I will not bother to recount or critique Obama’s acceptance speech last night, I’ll leave that up to friends Hugh Hewitt and Jim Geraghty. “Been there, done that,” seems to the the sentiment amongst all but the unthinking die-hards. Leaves me wondering if Obama has figured out he is in over his head and really does not want to do it again.
I will make one comment. Check out this observation from WaPo blogger Robert P. Jones:
Obama made his entrance to the national stage with a speech at the 2004 Democratic national convention that was full of religious language, such as traditional biblical allusions (“It is that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper — that makes this country work”) and references to contemporary Christian music (“we worship an awesome God in the blue states”). This speech was also remarkable because it broke through at a time when the “values voters” movement was on the rise and Democrats were being lambasted for being perceived as unfriendly to religion.
Check the test of the speech from last night. You will find no such rhetoric. Is it any wonder they had to work so hard to correct the “oversight” concerning the inclusion of “God” in the platform? CNN is trying to help them out of the fiasco, but as John Hinderaker says:
The Democrats, bluntly put, have become the party of those who don’t go to church.
Which leaves David French wondering, “Wither the Pro-Obama Evangelical?”
War, poverty, unemployment, and abortion? That wasn’t supposed to be the deal. Expect to see Mitt Romney’s share of the evangelical vote match or exceed President Bush’s in 2004.
He’s right – at least for those whose faith is deep and not merely convenient. I think Kathryn Jean Lopez summed it up best in a single sentence yesterday:
If this administration didn’t treat religious liberty as something government grants rather than robustly protects, I wouldn’t be so worried . . .
That does; however, describe the point where this all stops being pathetic and starts being scary. They really do act that way, which is of course the kind of attitude that leads to extra-constitutional power grabs and legislative action rammed down the throat of a clearly disagreeing public. But in light of Obama’s “mail it in” approach to his speech last night, I wonder if they are out of energy for such shenanigans? I wonder if the sheer weight of fighting against the will of the populace has not simply worn them out? Ruling as king is a lot harder than serving as president.
But on the bright side, if you’re a Dem, you can most certainly rely on the home-brewers vote:
One of the oldest political cliches states that people vote for the person they would most like to have a beer with – and Mr Obama’s rival in the November election, Mitt Romney, a Mormon, does not drink.
That officially hits the books as the longest reach for a Mormon shot in the history of Romney seeking national office. BTW, I’ve had a conversation with Mitt Romney with a drink in my hand – I’d say it’s about the same as having a conversation without a drink in my hand – either way, a pleasant experience.
And back to pathetic, yesterday Glenn Beck dedicated his online TV show to discussing Mormonism:
He ultimately decided to take on the issue after growing frustrated with the “intentional vilification and political grandstanding” he sees being aimed at his faith, and the attention being given to “jaded ex-members brought on as experts to speak about what they never truly understood.”
Uh-huh, or maybe the money flow from on-line broadcasting just ain’t what he expected and the topic is really, really hot. When was the last time you saw press articles on what the topic of Beck’s show was going to be? Smells like a plug push to me.