• Gregory Tomlin

    Yes, yes. We “evangelicals” are stupid. So stupid we don’t know when we’re being played. Thank you for validating the liberal, elitist, Democrat rhetoric about us — the poor, dumb, conservative, evangelical lot. Where would be without your satire to enlighten us on the dangers of political candidates using religion to get elected. Most amusing here is that you’re writing this letter to a GOP candidate, when Democrat candidate Bill Clinton quoted the Bible more than any president we’ve ever had. Sheesh. Too clever by half.

  • Maxwell

    Wow.. 50 percent of GOP are ridged and angry …? If generalities are allowed then let’s also be honest can say 100 percent of the Democratic Party is evil, after party heads three times voted to remove God out of their platform last presidential convention. Maybe then the reason there so much division in politics , based upon these generalities is that Christian republicans are too ridged and angry to comprise with atheists , so let’s fool them to think they are in our side and problem solved…

  • Jon

    It’s been obvious for years that the evangelicals are so deeply cowed into the pocket of the Republican party that they can be (and are) taken for granted. They are so fully fooled to vote Republican that they no longer even care about Christian beliefs – as was so clear in 2012, when they voted in droves for someone who professed that Satan is Jesus’ brother, that the traditional Trinity is wrong, and that God’s scripture includes vanishing gold plates found in New York in the 1800’s – while voting against a professed Christian. Letter to GOP hopefuls: all you need to do to win the evangelical vote is get the Republican nomination. Period. Then the evangelicals will vote for you no matter what you say or do, as the data show – because they’ve shown, repeatedly, that they are sheeple.

  • Larry

    In 35 years of Evangelical support for the GOP you guys still can’t figure out its a ploy to get poor and working class people to vote against your economic interests. That no politician seriously wants to, nor can get your agenda enacted on a national scale.

    The handful who so take it seriously beyond election time are some of the dumbest and least competent people to hold office. The evangelical voters are the only excuses for some of these civil servant meat puppets.

    The fact that you elitist and educated are pejorative words in such campaign rhetoric speaks badly of the perceived intelligence of voters being addressed by politicians. Even they think their constituents are foolish rabble.

  • Garson Abuita

    “Billy Graham was an evangelical.” Billy Graham is still alive. I’d venture to say he’s still an evangelical too.

  • Jack

    Boring…..even as satire.

    The best thing a candidate should say to white evangelicals is that if they want their social agenda to become reality, they need to knock down the wall that separates them from black evangelicals.


  • Bernardo

    Capturing white evangelicals did not help McCain or Romney as winning them showed the independent voters some significant problems with these gentlemen especially their red-neck religious beliefs..

  • Shawnie5

    “The fact that you elitist and educated are pejorative words in such campaign rhetoric…”

    “Elitist” does not equal “educated.” Democrat and Republican politicians are equally “elitist” and for them the “elite” are themselves. Democrats care as little about the poor and working class as Republicans care about abortion, immigration and their other typical talking points. They are both simply pandering to different markets for power while taking care that nothing they do in the pandering process seriously jeopardizes their own economic interests. Hence the Dem voters’ perennial calls for “soaking the rich,” raising capital gains taxes and the like…all directed towards their champions who are themselves invested up to their eyebrows in the market and are certainly not going to hurt their own fortunes and those of their children, though of course they’ll assure you that they’d LIKE to if only the Repubs would cooperate…

  • Larry

    It certainly does when used by most politicians in such a manner. The deliberate appeals to mob mentality certainly don’t disabuse the notion.

    Evangelical Christians are not known for their devotion to strengthening public education, education of established scientific principles, or protections of academic freedoms. Lets face it if a good number of your constituents support public teaching of creationism, you are speaking to people who are not going to be considered the brightest bulbs of the bunch.

  • Larry

    “The best thing a candidate should say to white evangelicals is that if they want their social agenda to become reality, they need to knock down the wall that separates them from black evangelicals.”

    But the whole closet racism thing keeps that from happening. White evangelicals like demonizing black communities if not directly than through “dog whistle” rhetoric.

    You are not going to make headway when you still have people of prominence saying stupid things like “slavery wasn’t so bad”





  • Ted

    Yes, be sure to pour more hatred on the LGBT people, just like Jesus told us to, somewhere (doesn’t really matter where, any competent Evangelical can find a Bible quote to “prove” anything); and be sure to remind us how persecuted we are for standing up against all the parts of God’s own creation that he hates as badly as we do.

    That’s what wins the Evangelicals: strident, tightly focused hatred.

  • Shawnie5

    “Lets face it if a good number of your constituents support public teaching of creationism, you are speaking to people who are not going to be considered the brightest bulbs of the bunch.”

    LOL! As opposed to the “bulbs” whose votes the Dems count on? “Creationism? What’s that?”

  • Max Fenster

    The problem with persuading support from the evangelicals is that it can’t be kept a secret from other voters. One step forward, two steps back.

  • Jack

    Larry, just for accuracy’s sake, your final link on your list cites Michael Medved, who is not an evangelical but a well-known modern Orthodox Jew.

    My sole point in my post was that white evangelicals are missing an obvious piece to the social or cultural conservative puzzle.

  • Cranmer

    Who care? Evangelicals as a major force in American are declining and will fade away (Thankfully.) And why would the candidate need to say anything about gay marriage? It’s been settled! So has abortion!

  • Jack

    Actually, Romney did well among self-identified independent voters.

    He lost because millions of more conservative voters stayed home, as they did with McCain.

  • Jack

    Max, here’s another secret which really isn’t:

    The kinds of people who hate evangelicals that much are lost to Republicans even if they moderate their positions on social issues.

    If this were 70 years ago, before evangelicals were even in the political picture, you still would vote Republican when hell froze over.

    So Republicans would be worse than foolish to throw evangelicals overboard in pursuit of the impossible — gaining voters like you.

  • Larry

    They aren’t trying to deny 100+ years of established science in favor of glorified voodoo. That makes a bit of a difference. 🙂

  • Larry

    True enough. 🙂

    But it does demonstrate the roadblocks conservatives create in their attempts to expand their voting base outside of angry white people.

  • Larry

    Romney was not well loved by evangelical voters during the primary. The whole Mormon animosity thing got a little ugly there. Their vote was splint among a parade of unelectable people (Perry, Santorum, Bachman …)

    Romney made it through by out surviving his competition. Not flaming out or saying something truly stupid during that period. That would change once the general election started.

  • Larry

    George W. Bush severely downplayed his religious beliefs in the 2000 election and went with being the slightly conservative moderate with entitlement issues (as opposed with the slightly liberal moderate with entitlement issues he ran against). He knew he already had the Evangelical vote in the bag and seldom bothered to address them directly. For all intents and purposes he was giving the impression of a fiscal conservative.

  • Jon

    Simply and demonstrably false. Conservative voters turned out for Romney just as well as for other Republicans, looking at data back through 1976. Did you not read my earlier post? Conservatives tossed their Christianity out the window in 2012, showing that they care more about politics than about any supposed “word of God”.

    ” the conservative share of the 2012 electorate was the highest since exit polls began asking voters about their political leanings in 1976.”

    data here:

  • Bernardo

    It has a lot to do with demographics:

    To wit:

    There are roughly 55 million registered Republicans. There are roughly 72 million Democrats. And there are roughly 42 million registered independents. Add to that 30- 42 million women voters in 2015 who have had abortions since R vs W to the mix and it spells trouble for any candidate who is pro-life.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_registered_republican_voters_are_there_in_America#ixzz1n7ShWVn4

  • Shawnie5

    Well, can’t argue with that one, for the reliable Dem bulbs (pun intended) who wouldn’t even know who their candidates were if there were not capital D’s next to their names generally don’t get as far as examining any kind of scientific claims

  • Rick McCown

    Though I respect you immensely, this seems a little mean-spirited and condemning. Maybe I’m not fully appreciating the satirical value.

  • David Lloyd-Jones


    OK, you’ve spewed now. Do you have a point in there anywhere?


  • Eric

    “Where would be without your satire to enlighten us on the dangers of political candidates using religion to get elected.”

    Probably were you are now: bought and sold by the GOP. If white evangelicals are as “enlightened” about the the dangers of politics as you seem to believe, then why do they continue to be duped into supporting fools and liars and into hating everyone those fools and liars tell them to hate?

  • Steve Clunn

    I’m a progressive Christian and certainly not a traditional “evangelical,” and certainly sickenned by the thought of fundamentalism… but I have to admit that I’m pretty offended for those who do refer to themselves as “evangelicals,” white or otherwise! Why, would a person of faith like Rev. Dr. David Gushee, insinuate that evangelicals are so blind to blatant manipulation? More importantly in my ethical understanding of faithful discipleship: what is the “Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics” doing promoting such unethical behavior among politicians in the GOP? Where are your morals, sir?

  • Jack

    Ah…..long story…..Impossible to cover adequately in a word-limited post.

    The problem isn’t ideology, but rather, a country that still has, as its most segregated hour, 11 AM on Sunday mornings. Conservatives are saying, “why can’t people just consider themselves as plain old people, regardless of race,” whereas black Americans are saying, “you guys still don’t understand and are clueless,” and then liberal whites chime in by calling non-liberals racists, even as they, as white liberals, effectively betray the racial equality they profess by proposing separate standards for whites and people of color in every arena of life — thus maintaining a demeaning apartheid system of separate-and-unequal for behavior and performance.

    Eventually, this country is going to get it right, I hope, on racial equality, but we’re far from there yet.

  • Jack

    Romney was the only potentially presidential character on the GOP stage that year. The rest of them were mostly legislative types without any evidence of executive ability. Many were also gaffe machines with zero message discipline.

    So Republicans were right to nominate him…..he was by far the best of a non-presidential bunch.

    I don’t think Romney’s Mormonism kept conservatives home. Remember, many of these folks love Glenn Beck, a Mormon. Occam’s Razor suggests something a lot more obvious — Romney’s history of not being a conservative. Basically, he changed his views on key issues by 2008, in time for his first presidential run. And conservatives who knew his history took note of it. In addition, the similarities between RomneyCare in Massachusetts and Obamacare were too obvious to ignore.

  • Jack

    I’ll have to read Karl’s article, which I heard about but missed. I think he’s wrong but let’s see.

  • Mick Bronson

    Dear sir:

    You are no Stephen Colbert.

    If you have to tell the audience it’s satire, then it’s not. No matter how funny you think it is; no matter how stupid you think evangelical voters are; and no matter how worthy you deem said voters as targets of your unskilled attempt at wit, you simply come off sounding bitter.

    Your piece is neither awe-inspiring or laugh-out-loud funny. In point of fact, it serves no purpose other than to showcase your tired sensibilities and clichéd ideology.

  • RustBeltRick

    How to win evangelicals: Make this election, like all the others since 1980, about abortion. Especially helpful would be the release of three troubling videos at just the right moment. Presto, they won’t ask, or care about, any other issue. The bridges may crumble and the seas may rise and the air filled with poison, but they vote on abortion and abortion only. The political group that pumped those videos out better be getting paid a lot, because they just re-wedged the greatest wedge issue in the history of U.S. politics.

  • Bernardo

    Amen to that. And see my comments above about the abortion demographics to see the numerical consequences.

  • Larry

    “Why, would a person of faith like Rev. Dr. David Gushee, insinuate that evangelicals are so blind to blatant manipulation? ”

    47 years of voting habits documented by exit polls comes to mind.

  • Larry

    Anyone who can say with a straight face and with a good deal of support behind them that “slavery wasn’t so bad”, is going to be far too far gone from reality to even attempt to garner the votes of African Americans. You can’t curry the vote for a group in one hand and then insult them in another.

  • Larry

    “He lost because millions of more conservative voters stayed home”

    “I don’t think Romney’s Mormonism kept conservatives home.”

    Which was it Jack? 🙂

    Hurricane Sandy + 2 fake fundraisers pretty much doomed him on the East Coast. Holding a phony fundraiser in Ohio for those left homeless/in distress in a horrific storm hitting NY and NJ was a bit crass.

  • Jack

    Larry, why respond to posts you don’t read carefully? Reread mine and you’ll see I attributed Romney’s problem with conservative evangelicals to his changing his views just in time for his first foray into presidential elections. The Mormon part doesn’t explain it, because a well-known Mormon, Glenn Beck, had no such problem with that constituency. Conservative evangelicals would rather vote for a genuinely conservative Mormon than, for example, a liberal evangelical.

  • Jack

    Bernardo, we’ve been through this before…..the key is not just voter positioning on issues, but voter prioritizing of issues. Learn the difference, for it is crucial.

  • Jack

    Actually, RustBeltRick, for most evangelicals, there is no tradeoff between these issues and abortion, because pro-choice politicians (1) are apparently no better at fixing bridges (2) can’t stop seas from rising anymore than they can make people rise from the dead and (3) are no better than pro-life politicians at convincing most people that the “air” is worse than it was decades ago, because no people with a memory of decades ago is going to believe something which so obviously contradicts their memory.

  • Jack

    Mick, leave poor Mr. Gushee alone….he’s striving mightily to impress the “cool kids” and prove he’s not one of those de classe fundamentalists.

    The problem is — they still think he is…..

    Memor to Mr. Gushee:

    Boston, New York, and Washington are emitting a collective yawn…..

    So are Ann Arbor, Madison, Berkeley, and even Austin.

  • Jack

    If by “strengthening public education,” you mean spending more money on the nation’s worst school systems which already spend lots and get little in return, that’s certainly an Orwellian phrase.

    If by “education of established scientific principles,” you mean buying into one environmental horror tale after another, from Malthusian population boom mythologies and global cooling scares in the 1970s to blaming every threat to every creature on man-created pollution rather than natural pathogens, then, again, you’re in Orwell land.

    And if by “protection of academic freedoms,” you mean putting a chill on free speech on campuses across the nation, that, too, is Orwellian.

  • Bernardo

    And when everything is equal about the candidates except one is pro-life and one is pro-choice/pro-abortion and you have 30-43 million voters most of whom are happy they had abortions, who gets their vote? And you might add the males involved with the unplanned pregnancies. Another 30-43 million potential voters for the pro-choice/pro-abortion candidate.

  • Jack

    Bernardo, that’s just not how American voting patterns work. For one thing, a disproportionate percentage of abortions are from poor minorities, precisely the segment of the population that has the lowest voter registration and voter turnout levels. And second, as I’ve noted previously, only a tiny fraction of the voting public prioritizes the abortion issue above other issues. It’s just not a make-or-break issue with the public….it never has and since it hasn’t up until now, it probably never will be. As a pro-lifer, I wish it were higher on people’s lists of issue priorities, but it is not. That’s the reality of the matter.

  • Bernardo

    And when both candidates agree on the issues except for pro-life vs. pro-choice, the 30-43 million women, most who are happy with their abortions are going vote for the pro-choice candidate making for an easy win for the pro-choice candidate.

  • Bernardo

    Please reference your comments with proper studies to support your claims that most women who had abortions come from the poorer minorities i.e. Democrats. Actually, please reference studies for all your unsupported conclusions.

  • Pingback: Dear Hillary: Advice on faith outreach for '16 - Christians, Conflict and Change()

  • Be Brave

    If you want to read spew, then try reading Gushee’s article.

  • Sabelotodo2

    Great comment. This article illustrates teh “small thinking” of this political group–totally leaving out that very important independent block, of which I’m a part. And as a committed Christian and political independent, I want to see BOTH religious sectors–liberal and conservative, get-the-L outta politics and get back to matters spiritual, like the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the New Creation Christ came to establish. That New Creation ain’t a political block or system–it’s transformed people, and politicas can’t accomplish that!

    In my mind, God is One, Whole, unfractured, all-encompassing. All that’s partisan is partial, exclusionary, corruptible. The true love of God gets dispensed through loving individuals, not dreary bureaucrats working for government.

    Minister to our spirits, and leave us alone! We’re smart enough to manage our own political choices, like we do our choice in cars, music, entertainment, health care and financial services providers, etc.