Because I said so.

Galactically vile Christian cleric Pat Robertson told his CBN viewers today that Haitians are “cursed” because their ancestors “swore a pact with the devil” to liberate themselves from the French in 1804. “True story.”
What else would he say? Robertson can’t let human suffering pass without finding a way to insinuate that God did it deliberately because he hates gay people, black people, Catholics, or whatever other poor dying sap he can find to cruelly mock and use to his own political and fundraising advantage.
In the wake of 9/11, he hosted Jerry Falwell on his show, The 700 Club, to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ by saying “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way” bore responsibility for the attacks and resulting deaths. Robertson nodded in agreement at his guest, adding that “we have sinned against Almighty God, at the highest level of our government, we’ve stuck our finger in your eye…. The Supreme Court has insulted you over and over again, Lord. They’ve taken your Bible away from the schools. They’ve forbidden little children to pray. They’ve taken the knowledge of God as best they can, and organizations have come into court to take the knowledge of God out of the public square of America.”
After Katrina, Robertson consulted his soothsaying cross and determined that God killed 1,000 or so poor black people because they got too many abortions: “Have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster? Could they be connected in some way?” He went on to hope that the confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice to the Supreme Court could forestall further carnage.
Pat Robertson is as hateful and seized by superstition as any Taliban mullah with a knot in his forehead from obsessively banging it into a prayer mat. The motivation for this latest proclamation is no doubt the fact that about half the people in Haiti practice voodoo, an amalgam of Catholicism and African animism that dates to the importation of West African slaves there in the 16th century, and that was common to the slaves who whose uprising against their French owners eventually became the Haitian Revolution. For a more nuanced explication Haiti’s Satanic provenance—”Government Of The Devil, By The Devil, And For The Devil”—go here.
So because the people of Haiti practice a different religion from Robertson—about which everything he knows he learned from watching The Serpent and the Rainbow—it follows that their historic liberation in a bloody war must have been the result of a negotiation with a malevolent supernatural being who intervenes in worldly affairs. And every tragedy that has befallen their ancestors since has been deliberately directed at them by an all-powerful and loving god who wants to kill them, repeatedly, because they gained freedom by striking a deal with his enemy.
Who’s the fucking witch doctor?
UPDATE: A spokesman for Robertson e-mailed Politico’s Ben Smith to helpfully explain that “countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries…believe the country is cursed,” so Robertson was relying on sound scholarly research in tracing the cataclysmic earthquake to a well-documented pact with Satan that the people of Haiti entered into at the turn of the 19th century.
On today’s The 700 Club, during a segment about the devastation, suffering and humanitarian effort that is needed in Haiti, Dr. Robertson also spoke about Haiti’s history. His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed.
Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath.
If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering.
[Via Politico.]
This is an expanded version of Sanders’s comments in the print edition.
One year ago the nation gave a collective sigh of relief as the worst and least popular administration in modern American history came to an end. Not only was the Bush administration heading out the door, but the Republican Party was reeling from two consecutive elections in which it suffered massive losses at all levels.
With a huge taxpayer bailout attempting to prop up a reckless and greedy financial system on the verge of collapse; with 700,000 workers a month losing their jobs in the worst recession since the 1930s; with the continuation of a war in Iraq that we never should have gotten into; with a rapidly increasing national debt caused largely by that unpaid-for war as well as tax breaks for the rich; and with the continued refusal to address or even acknowledge the crisis in global warming, the American people were ready for change.
In Senator Barack Obama, Americans at every level reached out to an inspiring young leader who, through a brilliant campaign, brought enormous energy into the political process. Young people who had never given much thought about elections were not only registering to vote in record-breaking numbers, but their newly tapped idealism was leading them to actively participate in the campaign. Workers and their unions, who were victims of corporate greed and the ongoing collapse of the middle class, were determined to elect political leadership that represented ordinary Americans, not just the wealthy and large corporations. Women, who had battled for eight years to maintain the reproductive and legal rights they had struggled for over generations, were eagerly awaiting an administration that was on their side. Seniors, who were tired of hearing about Republican efforts to privatize Social Security and Medicare, wanted a president who understood the importance of those vital federal safety-net programs. And minorities and people of color, some of whom had experienced the hurt and humiliation of American apartheid, were ecstatic that the dream of a nondiscriminatory society was taking a giant step forward. The result: with a strong voter turnout, Barack Obama was elected president; the Democrats picked up twenty-one seats in the House and seven in the Senate (eight by the time Al Franken survived a recount and court challenge).
That was then, one very long year ago. Where are we now?
Today, having already experienced decisive losses in governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia, the Democratic prospects for 2010 appear bleak. Polls show President Obama’s approval numbers sagging and some recent “generic ballots” show Republican candidates ahead of Democratic candidates–a huge turnaround over the course of the year. Perhaps most ominously, these new polls show that enthusiasm and interest in voting among Republicans is far higher than with Democrats. Given that off-presidential-year elections (voter participation could fall by 50 million this year compared to 2008) are often dominated by older and more conservative voters, a particularly low voter turnout among Democrats this fall could result in disaster for them. Why has this occurred? What can be done within the next few months to turn this scenario around?
In my view, the Democrats–including the president–have absurdly continued to stumble along the path of “bipartisanship” at exactly the same time the Republicans have waged the most vigorous partisan and obstructionist strategy in recent history.
Instead of making it clear that the first two years of the Obama administration would be about digging the country out of the incredible mess that Bush’s eight years left us in, (deep recession, financial collapse, record-breaking deficits, disintegrating healthcare system, two wars, lack of respect from the international community, neglect of the environment), Obama, incredibly, has enabled tens of millions of Americans to now believe that Bush’s failures are his as well.
Unlike FDR in 1933, who consistently denounced Hoover’s Republican policies as the cause of the country’s perilous condition, Obama appears very reluctant to be partisan and point out to the American people the cause of our current crises. Can one imagine Obama, for example, telling the American people as Roosevelt did in 1936, “I welcome” the “hatred” of the “economic royalists” whose greed has devastated the country?
In response to Obama’s genteel and bipartisan outreach, the Republicans have undertaken an unprecedented campaign of rhetorical savagery. The Right-Wing Echo Chamber of Fox News and talk-radio has implied that Obama is an “illegitimate” president not born in the United States, that he is a friend of terrorists, that he is an antiwhite racist, that he rules unconstitutionally and that his administration reeks of Chicago-style corruption. And those are the respectful attacks!
In the overwhelmingly Democratic Senate the situation has been equally dismal. There, the Senate Finance Committee created a Gang of Six that included three Republicans–two of whom (Grassley and Enzi) are extremely conservative–to determine the shape of healthcare reform. Amid cries of “death panels,” “socialized medicine” and “government takeover of health care,” the meetings dragged on and on. On the floor of the Senate, the situation has been even worse. The Republicans have played the most obstructionist role ever with a record number of filibusters and other delaying tactics. The Republicans recently even voted temporarily to deny funds to our troops in the field of combat as a way to delay healthcare reform. They are also unanimous in opposing the increase in the debt limit, which if not raised would likely cause the collapse of both the American and the international financial systems.
The result of all this is that Democrats of every stripe and many independents are perplexed, dispirited and sometimes disgusted. Constituency after constituency has been ignored or rejected. Some examples:
Progressive activists are angry that a Medicare-for-all single-payer approach was totally ignored during the healthcare debate. They also cannot understand how, despite overwhelming support for a strong public option in healthcare reform, there will not be one in the final bill. Trade unionists, many of whom voted for Obama and against McCain because of the latter’s position on taxing workers’ healthcare benefits, are apoplectic that Obama and Senate Democrats now support the McCain position. Women are outraged that the Democratic House was put in the position of having to support major restrictions with regard to abortion rights. And seniors, who for the first time in forty-five years will not be receiving a Social Security cost of living adjustment, are responding to the hypocritical Republican attacks about “cuts” in Medicare.
Now, I may not be the greatest political strategist in the world, but I don’t know how you win elections by ignoring the ideas of the progressives who have worked hardest at the grassroots level for your victories, or the trade unions that have provided significant financial support and door-to-door volunteers for Democratic campaigns. I don’t know how you succeed politically when you insult women, who far more than men consistently provide you with great margins of support. How do you preserve a big majority in Congress when you fail to be aggressive in protecting the interests of seniors, a huge voting bloc in off-presidential-year elections? In other words, it should not surprise anyone that the Democrats are in serious trouble.
The time is short but I believe that the Democrats still have the potential to reverse their fortunes and bring out large numbers of their voters in the coming election. Here are some important steps forward that I believe should be undertaken in the coming months.
§?Perhaps most important, let Obama be Obama. Bring back one of the great inspirational leaders of our time, who is more than capable of taking on the powerful special interests and rallying the American people toward a progressive agenda and a more just society. We have too quickly cast aside the audacity of hope as being too audacious. We need to aspire to more, not less: healthcare for all, education for all, a secure retirement for all, a world at peace and a nation bound together by looking out for what the Constitution called “the general welfare” rather than a series of special interests looking out for their own financial wellbeing.
§?Pass the strongest healthcare reform legislation as soon as feasible – making it clear that it will be significantly improved in the near future. While it was a tragic mistake to believe that a strong bill could pass under the provision that required sixty votes–there was a procedural route that would have required only a simple majority–this legislation does contain a number of provisions that will profoundly help tens of millions of Americans in every state in the country. It is a bill that can be successfully defended in a campaign because, whatever its many weaknesses, it is an indication that we are finally, after countless decades of futility, moving forward. A president and a party that can provide insurance for 31 million more Americans is far preferable to most voters than a party that only says “No.”
§?Pass a major bill that creates millions of new jobs rebuilding our infrastructure and moving our energy system in a different and sustainable direction. At a time when we have the most inequitable distribution of wealth and income of any industrialized nation, this bill must be progressively funded. This means taxing the super-rich–the very people whom George W. Bush served so assiduously–in order to make life better for the average American family.
§?Pass legislation allowing workers to have the right to join unions without unfair and illegal opposition from their employers. If we are going to reverse the race to the bottom, workers must have the right to engage in collective bargaining.
§?Boldly address the economic and financial crisis, which has left 17 percent of our workforce unemployed or underemployed. This means that the Democrats must be prepared to take quick and decisive action against Wall Street and other Big Money interests, whose uncontrolled greed have lowered our standard of living and wreaked havoc on the middle class. Among other actions, we should: pass a strong anti-usury law that limits the interest rates that banks charge on credit cards. We must break up the huge financial institutions that are “too big to fail”–if they are too big to fail, they are too big to exist. We must significantly increase transparency at the Federal Reserve, and replace chairman Ben Bernanke, a major economic adviser in the Bush administration, with a progressive economist who understands that one of the Fed’s core missions is full employment. We must either limit, or levy high taxes on, the bonuses paid by financial institutions.
§?In the midst of these terrible economic times, we must continue the effort, which Democrats have already pushed, to strengthen the safety net. If the Republicans oppose these efforts, we must make this a major campaign issue. Millions of Americans face unemployment, hunger, homelessness and a desperate existence. This includes senior citizens living on inadequate Social Security benefits, people with disabilities and disabled veterans. In these difficult times we cannot turn our backs on them.
§?Enact Senate reform. It is extremely undemocratic that forty-one percent of the US Senate can thwart the will of the American people, the president, the House of Representatives and a strong majority of the Senate. While individual senators will always have great clout, no one senator should be able to bring the U government to a halt at one of the most perilous periods in American history.
In January 2009 we inaugurated a new president and swore in a new Congress with large Democratic majorities in the Senate and the House. Our nation seemed poised on the brink of a decade of progressive government, a new ascendency of hope and change after eight disastrous years of Republican dominance. One year later the new electoral majority is disintegrating under the weight of continuous Republican attacks and, more important, an unwillingness of both Congress and the president to rally the American people behind the kind of fundamental changes they were anticipating as a result of the election.
We can learn from the past. The last time our nation faced economic challenges as great as our own, Franklin Roosevelt embraced progressive social policies and major financial and economic reform. The nation did not ignore or forget his commitment to help American families, provide aid to the disadvantaged and take on the moneyed powers of Wall Street. Roosevelt’s greatest political legacy was to build a coalition of Americans from across the country who understood that, if they stood together under a progressive banner, life could be better for the average person. Now is the time to remember that lesson.
Bernie Sanders, a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus, is the longest-serving Independent in US Congressional history. more…
President Obama is moving, gingerly, to help elect Democrat Martha Coakley in the suddenly-competitive January 19 special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat that was held for 46 years by Obama’s friend and supporter Ted Kennedy.
But the key word is “gingerly.”
The president is not going to make a big, high-profile swing through Massachusetts, a state he won with ease in 2008. Instead, he will appear once on the Sunday before the election — undoubtedly on friendly turf — and then rely on targeted phone calls and web campaigning to aid Coakley.
The final call on whether to send the president to Boston was made after a review of late tracking polls, which were analyzed to determine whether an appearance was needed to help the embattled Democrat — or, to be more precise, to determine whether a presidential visit would help or harm Democratic prospects.
With turnout for the special election expected to be very low, there are more than a few Democratic strategists who fear an Obama visit might do more to energize conservatives who will vote for Republican Scott Brown than liberals who have been somewhat disappointed by Coakley’s cautious campaign – and, when it comes to issues of war and peace and health-care reform, very disappointed in the president.
But the call was made late Friday to put Obama in the state, which is actually a positive sign for Coakley. It means the White House thinks she can win, and that it is worth risking some of the president’s political capital to close the deal.
In the meantime, Obama has taped a web video and phone calls that will be targeted to the homes of friendly voters.
Here’s what the president says:
Hi, this is President Barack Obama. I rarely make these calls and I truly apologize for intruding on your day. But I had to talk to you about the election in Massachusetts on Tuesday because the stakes are so high.In Washington, I’m fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry that routinely denies care. I’m fighting for financial reforms to stop Wall Street from playing havoc with our economy. I’m fighting to create a new clean energy economy and it’s clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the United States Senate.
We know where Martha Coakley stands. As your attorney general, Martha has taken on Wall Street’s schemes, insurance company abuses and big polluters on your behalf. She represents the best progressive values of Massachusetts. She‘ll be your voice and my ally.
But a lot of people don’t even realize there is an election on Tuesday to fill the unexpired term of Ted Kennedy. They don’t realize why it’s so important. So please, come out to vote for Martha Coakley. And make sure everyone you know understands the stakes for their families, Massachusetts and our country.
Obama really does not like to do “robocalls,” which many voters find annoying — and which are not exactly presidential. And he avoided getting personally involved in special elections during his first year in office.
But Democratic concerns about the Massachusetts contest are mounting, and for good reason.
Massachusetts has not voted for a Republican for the U.S. Senate since Richard Nixon was in his first term as president, so there are still a good many pols who cannot believe Coakley — the state’s Attorney General — could really be in trouble.
The polls have been all over the place, with some conducted in the last week suggesting that the Democrat is comfortably ahead and others placing her in a dead heat with Brown. One late poll actually put Brown narrowly ahead. Two generally well-regarded DC-based political analysis operations, the Cook Political Report and the Rothenberg Political Report, have changed their rating of the race to “toss up.”
A Coakley defeat would not merely be embarrassing.
It could deal a blow to Obama’s health-care reform agenda.
Republican Brown, a state senator, has been running a right-wing populist campaign in which he notes that his election could rob Democrats of the 60th vote they need to secure health-care reform.
That sort of talk has energized conservatives and in a low-turnout election, motivated conservatives and disengaged Democrats could conceivably turn the very blue state of Massachusetts temporarily red.
Coakley is still very much in the running.
She got her wake-up call early, and Democratic party operatives and unions have been mobilized to drag voters to the polls for the candidate. They’re spending heavily, taking shots at Brown, bringing former President Bill Clinton in to rally the troops and now calling the president into battle.
“It’s an important Senate seat. That is why the president is going,” declared White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Friday.
Gibbs was at pains to emphasize that the Massachusetts contest should not be seen as a referendum on Obama’s presidency. “We’re not on the ballot,” the press secretary said.’
But that’s absurd.
Obama’s record is a major factor, not just with conservatives but with liberals, who have grown increasingly disenchanted with the president.
With that in mind,Democratic insiders are also doing something smart, for a change. They are reaching out to progressives who did not back Coakley in the Democratic primary.
Progressive Democrats of America, which has a strong presence in western Massachusetts, backed Coakley more aggressively progressive and populist primary challenger, Congressman Mike Capuano, is contacting all its members with a letter from the state’s most outspoken anti-war congressman, Jim McGovern.
In it McGovern writes:
As the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts tightens up, we need to make certain that a large progressive vote comes out and supports Martha Coakley.I supported Mike Capuano in the Democratic primary, in large part, because he shared my strong opposition to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mike ran a good campaign and I was proud to be with him.
I’m also proud to be with Martha.
She is opposed to the War in Iraq and to the administration’s Afghanistan policy. Her opponent, a Bush-Cheney clone, favors both wars and supports the U.S. Military escalation in Afghanistan.
Right wing money from all over the country is pouring into Massachusetts to defeat Martha. The far right wants not only to put one of their own in the U.S. Senate–but also to win the seat that Ted Kennedy once had. They are hoping to discredit Ted Kennedy’s legacy–a legacy dedicated to peace and justice.
If we are ever going to stop needless wars, we must elect more like-minded people. That is why it is so important that we elect Martha Coakley.
There is so much at stake. Please call your friends. Send emails, hold a sign or do whatever you can to get Martha elected on Tuesday, January 19th.
Elections do matter; and this election matters more than most. Thanks for your help. I am grateful for all that you do for Massachusetts and the country.
With friendship,
Congressman Jim McGovern
The McGovern letter is an important piece of the puzzle for Coakley’s campaign. As PDA director Tim Carpenter notes, Massachusetts is not just a Democratic state, it is a generally progressive state — especially on a host of national issues. And many progressives have been disappointed by Obama’s moves to surge more troops into Afghanistan and to advance a cautious health-care reform proposal.
McGovern, a leading critic of the Afghanistan surge and an ardent backer of real reform, is the right man to speak to disenchanted Democrats — and, the Coakley camp certainly hopes, to get them to the polls on Tuesday.
Are you a Christian who doesn’t feel represented by the religious right? I know the feeling. When the discourse about faith is dominated by political fundamentalists and social conservatives, many others begin to feel as if their religion has been taken away from them.
The number of Christians misrepresented by the Christian right is many. There are evangelical Protestants who believe strongly that Christianity should not get too close to the corrupting allure of government power. There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women’s equality and a multi-faith society. There are very orthodox believers who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is. They have no problem living next to an atheist or a gay couple or a single mother or people whose views on the meaning of life are utterly alien to them–and respecting their neighbors’ choices. That doesn’t threaten their faith. Sometimes the contrast helps them understand their own faith better.
And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God’s real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple? Also, faith for many of us is interwoven with doubt, a doubt that can strengthen faith and give it perspective and shadow. That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one’s beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.
I would say a clear majority of Christians in the U.S. fall into one or many of those camps. Yet the term “people of faith” has been co-opted almost entirely in our discourse by those who see Christianity as compatible with only one political party, the Republicans, and believe that their religious doctrines should determine public policy for everyone. “Sides are being chosen,” Tom DeLay recently told his supporters, “and the future of man hangs in the balance! The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will.” So Christ is a conservative Republican?
Rush Limbaugh recently called the Democrats the “party of death” because of many Democrats’ view that some moral decisions, like the choice to have a first-trimester abortion, should be left to the individual, not the cops. Ann Coulter, with her usual subtlety, simply calls her political opponents “godless,” the title of her new book. And the largely nonreligious media have taken the bait. The “Christian” vote has become shorthand in journalism for the Republican base.
What to do about it? The worst response, I think, would be to construct something called the religious left. Many of us who are Christians and not supportive of the religious right are not on the left either. In fact, we are opposed to any politicization of the Gospels by any party, Democratic or Republican, by partisan black churches or partisan white ones. “My kingdom is not of this world,” Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand?
So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
That’s what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn’t. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It’s time the quiet majority of believers took it back.
Visit Andrew Sullivan’s blog, The Daily Dish, at time.com