The Religious Experience of Barack Obama

CHARLOTTE--After John Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election to George W. Bush by a margin much larger than Democrats had contemplated, some liberals spent their Monday-morning quarterbacking agonizing over how they could possibly narrow the wide and growing gap among religious voters. Others washed their hands of the whole enterprise, drawing up "Jesusland" maps on the Internet that consigned vast swaths of the country to irredeemable superstition.

It's one of the many curiosities of two-party politics that Team A routinely mirrors or even adopts major personality traits of Team B within tidy eight-year cycles, but still the speed with which Democratic gatherings have become openly religious revivals is enough to induce whiplash. Aside from Bill Clinton (who must always be in a category by himself) speakers at the just-concluded Democratic National Convention who got the best response were those who most resembled–and sometimes were–pastors.

You probably didn't watch Emanuel Cleaver's raucous speech Wednesday, but it had the arena howling and delegates in the concourses stuck in their tracks, shaking their heads with a smile, talking back to the wide-screens with well-placed "That's right!"s. Delegates and other fans, some of whom were dressed in their Sunday best, responded most happily to the slow-building growl-and-shout, the Baptist-style call-and-response, the affirmation of both community and communities.

President Barack Obama didn't give a particularly good acceptance speech Thursday night, but for the thousands in the arena it didn't matter one bit. They were here to see him more than listen to him, to communicate their love to him (often by bursting forth with "I LOVE YOU!!"s) more than hear about his plans for the next four years. The last five minutes of the speech was a festival of hollering back, of responding not to Obama's frequently inaudible remarks but to the rising timbre of his voice. I think it's impossible to understand the ongoing appeal of this odd and embattled president without grappling with the notion that he is an essentially religious figure.

Consciously or no, the Democratic Party and Obama himself played into that devotional relationship every hour of this convention. The president was portrayed as a kind of omnipotent father figure, whose abiding faith in his flock deserved tribute. "President Obama believes in you!" Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-California) beseeched the audience tonight. Vice President Joe Biden kept coming back to that that theme. "We have incredible faith in the decency, and the hard work of the American people," he said. "And you deserve a president who will never quit on you."

The Democrats are selling themselves in 2012 as the party that simply cares more. They feel your pain, only this time it's not a snicker-worthy campaign ploy from a slick southern politician; it's a governing creed. Simply by virtue of being more empathetic, they will produce better policies and outcomes, particularly those that affect the identity groups within the Democratic coalition: women, Hispanics, blacks, the gay and lesbian community.

Mitt Romney's ultimate problem is that he does not, he cannot, walk in these people's shoes. San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro might have put it best in his keynote speech Tuesday night:

Now, like many of you, I watched last week's Republican convention. They told a few stories of individual success. We all celebrate individual success. But the question is, how do we multiply that success? The answer is President Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney, quite simply, doesn't get it. A few months ago he visited a university in Ohio and gave the students there a little entrepreneurial advice. "Start a business," he said. But how? "Borrow money if you have to from your parents," he told them. Gee, why didn't I think of that? Some people are lucky enough to borrow money from their parents, but that shouldn't determine whether you can pursue your dreams. I don't think Gov. Romney meant any harm. I think he's a good guy. He just has no idea how good he's had it.

Because Democrats care more about education, education outcomes will be better; there was precious little discussion of policy toward those ends. "Government has a role in this," Obama said last night, "But teachers must inspire; principals must lead; parents must instill a thirst for learning, and students–you gotta do the work." Well okay then!

Democrats might yet win by exploiting the Caring Gap. Certainly having the Republican Party to compete against helps. But for those of us voters who want government to be neither mom nor dad, and who like to keep our religious experiences separate from the exertion of public policy, a depressing reality has been reinforced thise week: The two major parties are incapable of treating you like an adult. Meanwhile, they are demanding–and sometimes receiving–a devotion that borders on the unhealthy.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jake W||

    first

    Yes, I'm going to be that douche.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Speaking of Bubba, has he even been to Arkansas since 1992? Not that I could blame him; just wonderin'.

  • Joe R.||

    I want to take offense to that, but I just can't.

  • ||

    Arkansas is still in the Union??

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    One day we will all wake up next to Suzanne Pleshette and say "I just had the strangest dream."

  • Drake||

    That would be awesome on a couple of levels - if it was early 70's Suzanne Pleshette. Since she died 4 years ago, not so cool if it was the contemporary version.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I agree - waking up to the 1970s version would be a rather pleasant way to start one's morning.

  • JeremyR||

    The irony of that of course, is about the only Republican speaker that inspires anything like what Obama does, albeit to a fraction of people, is Ron Paul.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The irony of that of course, is about the only Republican speaker that inspires anything like what Obama does, albeit to a fraction of people, is Ron Paul.

    That's not irony. It's straight-up depressing.

  • Brutus||

    I see that as a feature, not a bug. When we start looking to politicians as saviors and deliverers, we're in deep shit.

  • Bramblyspam||

    I've held for years that political beliefs and religious beliefs have essentially the same psychological mechanism. The folks who go to these political conventions - whether they be republican, democratic, libertarian or whatever - are largely indistinguishable from a religious flock that shares a common creed.

  • ||

    Eh

    I am a happy atheist I still like looking over vast vistas of nature and have myself a good ol' religious experience.

    I suppose if listening to inspiring speeches to experience the same thing I would do that for my "god' fix.

    You make it seem like what they are doing and feeling is wrong, when in fact it is very human...it may even be uniquely human.

  • Paul.||

    You make it seem like what they are doing and feeling is wrong, when in fact it is very human...it may even be uniquely human.

    I just wish they'd get their religious experiences by looking at vast vistas of nature instead of voting for these asshats who are demonstrably ruining this once-great country.

  • ||

    Being slavishly devoted to and subjugating yourself to some omnipotent and omniscient entity is one thing, but doing so to another human being is super creepy.

    While endless debates can be had that the first case is indicative of character flaws, it seems pretty undebatable that the second certainly is. Referring to obamabots as Feeble-minded moral midgets seems appropriate.

    Dammit, I just unintentionally othered midgets.

  • ||

    I am not refuting your point that it is human or even uniquely human Corning. Just feeling particularly grouchy today because of being inundated in stupidity due to the DNC.

  • Jordan||

    Come on, you're invoking the "appeal to nature" fallacy here. There are a lot of human instincts that are fucked up.

  • Jake Badlands||

    I am right there with you, for the most pat.

    Maybe I'm being arrogant/biased, but I like to think libertarianism is above all that.

    I'm libertarian largely because I *don't* have that much "faith" in my own opinions. I mean, yeah, I think I'm right, but I don't think it's a good idea to legislate my opinions into law. There's always some kind of chance I'm wrong. However small it may be.

  • ubercynic||

    Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure."

    -H. L. Mencken

  • T o n y||

    The problem is being a libertarian comes with a whole set of policy choices--many of them quite radical--which will be no more or less imposed than any other set of policy choices.

    Humility about what one knows is a requirement of clear thinking, of scientific thinking. But we can apply what we've learned about what works to make a good society and what doesn't. We are not totally ignorant of these things nor do we lack data.

  • ||

    The problem is being a libertarian comes with a whole set of policy choices--many of them quite radical--which will be no more or less imposed than any other set of policy choices.

    In Tonyland, you understand, being forced by government authorities to purchase a product you don't want is not force, but the government failing to provide you with something that you'd like to have is force. In this way, insurance mandates are exactly the same imposition of values as, say, failing to mandate soft drink sizes.

  • Crown Equerry Rock Action||

    Very Tom Wolfe, no?

    Right down to the "get it."

  • Crown Equerry Rock Action||

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Tom Wolfe writes like a journalist, not the other way 'round.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They were here to see him more than listen to him...

    That alone won't carry him through this time. He's going to have to say something.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Meanwhile, the last day of the GOP convention was opened and closed by a Mormon pastor. I wondered what the delegates, many of whom were probably Protestants, were thinking as he led the room in prayer.

  • John||

    They were thinking "God I hate Obama"

  • Ramjet||

    +10 Amens

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "So let's summarize the last 4 years. You killed a man everyone wanted dead. And wrote a check. Wow. Those were really tough decisions. If we give them 4 more years they might choose a new china pattern for the White House"

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Actually it should be "you allowed others to kill a man everyone wanted dead".

  • Atanarjuat||

    So let's summarize the last 4 years. You killed a man everyone wanted dead. And wrote a check with other people's money. Wow. Those were really tough decisions.

    Fixed

  • Jackand Ace||

    If you think that there is equal amounts of religious zealotry and bigotry on the right and left, you're a fool.

  • WittyName||

    It's human nature to not see the flaws of others and groups you find favorable. Team Blue's devotion to "fairness" and using the heavy hand of government to enforce their vision of it is about as zealous an activity as I can recall seeing.

    Nice ad hominem too, that usually gets people to take you seriously.

  • Jackand Ace||

    I was not being inflammatory, I was being precise. If you believe that there are equal amounts of religious zealotry on the right and left, you are foolish (that sound better to you than being a fool?).

    Zealotry is one thing- Republicans are zealous about tax breaks, most here are VERY zealous about the free market being the cure all to everything, but none of those things are a religion, unless you want to label all of them a religion, including you.

    The bigotry about Muslims that comes almost exclusively from the right is religious, because it stems from their religion.

    But thanks anyway.

  • WittyName||

    Smug much?

    Zealotry is zealotry, what does it matter if its rooted in religion or a devotion to something. In extreme cases, both are equally dangerous.

    If only team red was zealous about tax breaks, if only.....you're welcome.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Oh, I don't know...maybe because the title of the article was "The RELIGIOUS Experience of Barack Obama," and I thought Mr. Welch would be, if nothing else, precise.
    My mistake.

  • WittyName||

    One more step and the correlation is yours!!

  • Sam Grove||

    Religion doesn't necessarily require mystical being.

  • ant1sthenes||

    The bigotry about Muslims almost exclusively comes from the fact that when people hear "Muslim" in a news story, it's about someone being blown up, shot, or executed for exercising a freedom all but the most hardline socons take for granted here.

  • Jackand Ace||

    OK, how about the bigotry against gays which resides exclusively in religion.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Fair enough, but I'm not sure that trying to distinguish between religious and non-religious in that fashion is helpful for anything other than partisan point scoring, particularly since the concern is about the behaviors and attitudes it provokes in people. If Scientologists, Socialists, and Southern Baptists all share undesirable traits that are correlated to those systems of ideas, then there is something common to all of them, whether the appropriate term is "religion" or not.

    I wouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that religion explicitly implies theism of some sort -- that's Western bias. Even the religious believe that a person can (sinfully) act with religious devotion to something other than a spiritual/metaphysical sort of god, a view they share with, e.g., Trent Reznor.

  • Sam Grove||

    "bigotry against gays which resides exclusively in religion."

    I doubt that. Communist regimes, despite being atheist, were often very anti-homosexual.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Sam- we were speaking about the US, not communism.

    ant1sthenes- then here is my point. If you are going to freely label other points of view and philosophies as a religion, or possessing religious zeal, then hold yourself to the same criticism. Quite honestly, when it comes to philosophical zeal, none can match libertarians. The only solution to everything for them is the free market. Period. Just look at most posts here.

  • Sam Grove||

    Many homophobes don't give a hoot about religion. Some may be described as rednecks. It's true that fundamentalist religions foster a culture of homophobia, but I do doubt that they have an exclusive claim to it.

  • ||

    "Sam- we were speaking about the US, not communism."

    Wow. Way to really refute his point.

  • Sam Grove||

    I did not get that from previous commentary that the discussion of homophobia was exclusive to the U.S.

  • Jackand Ace||

    The whole article was about "religious" fervor on either the Democrat or Republican side. No mention internationally.
    The only thing missing was an admission that the same fervor exists with libertarians. But most libertarians are too sanctimonious to admit that.

  • ||

    The problem is that you completely missed the entire point, namely that Barack Obama has taken on the aura of a religious figure for the Democratic party - not that the Democratic party is more or less zealous about their theological views than the Republicans. The difference is hard to detect, I guess, when you're a team cheerleader. Same reason John was in bat country for a couple weeks there when Reason was blasting Paul Ryan and the Republicans without heaping equal scorn on Democrats.

  • Sam Grove||

    "..free market being the cure all to everything."

    Straw man. No one thinks the free market is the cure all for everything. We just oppose the notion that government, with the right people in charge, is a cure for much of anything.

  • Killazontherun||

    That was not precise of you, Sam. Jackand Ace is the new ref in town and he is going to deduct points.

    You see, the precise claim trumps everything, especially such trivial matters as coherent arguments basing them upon facts.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Sam- then good for you, but most here think the government should not do anything.

    Killazontherun- huh?

  • Sam Grove||

    Most libertarians think that government should prohibit interpersonal force and fraud. They do think that government should not endeavor to "manage" the economy.

    Let's ask: Does anyone here think government has no valid function?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Well done, Sam. Now that we both admitted we are socialists and not free market libertarians, its just a matter of degree.
    Like zoning laws, or should a foundry be built next to your house?
    Like pollution laws, or should we be free to drop waste in local water supplies?
    Like discrimination laws, or should someone be free to not hire a minority?
    Or does the free market solve all those?
    Riiiight.

  • Sam Grove||

    I made no such admission.

    I do not believe government should manage the production and distribution of resources.

    And you failed to notice a subtle distinction between your reference to government and mine.

    I oppose zoning laws.

    Pollution laws aren't required where property rights are upheld.
    Ireland's private streams are not polluted because the owners of those waterways will not permit it.

    I think businesses should be free to hire whomever they choose.

    You don't know enough to properly critique these positions.

    Do you know that Houston does not have zoning laws?

    I see how zoning has required commuting which increases pressure for subsidized transport.

  • Jackand Ace||

    And you will be the first to scream if that foundry was built next to you spewing out pollution and congesting your street.
    Maybe not...maybe you will say "Hey, thats the free market! Yeah it ruined my re-sale value, but thats Libertarian land for you!"
    Right. You will run to government.

  • Sam Grove||

    Jackland Ace, there is vast research backed literature supporting the free market conclusion of libertarian thought.

    Libertarians don't say "the free market will fix anything", they say markets work better than government at producing and distributing goods and services, the freer the better, and there is plenty of evidence to support that position, and plenty of evidence to conclude the economic collectivism works very poorly.

    There are valid reasons regarding human psychology that explain why freer markets work better than more regulated markets.

    It's about incentives, something for which leftists appear to have complete disregard.

    There's nothing religious about looking at evidence when deciding what works.

  • Sam Grove||

    And you will be the first to scream if that foundry was built next to you spewing out pollution and congesting your street

    Lame straw man. Experience shows that industry prefers to build on cheap land which is why they don't build in residential areas. What actually happens is that people build near refineries (Richmond, CA for instance) THEN complain about living near a refinery.

    If that's the best you can do....

  • ||

    You can be a much more convincing troll if you at least read the introductory paragraph on libertarianism at Wikipedia. 0/10. Shit, even Tony has been operating at a higher level than this lately.

  • ||

    Just because we don't think they shouldn't do much of anything doesn't mean we think that all of people's problems will be cured. Government is simply not the mechanism for solving the world's problems.

  • ||

    Neither are double negatives.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If you think that there is equal amounts of religious zealotry and bigotry on the right and left, you're a fool.

    Yep, the religious zealotry on the left is much much greater.

    They just call their god Government instead of Jesus.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Right. And you call yours the free market rather than Jesus.

  • Calidissident||

    Except the free market isn't an entity really. It's just shorthand to describe all the voluntary economic transactions people do. It's not like the government, which is a distinct entity made up of bureaucrats and politicians. I've never understood why this is so hard for liberals to grasp

  • Jackand Ace||

    Boy, thats a distinction without a difference. The free market does not exist on its own- its an entity made up of business men and women who engage in it. Just like government.

    Look below on the post from Jake. He mentions how one is an apostate if he does not agree with the left's agenda.

    I do not believe the free market will, or has ever, cured all ills. Am I an apostate? Most here have called me that.

  • Killazontherun||

    Is it because Obama failed to keep the tides from rising that you are now cynical about the religious side of political belief and the messianic claims of politicians?

  • Sam Grove||

    "its an entity made up of business men and women who engage in it. Just like government."

    You are mistaken. The market, free or not, is comprised of everyone who engages in economic activity, not just business people.

  • hotsy totsy||

    In other words, everyone.

  • ||

    In order for the free market to have failed to cure something you perceive as an "ill", wouldn't there actually have to be a free market?

  • Jackand Ace||

    You nailed it PM. You described what libertarianism, one big think tank. Nothing to point to as experiential, just a lot of FAITH that given the chance it would be heaven.
    Now who has religious fervor?

  • Sam Grove||

    There's plenty of evidence.

    You sound an awful lot like George Balella?
    Who thinks up these arguments?

  • Jake Badlands||

    Also, Matt: "Borders" on the unhealthy? BORDERS? This is some sick shit.

    The Republicans are spineless, loathsome idiots 99% of the time, but at least there's the *occasional* pony in all that manure. And you can discount most of what they say because either 1.) it's never gonna happen, or 2.) they're just bullshitting anyway.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, BELIEVE this shit. They honestly BELIEVE that "fairness," an ill-defined concept that has multiple meanings to multiple people, is a governing principle. Not to mention that their idea of fairness is entirely lacking any concept of desert! They believe, religiously, that their gut feelings make great policy. This talk about "common purpose" and common anything is goddamn frightening. What if we don't WANT to be a part of your common purpose? A logical man might say, well, then the purpose ain't so common. The Democrats are not logical men (or women).

    If you're not on board, you're some kind of apostate. It's like what those Scientology lunatics do with "suppressive people."

  • Lisa||

    Democrat followers definitely believe it, but Democrat politicians don't necessarily believe it. I'm pretty sure that many of them are evil narcissists. Obama is a good example. He has to know that the country is in such bad shape fiscally. I don't believe he's stupid. He just cares more about being a deity than being honest.

  • WittyName||

    "The free market does not exist on its own- its an entity made up of business men and women who engage in it. Just like government."

    I hadn't realized it was optional. Great, let me have the opt-out forms and I'll be on my way then.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Great...outside of the improvement we'll never know the difference.

  • WittyName||

    Good one. It lacks a true rebuttal, but nice "gotcha" on me. I can respect that.

  • Jackand Ace||

    OK, Witty, credit where credit is due.
    Groucho Marx, not me. I'm not that smart. Good for you for calling me an a-hole. I admit it. I will try to do better.
    But don't count on it.
    Peace.

  • WittyName||

    Be careful, we may find redeeming qualities outside of politics that cause us to agree on things. Peace.

  • RightNut||

    One of the few benefits of having President Bush is Republicans will take a few years to again consider the head of the party/President as some sort of omniscient messianic figure. Hopefully Obama will lose in November so the Democrats can learn the same lesson.

  • Sam Grove||

    More lunacy from some democrats:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ture=share

  • Jackand Ace||

    Matt-
    "...and who like to keep our religious experiences separate from the exertion of public policy."

    Well, Matt, the Republicans want only more religion in public policy. Or have you not noticed the influence of the Christian right?

    But OK, as many have reminded me here, you are using a much looser meaning for the word "religious." For you, it encompasses political philosophy. The one thing that tempers zealousness or 'religion' in political philosophy is internal disagreement. Republicans have some, Democrats have some. That is why there is infighting in both. And both, occasionally, meld a bit.

    You know who has none? Who has no, or very little, internal disagreement? Libertarians. Now there is a philosophy for the zealous and the pure...free markets cure all! With no exceptions!

    Its indeed laughable to me that libertarians would accuse anyone else of religious zeal. Like I have ever heard a libertarian say, 'you know, Democrats have some good ideas, or Republicans have some good ideas.'

    The other two occasionally find some common ground, libertarians just complain who no one will meet them. Now thats religious zeal!

  • Jeff||

    Who says that the free market cures all ills? I don't think that the libertarian position is that it's perfect, just that it's the best option available to us. The fact that it doesn't require coercion (in fact, it requires the absence of coercion) is a great argument for it. Who likes coercion?

    Besides fuckfaces like you, I mean.

  • ||

    Exactly. Efficient ~= Perfect/Utopian

  • Jackand Ace||

    Good religious fervor you demonstrated there, Jeff.

  • Jeff||

    Good lack of reading comprehension you displayed there, shithead.

    The free market doesn't make me cry tears of sheer ecstasy like the Obamabots were doing last night. I just think it's an imperfect thing that's still far, far preferable to the the alternatives. Those two things are not the same.

  • Jackand Ace||

    They're exactly the same...both are political philosophies, and both have adherents. If you think the left is very happy at Obama's continued wars, failure (til last night) to mention climate change, and willingness to extend Bush tax cuts, you have not paid attention, which probably is the case.
    Your as much a religious ideologue as they are.

  • Sam Grove||

    We are aware that the left is not happy with the continued wars.

    The question is why they aren't making a much bigger deal out of it, as they were pretending that's why they hated Bush.

  • T o n y||

    So when you finally realize that a market without coercion is a nonsense concept, will you begin admitting data into your worldview that clearly demonstrates that coercive intervention is superior to leaving things alone in certain instances?

    Or do you believe in the superiority of markets despite evidence? That would be the definition of religious faith.

  • ||

    I have a moral system that says it's wrong to murder or rape people, even when it's expedient and even when it produces the best possible outcomes too, Tony. That's what people who aren't relativist pieces of totalitarian, domineering, meddling dogshit do. Wrong is wrong, even when the ends justify the means according to someone's subjective standard.

    When you finally realize that unrestrained violence on behalf of some arbitrary concept of the "greater good" is the path to little hiccups like the Holocaust, you can take off your brownshirt and re-enter normal society.

  • Sam Grove||

    Libertarians agree with Republican rhetoric that government is too big and is not capable of managing the economy, they agree with Democrats that people should be able to exercise civil liberties (except that Democrats have sorta backed down on that).

    Libertarians disagree with both that the U.S. should maintain a military presence around the world.

    What's your problem?

  • Jackand Ace||

    No problem, if you'll also agree that some Democrats want to cut spending, and some Republicans think abortion should be legal, thus proving no one has cornered the market on religious zealotry.

  • Sam Grove||

    Some Democrats...

    Gary Johnson has held that abortion should be legal even as a Republican and so have many other socially liberal Republicans.

    You seem to be battling a lot of libertarian straw men here.

  • George26||

    Do Republicans agree that people should be able to exercise civil liberties? Well, they say they do, but at times they back down on that, when evalutating the record on civil liberties republicans have clearly demostrated to be more pro civil-liberties than democrats.

  • Sam Grove||

    Your mouth is smarter than your brain.

  • Sam Grove||

    Knowledgeable libertarians can provide rational discussion for advancing economic and personal freedom.

    I don't know any libertarian that gets that way be swallowing indoctrination, but rather they often must had to go through a struggle against their pro government indoctrination fed to everybody all through life.

    You should read about Jonathan Haidt's research comparing the perspective of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians.

    What he found out surprised him (a liberal) and led him to shift his world view.

    It has been my observation over the years that many liberals and conservatives have trouble grasping arguments for free markets because they are a challenge to what they already believe and have believed for so long.

    Libertarians have been attacked by the left for being extreme right wing and by the right for being communist (National Review, July 1976).

    What is it about libertarianism that affronts both groups?

    The challenge to their positions vis a vis political power.

  • ||

    Yeah, libertarians don't ever disagree. That's why Rothbard and Rand got along so well. And why pro-abortion and anti-abortion libertarians have so much common ground. And why ancap libertarians and minarchists never diverge on policy.

    Take your rah rah rah Team Blue bullshit and strawman absurdities to DemocraticUnderground where the collective IQ is low enough to support it.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "After John Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election to George W. Bush by a margin much larger than Democrats had contemplated ...."

    Since Bush was re-elected by the smallest margin of any sitting president in this century, I doubt if that margin was "much larger than Democrats had contemplated," unless they were expecting to lose by, you know, one vote. I think poor Matt has exhausted himself thinking up sarcastic things to say about the Democrats. Thank God the Convention is over. Now Matt can go back to talking about the things he loves, like the French health care system.

  • Jackand Ace||

    I read an article like this and I wonder if we are running out of things to say, or intelligent points to make. Lets take religion, which happens to be a major issue in this country today on so many fronts, and then lets broaden that to include all groups...except ours!

  • ||

    I read an article the headline to an article like this and I wonder if we are running out of things to say, or intelligent points to make get a raging Team Blue boner and set out attacking windmills.

    FIFY

  • ||

    Of course, Bush is the only President to be re-elected this century. (So far, at least.)

  • George26||

    Of course, whenever someone at reason criticizes democrats, they always have to throw in the classic, "republicans are bad too," without any explanation whatsoever. How many people yelled "I love you," at Mitt Romney during the convention? What is the republican equivalent of the "caring gap?" I see on this post all the time articles criticizing both Democrats and Republicans, but presious little time is spent on criticizing Republicans. Why shouldn't you vote republican? Because Reason is the publishing wing on the Libertarian party?

  • Granny Jan & Jihad Kitty||

    Barack Obama as the Messiah has always been an area of fascination to me. The video Building a Religion on Obama in 2008 using the Cake song by that name was a huge hit.

    My update I did last winter than reloaded again in June not so much. It's still a good video but maybe people got tired of the subject.

    I never tire of it.

    Building a Religion 2012-Obama: We are 60 days away from fundamentally transforming the USA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxFNkNDyhos

  • rweuynbxdq||

    Here are More characteristics, novel style,varieties,and good quality low price

    http://avoo.net/ajgjk


    http://avoo.net/ajgjk

  • snorkeldogg||

    For additional clarity, here is some Obama video that looks back at his words and actions. Watch and share with others before voting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8R5GvwUFU8

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement