Tag Archives: Daily Beast

Evangelicals are splitting along gender lines


A friend made me aware of what looks like a significant development in a key part of Donald J. Trump’s coalition of political supporters.

It reveals a split among evangelical Christians. The men among them are sticking with the Republican presidential nominee. The women, however, are splitting away.

Listen to the women, fellas.


The evangelical women are aghast, appalled and repulsed by the revelations disclosed in that hideous recording of Trump boasting about his sexual proclivities.

According to an article published in The Daily Beast, one well-known evangelical preacher, Beth Moore, once was in Trump’s camp. Now she’s out, shocked and horrified at what she heard on that recording.

As The Daily Beast reported: “But something changed for Moore after Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president of the United States, was caught on tape bragging about his ability to sexual assault women. When Trump said, ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,’ Moore had had enough.”

She’s apparently not alone among women who call themselves evangelical Christians.

Also, from The Beast: “Beth Moore wasn’t alone in her condemnation of Trump. Her comments sent ripples around the evangelical world and were seconded by Christian mega-speaker and author Christine Caine. Sara Groves, the Dove Award-nominated Christian artist, told me, ‘Someone like Beth can go a long way in helping Evangelicals recognize these major blind spots.’”

We hear a lot about hypocrisy during every election cycle. This one is no different. Conservatives accuse liberals of being hypocritical by criticizing Trump’s behavior while being silent about, say, Bill Clinton’s own transgressions.

To my way of thinking, though, the greater hypocrisy occurs among conservatives — notably evangelicals — who continue to support Trump despite the candidate’s known history of behaving in ways and doing things that evangelicals say they detest.

The revelations out of Trump’s own mouth have delivered what ought to be a disqualifier among those who adhere to spiritual values. Beth Moore and other evangelical women are stepping up and declaring that, indeed, they are as disgusted as the rest of us.

End of bipartisan foreign policy?

Leslie Gelb never has struck me as a crazed, left-wing ideologue.

He still doesn’t, but he’s written a piece for the Daily Beast that paints an extremely grim picture of one of the consequences of the Republican Gang of 47’s letter to the Iranian mullahs.

He said The Letter well might destroy bipartisan foreign policy, the kind envisioned by politicians of both parties until, well, just the other day.


The headline over Gelb’s essay says that Republicans “hate Obama more than nuclear Iran.”

“Hate” is one of those words our parents have told us we shouldn’t use. Yes, I’ve referred on my blog to “Obama haters,” and I regret the use of that term. I’ll only refer to prior use of it here.

Gelb, though, wonders whether The Letter signals the end of bipartisan foreign policy, the kind that compels politicians to rally around the president as he tries to negotiate deals with foreign leaders, prosecute conflicts, wage campaigns against terrorists, stared down our nation’s enemies.

The Gang of 47 sees it differently. They were led by a wet-behind-the-ears freshman senator, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who drafted The Letter that advised Iran that it should consider rejecting a nuclear prohibition treaty because it could be overturned when President Obama leaves office in January 2017.

The blowback against the senators has been ferocious. Even some Republicans are trying to back away from it.

Gelb writes: “What the 47 did was not a trivial matter or ‘a tempest in a teapot,’ as Senator John McCain has described it. It could well affect possible Iranian concessions in the end game. The ayatollahs could well conclude from that letter that concessions they might have made just aren’t worth it politically, as the agreement would go nowhere anyway. They’d be taking political risks for nothing.”

This interference in a president’s negotiation with a hostile foreign government is unconscionable. Teapot tempest? Hardly.

I hope Gelb is wrong about the future of bipartisan foreign policy. I fear, though, that he’s right.