Obama, Fabrications, & the Baby Splitter

This story at the Baptist Press is not surprising: President Obama's use of "fabrications" to describe claims by pro-life critics of his health care plan's coverage of abortion. FactCheck.org, a non-partisan site, sides with the President's critics on this one.

I say it's not surprising because I've come to expect such things. Obama sees himself as someone who helps bring conflicting sides together. As the editor of an ecumenical magazine and as director for a fellowship of Christians who are committed as Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox to their churches, I understand the natural desire to try to see many things from both sides of an issue--to a point, of course, and our readers like the edges of our traditions kept clear and sharp, all the same ("The Divisions We Must Sustain," as we titled one of our conferences.) Of course, I like to find ways to help one side at least appreciate where the other really stands, and not revert to caricatures that may be tried but not true.

But you can't paper over everything. You can't, despite what the ELCA recently decided (it decided not to decide, but then went on to decide--a head feint) to respect both parties in the homosexualist debate. For some things, you can't, as they say, have it both ways.

Well, then, back to President Obama, and why I am not surprised by a very elastic use of language and meanings. I blame my knowing this on an RNS story, which I saw this summer but was unable to write about earlier. You'll see by the end, from the quote from Ralph Reed, why I expect our duly elected President to generally seek to come away from engagements with his suit never wrinkled.

Seminar Bedfellows
IN 1997, at a Harvard seminar on “social capital,” first-term state senator Barack Obama sat down with the Rev. Jim Wallis (of Sojourners), Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. Also on hand, among several dozen participants, was black Houston megachurch pastor Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who became a spiritual adviser to both former President George W. Bush and President Obama.

The so-called Saguaro Seminar was established in 1997 by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam. He brought together a “diverse group of pastors, politicians, pundits, artists, academics and community organizers” to meet every few months for three years “to talk about how we can begin to reweave the fabric of American community,” he said in a recent interview.

Participants have enjoyed influence. Both Stephen Goldsmith and John DiIulio, intimately involved with the White House faith-based office under George W. Bush, attended the seminar. And now Obama has filled top White House posts with Saguaro alumni. Wallis and Caldwell are now close spiritual advisers.

According to Daniel Burke of Religion News Service, Obama has “implemented a host of ideas kicked around those tables 10 years ago. In ways large and small—from extending an olive branch to Muslims overseas to revamping the White House faith-based office to seeking common ground on abortion, Obama has echoed themes straight from the Saguaro playbook.”

Ralph Reed said that it was clear back in 1997 that Obama was “going places.” “He wanted to be able to turn to the conservative and say, ‘I want to talk to you,’ and turn to the liberal and say, ‘I want to talk to you,’ and he would wind up pleasing nobody,” Reed recalled. “He’s always trying to split the baby.” (Source: Religion News Service)

Comments

[pilgrim kate]

Reed: "He's always trying to split the baby."

Just wondering how many people, especially journalists of the mainstream media, know the provenance of this comment.

[Rob G]

We now hear from the White House that the budget deficit under Obama's plans will reach $9 trillion rather than the $7.1 trillion originally stated. And this from the liberal Washington Post, which finds these numbers very problematic. When even the lefty newspapers start saying there's a problem here, guess what? There's a problem here!

We will be spending/borrowing more $$$ as percentage of GDP then we were spending during WWII. Let that sink in a bit.

But I'm sure the Dear Leader's defenders will have ought to say about this. After all, what's a couple trillion among friends, especially when you don't have to pay it back?