Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Set your irony meters for stun, kids. The Worldnutdaily reports on a new Pew survey that shows that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to visit psychics and believe they can talk to the dead.
Democrats are far more in touch with the dead than Republicans and they also visit fortune-tellers more often, a new study reveals...The results also show that Democrats are far more likely to believe in supernatural phenomena than Republicans.
Now here's the punchline: The very next paragraph is a link to a book about the Bible and such things:
The Bible has plenty to say about communicating with the dead and dabbling with mediums, psychics, fortune-tellers, witchcraft, astrology and characters such as the devil and his wicked demons. Find out specifics in this autographed, No. 1 best-seller that champions the truth of God!
As if believing in God was not believing in the supernatural? There are a couple of fairly obvious differences between talking to psychics and talking to God. First, psychics actually exist even if their claims of supernatural powers are nonsense. Second, I don't know of any Democrat who pushes policy positions based on the "word of Sylvia Browne" (no, that was Nancy Reagan's problem).
Politics
Comments
How did they handle the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost for purposes of this poll?
Posted by: History Punk | December 16, 2009 9:30 AM
I never thought I would see the day where talking to myself was more rational; but I finally found it in WND.
And naturally; it is done to sell the Holy Bible; a book most of the audience doesn't bother to read because pissing in someone's ear is more relaxing. After all; you got to find something to do while the sexual emergency continues, right?
Thank goodness I drank my cola completely BEFORE reading this; at least my monitor would crumble like my irony meter.
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | December 16, 2009 9:32 AM
Oops; I mean "at least my monitor didn't crumble like my irony meter."
THE GRAMMAR OVERLORDS ARE ANGRY!
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | December 16, 2009 9:34 AM
"As if believing in God was not believing in the supernatural?"
It's not. The God of the Bible is not a religion, either. He is a fact. Christ's salvation of the world is as much a natural law as gravity. This is completely different from liberal superstitions (astrology, seances, Catholicism, etc), which are either wholly imaginary or inspired by demons.
Posted by: Pat Donohue | December 16, 2009 9:59 AM
So Pat, you'll provide us with evidence of your god. Shouldn't be too difficult, being a fact and all. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 16, 2009 10:03 AM
Re Pat Donohue
Catholicism a liberal superstition? Surly Mr. Donohue jests.
Posted by: SLC | December 16, 2009 10:03 AM
Thanks for clearing that up Pat.
Posted by: Caliban | December 16, 2009 10:04 AM
Maybe the WND doesn't understand what "supernatural" means. I mean, the word is somewhat contentious-- does it mean above nature or contrary to nature, and what does that mean anyway?-- but the idea of gods being supernatural is pretty non-controversial.
Yeah, but my psychic friend says that's crap. Support the free market of superstitious ideas!
Posted by: Gretchen | December 16, 2009 10:05 AM
...It's not. The God of the Bible is not a religion, either. He is a fact. Christ's salvation of the world is as much a natural law as gravity. This is completely different from liberal superstitions (astrology, seances, Catholicism, etc), which are either wholly imaginary or inspired by demons.....
That is an extraordinary claim there Pat (or the worst Poe in history since about three posts ago give or take.); so what is your extraordinary evidence?
And a BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA to you for using The Onion as a serious form of documention. That puts you in the same category as one blogger I tangled with who took The Onion's Wii's limp wristed article on injuries seriously.
Just point and laugh at the silly troll. Nothing else to see here.
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | December 16, 2009 10:06 AM
Yes Pat, Jesus is real.
So is Santa.
now go to bed like a good little boy.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 16, 2009 10:09 AM
That's a great article. I really need to start reading the Onion more regularly.
I'm convinced Pat is Poe.
Posted by: Owen | December 16, 2009 10:13 AM
Oh come on, linking to the Intelligent Falling article is pretty conclusive proof he's joking, isn't a Poe supposed to be aparody that is difficult to tell from the real thing?
Posted by: Matty | December 16, 2009 10:16 AM
Of course Pat is a Poe. And I find him very entertaining.
Posted by: John | December 16, 2009 10:19 AM
Perhaps not Sylvia Browne, but maybe séances?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/obama.seance/
Also, this...
At A Difficult Time, First Lady Reaches Out, Looks Within by Bob Woodward, The Washington Post, Sunday, June 23, 1996, p. A1, 20.
Posted by: Jim Babka | December 16, 2009 10:27 AM
Awww Pat, you had such a great Poe going and now, over the last week or two, you just seem to be mailing it in. Linking to the Onion?!?!? What is it? Too much shopping to do over the holiday season? The healthcare failure wearing you down? C'mon man, step it up, we've come to expect a far higher level of crazy Poe-i-ness from you!
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 16, 2009 10:35 AM
Re Jim Babka
I don't quite get what Mr. Babka is aiming at with the link to the article about President Obama. My reading of the article is that the president doesn't believe in communicating with the dead.
Posted by: SLC | December 16, 2009 10:36 AM
"Find out specifics in this autographed, No. 1 best-seller that champions the truth of God!"
Autographed? By whom?
Posted by: CGM3 | December 16, 2009 10:36 AM
Ebert recently wrote a pretty good article about this, saying that we should not be voting for devoutly religious or devoutly new age-y candidates, because it reflects quite poorly on their decision-making. Couldn't agree more. WND identifies a real problem here; they just fail to look in the mirror, too.
Re: Pat as a Poe... My suspicion is that there is a real Pat, and that at some point he took his ball and went home, and there is now a Poe impersonating Pat. His first few comments just seemed like the incredibly dumb and carelessly thought-out meanderings of a small-minded bigot. But now they have a sharp wit that I used to expect from mad the swine.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 16, 2009 10:37 AM
When I was a kid we were taken to a psychic. We sat in this box and spoke to him through a little screen. I told him some things I had done that I was ashamed of and he told me everything would be all right. I could ward off the evil spirits by holding some beads and saying these chants and the demons would be gone. I felt much better, so I'm pretty sure this guy was legit.
Posted by: Juice | December 16, 2009 10:38 AM
Just to be clear they are not selling Bibles, they're selling Shocked by the Bible by Joe Kovacs, who I assume is capable of autographing copies.
Oh and the money quote from their review.
"If people actually knew what was in their Bible – the astounding facts they've never heard – they'd rush to crack it open and get the surprise of their lives,"
Posted by: Matty | December 16, 2009 10:43 AM
Juice - What, he didn't try and fondle your 'naughty bits'? Doesn't sound even vaguely legit to me. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 16, 2009 10:43 AM
---Just to be clear they are not selling Bibles, they're selling Shocked by the Bible by Joe Kovacs, who I assume is capable of autographing copies. ---
Yeah; I really screwed up there.
Back to the corner to jack off I go...starting now...
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | December 16, 2009 10:45 AM
Pat is wrong! Catholism is NOT a liberal cult. It is actually a pagan idol worshipping CULT formed from the Sumerian Sun God religion and built on the foundation of the worship of Dagon, the fish head god. These are old-school conservative values.
glad I could clear that up for you....
Posted by: Kevin(NYC) | December 16, 2009 10:52 AM
I know the implication is that people should therefore not trust Democratic politicians, but this is all about voters and normal party members, not the politicians themselves.
Democratic politicians don't consult psychics before making a decision. They consult insurance company lobbyists, oil company lobbyists, entertainment company lobbyists, and their hometown religious figurehead. Just like Republican politicians do.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | December 16, 2009 11:22 AM
If you were the Democrats looking at the 'dead-man walking party' (formerly known as 'the Republican Party'), wouldn't you see dead people too? - :D -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 16, 2009 11:30 AM
I know I've urged Ed to leave Pat alone, just because it was getting old. But every once in a while, Pat says something hilarious. Christianity is not a religion because it's true, but Catholicism is a liberal cult. LMAO
Posted by: Eric R | December 16, 2009 11:31 AM
Mr. Donohue:
Produce some evidence. I'll sit and wait for your head to explode.
(I hate it how there are people dumb enough to think there's anything outside the realm of empiricism.)
Posted by: Katharine | December 16, 2009 11:54 AM
Ed, I must disagree with this "difference". Psychics don't actually exist. People who think they are psychics exist.
And people who think they are God also exist.
Exactly the same thing, except that the latter is far more likely to land you in an asylum (or high political office).
Posted by: dcsohl | December 16, 2009 11:58 AM
Jim Babka's first example is specious; it was a remark by Obama about not having seances.
The second example, however, is real but I was unaware of it. And it nearly made my skin crawl. Hanging out with Anthony Robbins and Marriane Williamson is bad enough on its own; they are ridiculous frauds along the lines of Deepak Chopra. Hanging out with them while asking psychics to diagnose what was wrong with Clinton's presidency is just plain creepy and weird - but still no different than anyone thinking that God is giving them instructions for how to govern.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 16, 2009 12:05 PM
dcsohl - respectfully I must disagree with your disagreement*.
People who claim to be psychics are nutty; people who claim to be god are committed to mental institutions. The former are charlatans, the latter, insane. - DJ
------------
* We are such a disagreeable lot here at Dispatches, aren't we?
Posted by: DingoJack | December 16, 2009 12:06 PM
Can we all agree that WND has a supernatural ability to deliver a hash of content and advertising to its readers?
Posted by: barry21 | December 16, 2009 12:15 PM
Look at all the attempts to legislate Creationism--the vast majority are Republicans.
Posted by: mark | December 16, 2009 12:18 PM
Democrats are far more in touch with the dead than Republicans...
Nah, it just looks that way because we learn so much more from history.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 16, 2009 4:08 PM
Democrats are far more in touch with the dead than Republicans...
Nah, it just looks that way because we learn so much more from history than they do.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 16, 2009 4:10 PM
What is it with Protestant Christianists' need to smear Catholic Christianists?
Posted by: jws | December 16, 2009 4:23 PM
1 internets to Raging Bee.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 16, 2009 4:44 PM
K @ 27- There's plenty outside of empiricism, but those we refer to as "sane" understand that it doesn't refer to consensual reality.
Posted by: Artor | December 16, 2009 6:52 PM
Not only is Pat Donahue a Poe, but he's definitely trying to see how many people he can fool at this point. In this thread, he's been marginally successful. :)
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 16, 2009 7:42 PM
So, I take the WND article to mean that Scrooge was originally a Republican, but became a Democrat after spending the night with Marley + 3. Maybe they've got something there.
Posted by: wheatdogg | December 17, 2009 12:15 AM
Re the Clintons:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. [...] It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." - John Adams
Never say never...
Of course, we also had:
"l trust God speaks through me.’—George W Bush.
Posted by: TonV | December 17, 2009 5:57 AM
Ed, Sorry. The first link wasn't specious. Apparently it wasn't clear why I provided it. Here's why...
The article is a recent, mainstream (CNN) reference to Hillary's séances, and the fact that Democrats have either conveniently forgotten about them, or never noticed, even while they make fun of an obviously paranoid Mrs. Reagan. And the Woodward article I referenced, btw, was NOT the only alleged séance incident of Hillary.
My purpose, since that too was questioned, was that this behavior is also bi-partisan. In other words, I agree with Ed that Nancy was wrong to push policy positions based on the words of a psychic.
Posted by: Jim Babka | December 17, 2009 9:16 AM
Re Jim Babka
The problem with Mr. Babkas' first link is that the title seems to impliy that President Obama holds seances, which is the opposite of what the actual article says. Just to make it perfectly clear so that there will be no misunderstanding, the CNN article specifically states that President Obama doesn't hold seances and doesn't believe in them.
Posted by: SLC | December 17, 2009 9:26 AM
I didn't choose the title or arrange the link; CNN did.
Posted by: Jim Babka | December 17, 2009 10:31 AM
Re Jim Babka
I didn't choose the title or arrange the link; CNN did.
That doesn't absolve Mr. Babka from making it clear that the article states that President Obama rejects seances, contrary to the implication in the title. He cannot assume that everybody reading this blog will click on the link.
Posted by: SLC | December 17, 2009 5:19 PM
For the record, President Obama rejects séances (but his Secretary of State finds them helpful, particularly when Eleanor Roosevelt shows up to advise her).
Can I absolved now?
Posted by: Jim Babka | December 17, 2009 5:44 PM
"Democrats are far more in touch with the dead than Republicans"
Only with those who still vote. :-)
Bob
Posted by: Bob Carroll | December 18, 2009 8:22 AM
Re Jim Babka
Far more serious then Ms. Clintons' belief in seances is her association with the goons at C Street and the Family. This is something else that the mainstream media neglected to cover during the primaries last year.
Posted by: SLC | December 18, 2009 9:20 AM