggest.
I must be missing something..."national political correspondent Mara Liasson" on NPR's Morning Edition. Is that like being a large goldfish in a small pond? Or a small goldfish in a small pond?