Stephanopoulos Hosts Democrat's Book Party

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

George Stephanopoulos and Michael Sean Winters, photo by Chris Leaman as screencapped from Washingtonian magazine online | NewsBusters.orgGeorge Stephanopoulos might be Chief Washington Correspondent of ABC News, but that apparently doesn’t stop him from hosting partisan book parties at his Georgetown home for Democratic authors trying to help the Democrats "get religion" and nab some more voters of faith. In Thursday’s Washington Post, religion reporter Michelle Boorstein wrote a story boosting the new book by Michael Sean Winters on wooing Catholics back into the Democratic fold:

All the pieces were there for a classic Washington celebrity book party: George Stephanopoulos's gorgeously appointed Georgetown home, media glitterati like Chris Matthews milling around, a book about politics, a bunch of priests.

A bunch of priests?

If anything embodied the complicated, shifting and sort of weird relationship between politics and religion these days -- particularly on the left -- it was the party Tuesday night for local writer Michael Sean Winters's new book: "Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The Washingtonian magazine website has pictures from the fete. (Unsurprisingly, Post columnist E. J. Dionne was also there for the religious-left gathering.) Stephanopoulos and Winters are apparently long-time friends. Winters managed the Washington bookstore Kramerbooks and Afterwords, and Stephanopoulos used to live above the bookstore when he first came to DC. The Winters bio touts a plug from Stephanopoulos:

In 2002, National Journal’s Hotline asked George Stephanopoulos, "Who is the most important person in Washington nobody has ever heard of?" He replied, "Michael Sean Winters."

Boorstein added color to the party scene:

The gay Jamaican insurance adjuster by the hummus was talking about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and how everyone would have ignored the Chicago minister had he been railing against gays and lesbians. The priest standing near Stephanopoulos's massive seashell collection was talking about how Pope John Paul II urged clergy to stay out of American politics, which is "the bread and butter of American culture." Winters, a former seminarian and political speechwriter, pined for the days when church officials made radio speeches paid for by the Democratic Party.

In a nation founded with a separation of church and state, "we have certain ideas about how religion and politics mix, where the line is....The line shifts, and Democrats have been on the losing side of that line, and we have to figure out how to be on the winning side," Winters told the crowd from the landing of the foyer's grand staircase, prompting an "mm-hmm."

Lately Americans across the political spectrum have been embroiled in debates about what is the proper place of religion in politics. Winters argues that it should be obvious that John F. Kennedy was wrong when he said religion is "a private affair"; instead it is the starting point for tens of millions of Americans when they describe why they believe what they do.

Not everyone at the party was completely won over by that idea. Wieseltier said the Democrats' deliberate pursuit of the faith mantle was a bit "cynical."

"Liberalism doesn't have to be hostile to religion, but it has to be skeptical of all absolute claims in the public realm. This idea that everyone should rush into each other's arms because that's how [Karl] Rove got [George] Bush elected is odd and unattractive."

This isn't the first time the Post has boosted Winters. At the end of March, Winters wrote a piece for the Sunday Outlook section touting how Pope Benedict would be dramatically at odds with President Bush on foreign policy when he visited America. George Weigel rebutted the piece on National Review Online, charging it had "won the pole position in this year’s chase for the coveted Father Richard McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology."

Screen capture above from Washingtonian magazine's Web site. The photo, taken by Chris Leaman, is of George Stephanopoulos with author Michael Sean Winters. 

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Just another Balkanized demographic

Democrats don't view people as gifts from God.  They view them as groups to be pitted against one another:  Blacks v Hispanics v Asians v Whites, Gay v Straight, Religious v Secular, Men v Women.  This is why we have the constant class warfare sponsored by these bozos and why if you cross the line to Conservatism you're an Uncle Tom.  If you cross the line to liberalism, all sins are forgiven, including your skin color (Fr. Pflegler) and  abominable womanizing (Clinton, Kennedy, et al.).

Rather than offer Catholics a plank in their party (e.g., Pro-life) they are looking to splinter them.  Sadly, there are enough Quislings in the "Catholic" pews to embarrass the devout.

Sadly, the unnamed priest who claims that JPII urged the clergy to stay out of American politics was either misquoted, ignorant or duplicitous.  JPII constantly advocated for all Catholics (clergy included) to transform their cultures in the image of Christ.  He specifically pled for pro-life advocacy and mutual forgiveness.

Nobody will mistake the Dems for being pro-life.  As for mutual forgiveness, this is anathema to Dems whose political strategy is Balkanization.

Excellent point winglet

There are almost no pro-life Democrats anymore. There used to be a lot of them. The Senate confirmation vote for Alito tells the story as only about 4 Dems (about 10%) voted for his confirmation.

We can all hope for...

We can all hope for Stephanopoulos's continued fairness and objectivity in his presentation of the news. It's what we have come to expect. No?

→ Thalpy

Now try to say that without laughing.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

But there's no liberal MSM

But there's no liberal MSM bias, right all you bias deniers out there?

Progressive

P.r.o.g.r.e.s.s.i.v.e is the new buzz word. Liberal has been eclipsed by a more enlightened way of looking at the world.

sarc

Progressive

oops a two fer!

Liberal Catholicism

First, Catholics have a point of view about moral values, and a highly developed clerical authority system. As Catholics, we have every right to bring our moral perspective to the public square. We have absolutely no right, however, to impose our authority system on anyone else. Fine. We know that, and have known it for a long time.

JFK's speech, however, obscured that point. But I digress ...

Second, the Left created the myth that conservatives wallow in social issues like abortion, but abandon our fellow human beings when it comes to their daily needs. That's the animus behind the "ignore them after they're born" crap. It's a self-serving stereotype that has no basis.

On the contrary, conservatism is deeply concerned about the full range of human needs, but we take a much more strategic path to fulfilling them. Conservatives believe that government is a tool among many, and while it's suited for some tasks, it shouldn't be used to "fix" everything. Liberals have only one tool: redistributive taxes.

Ask a liberal what you've done for your fellow man, and he'll only recognize one measurement: how much money you've put into a government program.

The stereotype leads liberals to believe that if they can just explain how they're more compassionate overall, and not just focused on narrow social issues, the voters will flock back to them. In other words, this is the liberal version of "they'll greet us as liberators."

Great Points KC - The only ignoring is going on by Dems

They ignore peoples rights before they are born (they have no right to be born), after they are born(they have no right to free speech or free expression of their religion), and when they are dying (they have no right to live if their husband wants them dead).

Conservatives give a larger percentage of their money and time into charitable endeavors. They support free speech and free expression of religion and the right for people to have control over their own lives. They also care about the unborn and the dying and their rights.

 

Priests and libs? Uh oh!

I hope to see the press coverage of the priests at the old Stephy residence getting Chris Matthews and the other lbs' head spinning and spewing pea soup all over Georges' Hepplewhites and Persian carpets.

Stop it! They're getting vomit all over my Louis XIV furniture! - - Stephenopolous begging the priests to stop yelling 'The power of Christ compels you!'

gorgeously appointed?

Now I know that journalists and Democrats are "for the people" and "down with the working man."  But did anybody notice that this piece led off by saying Stephanapolous' home was "gorgeously appointed"?

1) What does that even mean?

2) Who did the "appointing"?  Does this mean he has a personal interior designer?  With gas prices as they are now, I may have to cut back on my interior designer consumption.

3) It obviously implies that outward apperance (in this case how the home is decorated) is more important than substance. 

4) We have to put something in about Stephie's home early in the article to stroke his ego.

5) I'm very disappointed in Tim Graham's use of the word "fete" (unless it was tongue in cheek).

6) Does anybody notice how the "great papers of substance" always have several pages of photos of people at "galas and fetes"?  The pictures always look the same.  It is just a way of people saying that "I was at this event.  I am soooo important.  Look at me.  Look at me." 

 

<insert witty signature here>

Update: Gorgeously Appointed

I looked at the pictures and Wow!

Not only is the house "gorgeously appointed" but the people are soooooo beautiful as well! 

<insert witty signature here>

Priests in Politics

From one thing in this story, it seems that Michael Sean (Puffy D) Winters got at least one thing wrong (or misinterpreted).

He mentioned how John Paul II warned priests about getting involved in politics in the 1980s.  This was not so much that the Catholic Church wanted to remain out of politics, as it was the Church wanted to speak with one voice.  It didn't want to have 1,000 different priests giving 1,000 different opinions on abortion, etc.

<insert witty signature here>

When they say "Catholics",

When they say "Catholics", don't the Dems mean rust belt union workers of Polish, Irish, or Italian extraction? Forget that religion part...