I have to take issue with Tom Flynn from the Center for Inquiry for announcing that Obama has now lost his vote because the Democratic National Convention added “god” into the platform to avoid having the Republicans say “ZOMG, they didn’t mention God in the platform!” That was a bit of ridiculous pandering, to be sure, but it doesn’t merit this response:
I don’t know who I will vote for in November; surely I won’t vote for America’s least-repentant dog torturer. But I won’t vote for the man who silently cashiered his bold campaign stand against employment discrimination by faith-based charities in exchange for a little less condemnation by the religious Right (see my February 9 post, http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/a_clarion_call_–_and_a_bombshell_–_on_obama_and_church-state/). And I won’t vote for the man who demanded that God be rammed back into the platform even if the Democratic Party had to forgo democracy in order to pull it off.
This is a bit baffling — and I say that as someone who has long said that he cannot and will not vote for Obama. But to make that decision based on that reason? Seriously? This is taking single-issue voting to a ridiculous extreme. The “god” move by the convention was craven pandering, of course, but it seems awfully strange to me to ignore all of the far more important things Obama has done to focus on that one thing as a reason not to vote for him. If the complete rejection of the rule of law, the consistent expansion of executive power and the systematic undermining of the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers and the checks and balances in the Constitution isn’t enough to convince you not to vote for him, why would that one bit of silly but irrelevant pandering do it? Seems rather irrational to me.