Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Poll: Evangelicals abandon GOP in droves; Updated by an evangelical

posted at 7:20 pm on October 19, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

“Conservative voters likely to stay home,” says the WashTimes. Kurtz breezes through a checklist of reasons why in a column titled “Apocalypse Now?” The LA Times and WaPo independently report Democratic gains in the heartland, including within the left’s favorite sociology laboratory. And then, of course, there’s Iraq.

And now this, from Pew:

pew-evang.gif

There’s plenty more at the link and very little of it appears attributable to the Kuo effect, if there even is such a thing. This has, it seems, been building for awhile, and the rate at which support is eroding outstrips the rate among even non-religious voters. Anyone have any theories why? Evangelical Christian opinions welcome!

Between that and this, I’d say it’s time to hit the panic button. Assuming there’s anything left once Moran and Mary K are done pounding on it.

Update (Bryan–Hot Air’s resident evangelical): For me, the article’s last couple of sentences are key.

The most important unknown in the final weeks of the 2006 election campaign is how motivated evangelicals will be to turn out to vote. Despite discussion about the possibility that turnout among evangelicals might be depressed this year, Pew’s latest poll finds evangelicals no more or less enthusiastic about voting than other groups in the electorate, and they are no different from registered voters as a whole in their overall likelihood of voting.

So what does this mean? Well, speaking for myself, the more outrageous the Democrats and the nutroots get, the more motivated I get to vote against them. The weaker the left gets on the war, while at the same time ramping up the hate against Bush and the Republicans and their supporters and promising to investigate our way toward defeat in the war, the more motivated I get to vote against them. Which means voting for the Republicans, where I have cast most of my votes my entire adult life. I can’t imagine pulling a lever for the Democrats again for as long as I live.

There’s a bottom line relationship I see evangelicals such as myself having with the GOP that’s just impossible to have with the Democrats. That bottom line is, that while the GOP isn’t perfect, at least it’s not actively hostile toward and intolerant of my faith. The Democrats as a party tend to be hostile to traditional and evangelical conservatives. You only have to be an evangelical and strike up a conversation about religion with most liberals to understand what I mean by that. Their hate for evangelicals can heat up a good sized room. The Kuo book that Allah mentions above is in my mind an attempt to paint the GOP as, internally, actively hostile to evangelicals, but when you peel away the layers Kuo seems to be shocked that politicians see government programs in political terms. Well, color me unshocked by that. It certainly doesn’t make me take a second look at the Democrats. And color me unmoved to punish the GOP for the Foley scandal, which is awful but still looks to me to be the result of the actions and predilections of one man, not the whole party. And it’s not like Barney Frank’s Democrats have the moral highground anyway. If you’re going to work scandalous behavior and how each party deals with such in its own ranks into your calculations, the imperfect Republicans still do quite a bit better than the Democrats at cleaning up their own messes. In fact, when was the last time the Democrats actually cleaned up one of their own messes? I guess you could say they did impeach Judge Alcee Hastings on bribery charges a while back, but lookie there, if that isn’t Mr. Hastings in Congress, an elected Democrat in good standing and preparing to take over the Armed Services Committee if the Democrats win in November. That clean-up obviously didn’t take. Democrat clean-ups never do.

So while this evangelical is all too aware that the Republicans have fumbled on their own goal line during this entire election season, in the binary choice facing us in November it’s not even a close call for me. I’ll vote Republican, proudly. The Democrats have themselves, their unhinged activist base, their open hostility toward evangelicals, their promise to raise taxes, their weakness and lies about our country in the face of America’s enemies, and their own corrupt and amoral personnel in Congress to thank for that. I’m not thrilled with the Republicans, but I strongly dislike and actively oppose the Democrats.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“Favorable opinion” is different from “I won’t vote for them”.

see-dubya on October 19, 2006 at 7:24 PM

There’s a poll about that at the link.

Allahpundit on October 19, 2006 at 7:25 PM

Is this a bad thing?

We keep saying that we want 2 sane parties in this country. Currently there is one (republicans and even then its shaky). If enough evangelicals switch to democrats, they could be brought back to sanity.

Again; this presumes that we arent just pushing for republican victories. But victories for the country as a whole. And I think that’s what we want, right?

lorien1973 on October 19, 2006 at 7:27 PM

All the Conservative voters I know are planning on voting.
All the religious conservatives I know are also planning on voting.

The people I know who are actually threatening to stay home are mostly moderates.

Now…

Consider that these same people are all torqued-off about how the Republicans are handling things, they’re more torqued-off about what the Dems are doing.

So..

Depending on how the polls are worded it may seem like conservatives aren’t going to vote… but don’t bet on it.

So,

Lawrence on October 19, 2006 at 7:29 PM

But this ISNT a Presidential race and that is what I see in those polls. Also, isnt it the “polls” who told us Kerry was winning in a landslide? Just sayin’

I think a lot of people are going to do what I am going to do, hold my nose and vote R. I figure I am still making up for my Jimmy Carter and (1) vote for Clinton before I “saw the light”.

labwrs on October 19, 2006 at 7:31 PM

Before you go giving this poll too much credibility, I’d go read up on some of the stuff Jim Geraghty has been writing about over at TKS.

I’m going to take this one with a grain of salt.

Oh, and don’t hit the panic button just yet – that’s exactly what the MSM is trying to get you to do.

thirteen28 on October 19, 2006 at 7:31 PM

Well this evangelical isn’t going anywhere. Most Christians (Catholics, Protestants, etc.) I know aren’t even thinking about voting for anyone with a D behind their name. We might not be thrilled with how the Republicans are handling things, but we understand the gravity if the Donks assume control. And none of us are thinking about staying home from the pols.

raz0r on October 19, 2006 at 7:32 PM

Evangelical? Check.
Voting? Check.
Straight ticket Repubs? Check.
Still pissed at Repubs? Check.
Getting freak-on for reasons other than procreation? Check

Editor on October 19, 2006 at 7:36 PM

I don’t put too much stock in these kind of polls. It is one thing to say something on the phone, but another to pull the (D) lever at the polls. The question was probably skewed weird anyone, allowing no “option C” as I like to say. Anyway, it reminds me of the exit polls during the last Presidential election. You have frothing liberal sticking a mic in your face asking “WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR?”, some will say the Dem just so they won’t get their hubcaps stolen.

Pants Wearer on October 19, 2006 at 7:36 PM

If anything, all this crap from the MSM and other liberal organizations has motivated to vote in a mid-term for the first time EVER! I can’t wait to pull the lever or punch the button for the Republicans — I’m even getting my wife to vote!

whtabtbill on October 19, 2006 at 7:36 PM

You can count mine twice, since my wife would answer the same way. *ahem*

Editor on October 19, 2006 at 7:38 PM

There’s a poll about that at the link.

This one?

see-dubya on October 19, 2006 at 7:40 PM

Evangelical Christian opinions welcome!

Okay, but you’re not going to like it.

I think it’s because a lot of evangelical voters are political neophytes.

Although a lot of us on this board who happen to be evangelicals plan on voting, we’re also mostly political geeks who groove on this stuff. Not exactly a representative sample of American evangelicals.

A lot of evangelical voters I know have only two basic issues they care about – gays and abortion – and many feel the GOP hasn’t done enough about either of them. Especially the issue of homosexuality, which for some reason evangelicals like James Dobson are dang near pathological about.

We have a guy here in Maine – Mike Heath – who is in charge of what’s called the “Christian Civic League” who does nothing but speak out against the ‘gay agenda.’ He’s gone so far as to threaten to out gay legislators and accused our governor of having ‘one of those gay genes.’

Unfortunately, a lot of those evangelicals believe if they have a list of ten demands, Republicans they elect should do all ten. They don’t see the value in getting five, so they become discouraged by politics and stay home. It’s a classic conflict between faith – which is uncompromising, and politics, which is built on compromise. Evangelical voters see any attempt to compromise (e.g. civil unions) as a betrayal of core principles rather than a way to prevent something worse.

I think this poll might be a bit skewed, but represents a real trend.

Slublog on October 19, 2006 at 7:41 PM

I’m not going to hit the panic button either, there’s along way to go. But It’d be nice if our side was being more aggressive. How come there’s been no pressure on Dingy Harry to resign. Just have Frist mention that it might be nice for the good of the senate if Harry resigned etc, etc.

I think the biggest reason your seeing a potential drop off is that the rank and file think the leadership has given up the fight. If they start showing some muscle, start slapping the libs around a bit, they’ll win hands down.

Iblis on October 19, 2006 at 7:41 PM

Dang it–image didn’t come through. This one.

see-dubya on October 19, 2006 at 7:41 PM

Study: Democrats expected to take seats in Canadian parliament

Headline from the People’s Cube

C’mon, this is just piling on. I’m so cynical these days about anything pollsters or the media has to say that I just take these polls as more propaganda.
If anything, Evangelicals just won’t vote. They won’t vote for a party that most often opposes their views to “teach Republicans a lesson.”

The Rush spoof on all this is hilarious-the public service announcement “funded by Soros” that says something like “don’t vote Republican or don’t vote at all if you don’t agree with everything the Republicans do all the time.”

NTWR on October 19, 2006 at 7:42 PM

There’s a poll about that at the link.

This one?

see-dubya

Hey, dubya, which one?

batperez on October 19, 2006 at 7:42 PM

I agree with what most people have said about the fact that Evangelicals aren’t going to vote Democrat and most people I know aren’t planning on staying home from the polls.

As for the main question:

Anyone have any theories why?

I have many theories… well, actually just one big one. I think the Bush Administration has failed the Christian conservatives. He really hasn’t done anything to stop abortion. His successful judicial nominees were mediocre at best. He hasn’t taken a strong stance on gay marriage. He hasn’t followed through on the school voucher promise. Etc. Those are the same issues that Congress has failed us on as well. As what I like to call “a member of the radical religious right,” also known as an evangelical Christian conservative, I am incredibly frustrated. It seems like the Republican party used our grassroots organizations and desire for change to get them elected and then did nothing they promised.

But what is our alternative? Voting Democrat isn’t even on my radar since they would obviously be worse than the Republicans. Starting a third party sounds nice, but is impractical especially when that would give a victory to the left anyways. We’re pretty much in a lose-lose situation.

tiekitwist on October 19, 2006 at 7:43 PM

Sorry, dubya,
I messed up.

batperez on October 19, 2006 at 7:43 PM

Evangelicals is way too broad a term. That could include anything from gay-partnered Episcopalians to fire breathing, evangelize your ass with a two-by-four Assembly of God types. Hell, “The World Council of Churches Nobody Goes to Anymore” is mostly, if not entirely, made up of “Evangelicals”.

TBinSTL on October 19, 2006 at 7:45 PM

Its all BOOPKISS the media is planting their own stories with no basis in FACT for what they print and are trying to shape the views of americans.

GASP!!!!!! I am SHOCKEDnot surprised that the media would do this.

foamysranting on October 19, 2006 at 7:46 PM

This is really the case of voting for the lesser of two evils.
If this were another time in history, maybe a vote for a third party would be nice and dandy. But in the middle of a war, when we know the opposition is trying to break down the war effort???
Not the right time, my friends.

You know, I voted against my congressman (Cannon UT-3) in the primaries, due to his guest worker program. He still won 52% to 48%. So we did try. But now I’ll hold my nose and vote for him in the general, since I don’t trust the guy with the -D behind his name.

batperez on October 19, 2006 at 7:47 PM

This one?

No, this one. Granted, the numbers of evangelicals and secularists deserting the GOP are almost the same, but I guess I figured the attrition rate among religious people would be a little less, not more.

Allahpundit on October 19, 2006 at 7:48 PM

Yeah, but that’s compared with 2002. Things were a little different then and I’d consider that an artificial peak.

For one thing, I think we were more religious right about then. Those might have been the foxhole non-atheists reporting in 2002.

see-dubya on October 19, 2006 at 7:51 PM

I have my doubts about this whole “evangelicals” are going over to the democrats.

A couple of months ago, I read some article. It was about how Southern women were turning against Bush. In it they interviewed this one lady who said she was disapointed with Republicans for always spending so much time on the war in Iraq. And that all our soldiers were getting killed and that was wrong. And then she stated how much more important a woman’s right to chose abortion and keeping religeon out of schools, and something about how she was upset that republicans were using gay marriage as a smoke screen.

And then it seemed the article used her as an example of how the entire population of conservative southern religeous women were pulling away from Bush.

Now the reason I remember this article is that my girlfriend showed it to me as a “gotcha”, cuz she’s more liberal than me and she like to try to rile me up with this sort of stuff.

But when I read this article, the impression I got was that the reporter was doing a serious case of “projecting” what they thought people in the south should be thinking. I mean, this lady they quoted sounded exactly like what you would expect a NorthEast liberal would. It seemed that she was hitting all the points a New York liberal reporter would love to hear.

And then I wondered where this lady they interviewed was from. I mean, if she was in Atlanta, maybe. There are a bunch of liberals there. But lets take rural Louisianna. I had a real hard time believing that there is a growing movement towards accepting abortion and gay marriage.

Anyway, I can’t prove any of this, and I don’t have a link for this article. But I get the feeling (yeah, I know I’m supposed to think, and let the liberals do the feeling) that at least some of all of this prediction that Christians and conservatives are fleeing the GOP is being fueled by projection on the part of people who want it to happen. And since these people have such a hard time conceiving that anybody could support the GOP and Bush, they will seize on any evidence that others think that way and push it alot further than is warranted.

(And if my calling it a feeling gets anyone all riled up, well call it instinct, or a gut feeling… Dang it! Did it again!)

EFG on October 19, 2006 at 7:52 PM

Evangelicals generally means non-denominational or mega-church. They’re probably staying home because there’s no one to vote for. At some point, voting for the lesser of two evils is just not good enough, when they look soooo much like one another. Sometimes, voting your conscience means staying home.

PRCalDude on October 19, 2006 at 7:53 PM

The issue that dogs the Vichy-Americans is abortion. Christians read and study their bibles and know that human life has value no matter how young. Our lives are predetermined by God before we’re born and it’s not up to democrats and their cronies to dismiss abortion as a privacy issue. It’s a profound moral issue that cuts to the heart of why we exist on planet earth.

To semi-quote the Clintonistas “It’s abortion… stupid.”

Mojave Mark on October 19, 2006 at 8:01 PM

Well I feel as though I’m just repeating myself but it couldn’t have to do with conservative christians finally figuring out that Republicans aren’t conservative or christians now could it?

Yes, there are exceptions. No, it’s not enough.

Benaiah on October 19, 2006 at 8:07 PM

They’re probably staying home because there’s no one to vote for. At some point, voting for the lesser of two evils is just not good enough, when they look soooo much like one another. Sometimes, voting your conscience means staying home.

Wow, I should have just looked up a couple of posts before doing my own. You summed it up perfectly.

Benaiah on October 19, 2006 at 8:09 PM

No, this one. Granted, the numbers of evangelicals and secularists deserting the GOP are almost the same, but I guess I figured the attrition rate among religious people would be a little less, not more.

That is because we feel the most betrayed. What we voted for and what we got were two different things. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice…

Theworldisnotenough on October 19, 2006 at 8:19 PM

Allahpundit, I think you might have it here:

Granted, the numbers of evangelicals and secularists deserting the GOP are almost the same, but I guess I figured the attrition rate among religious people would be a little less, not more.

… making the assumption that if it’s “Evangelical” it’s serious, it’s religious. But maybe the group as a demographic has it’s own range, from “member” to “committed,” even if it’s weighted by its nature to “committed.” Those numbers are almost what I’d expect if the poll said “Christian.”

But whatever it means, I guess I’ve been wrong. I’ve been arguing the chief problem is my people not being motivated to go to the polls at all ala WaPo, not switching teams.

But: are their a bunch of republicans is everyone else’s area, that are running as “moderates?” i.e. “I’m not an extremest, like Bush?” In local races and so on, I’d vote for the “conservative” democrat before I’d vote for the McCain.

Axe on October 19, 2006 at 8:22 PM

That is because we feel the most betrayed. What we voted for and what we got were two different things.

This is true. I mean, what’s it take? Here, the Presidency. Here, the House. Here, the Senate. Now go on, get to it. And they what, smile and yawn?

Axe on October 19, 2006 at 8:30 PM

To semi-quote the Clintonistas “It’s abortion… stupid.”

Mojave Mark on October 19, 2006 at 8:01 PM

That’s exactly right. I don’t see any Catholics (real Catholics, not liberals pretending to Catholic like John Kerry) not voting in this election. They say that conservative Catholics play a big role now in close elections, as they are a reliable turnout for Republicans.

I’m sure Rove has some tricks up his sleeve, and he seems confident. In any case, a liberal House might be the best thing for Republicans’ prospects in 2008. Bush still has a veto.

I’m really annoyed with Bush acting too much like a Democrat on foreign policy and immigration. But why would I not vote for Republicans, especially reliable conservatives such as George Allen and Tom Davis?

januarius on October 19, 2006 at 8:30 PM

That’s exactly right. I don’t see any Catholics (real Catholics, not liberals pretending to Catholic like John Kerry) not voting in this election.

The problem is januarius, Catholics lean Democrat.

RightWinged on October 19, 2006 at 8:34 PM

Midterm races are strange and polls often turn out to be very wrong about them. I also don’t see Republicans suddenly voting Democrat just because a Republican got caught acting like a Democrat but dissatisfaction with the Senate has been high here for months over issues like illegal immigration. I think that the Democrats dirty tricks may in fact scare more conservatives to the polls November 7th just to keep the Democrats out of power.

Buzzy on October 19, 2006 at 8:37 PM

“Evangelicals” make for a bad taxonomy branch on a tree. There are many self-described evangelicals that would align themselves more with John Kerry than George Bush. Much of “mainstream” protestantism forgets there are 66 books in the Bible. Moral relativism is alive and well within that “big tent”. A pastor I know tried to explain to me how the Bible views homosexuality and gluttony as equivalent sins. I politely asked if he had read Leviticus and to point out the passage in the Bible where Jehovah had specifically marked a man for death for over eating.

Now I’m not seeking to put forward a “Santorum”, simply to indicate that intellectual honesty when reading the scriptures is a perishable commodity whether it be the Bible, or the Quoran, or other held to be sacred text. Evangelical Christians make for a bad polling demographic, the premise that their self-description fits with stereotypical expectations and that they can be tracked as to mood to a point to be predictive of results in ‘06 is a fools bet.

That being said, if you put Conservative as the branch on a taxonomy and put evangelical out there as a leaf, better results could be found. I think it’s fair to say that Values Voters were the X-Factor in 2004, Values Voters in this legislative cycle have had much to be disappointed with on the Republican side. Socially & politically conservative Values Voters (whether evangelical or otherwise) started to see the writing on the wall at the 2004 convention (a.k.a. The Rhino Charge), when the most conservative speaker was a Democrat (Zell Miller…my money would have been on Zell over Matthews in the duel, I would have been proud to be his second).

What many of us who would be self-described social conservatives who happen to have evangelical loyalties struggle with, is whether the political process in the Unites States still holds any promise. Vote for a dhimmi? When Hades is covered with ice first. But go to the polls and vote for the GOP with any real expectation that it will make much difference? It’s a tough call. My current position is that a trip to the polls to vote against the dhimmi’s is worthwhile, but more as a blocking tactic than expecting to inflict any real damage by voting for the alternative.

CZ52GUY on October 19, 2006 at 8:39 PM

When are you going to realize that every one of these polls are outright lies?

.

The Machine on October 19, 2006 at 8:40 PM

Thanks for opening up registration again.

From where I stand in a very Blue state, WA, it’s nothing out of the ordinary. Even given this state’s left bias, there are still a fair number of evangelical churches. In the evangelical parishes I’m aware of, the people view themselves as strong Republican voters. Perhaps to offset the very Blue nature of WA. But I have not head a whiff of voter apathy, and a massive shift and panic button time, I just don’t see it. I think that it’s going to be a rather mundane and typical midterm election.

We’ve all got to remember that we are hyper-political junkies. Most people could care less.

JeffB. on October 19, 2006 at 8:47 PM

I don’t know why there’s repeated mention in this thread about evangelicals staying home on election day– the poll says no such thing. Why wouldn’t they vote Dem instead, considering this administration (in addition to its many scandals) acts in direct opposition to Christian values on many issues, while (according to Kuo’s book) secretly mocking them? Perhaps evangelicals are simply waking up.

Constantine on October 19, 2006 at 8:50 PM

Pelosi moving up the line of succession is enough to get most people to the polls even if they must hold their nose to vote for a RINO.

Conservative JD on October 19, 2006 at 8:51 PM

I view all of these polls, no matter what the subject or results with a GREAT DEAL of skepticism. Technology has changed dramatically in the last 10 years and these changes call into question the validity of the sampling methodology. Cell phones, caller ID, call blocking, all make it difficult to reach a truly “random,” representative sample. When they can’t get the data, the make it up, just like they did with the exit polls in 2004. The only “accurate” thing about these political polls in the last 5 – 10 years is that they have been wrong.

TheBigOldDog on October 19, 2006 at 8:51 PM

Damn! I’ve already mailed my absentee ballot.
These polls say I already lost.
Can’t we arrange for the GOP to forfeit?
That way I get to save face and not be a loser.

Stephen M on October 19, 2006 at 9:00 PM

My absentee vote has been in the mail now for sometime too. I voted for George Allen & Thelma Drake.

Catie96706 on October 19, 2006 at 9:07 PM

As a member of the fractured Methodist church, I can sympathize with those that have been disenfranchised. However, I must point out that evangelicals are not bible thumping followers. They are the people that make the world work. They are moral people living in a society that is deteriorating and trying to do their best to raise their children, so that they can impact said society in a positive way. They don’t have time to protest, they are too busy working. No, they just live their lives in a practical way and vote. Don’t underestimate the silent majority, they will be there on November 7th.

mstef20 on October 19, 2006 at 9:08 PM

Perhaps I’m the wrong Evangelical to ask.

I was never a fan of the faith-based initiatives, because the Steinbrenner Rule also applies to government money. We should have known better. I always regarded voting Republican a “lesser of two evils” issue until they decided to spend like horny sailors. I would hope that Evangelical leadres take note of how they’ve been played, and embrace a return to a Goldwater/Reagan brand of fiscal conservatism coupled with a state’s rights approach to social issues (libertarianism might be a bit too much to collectively ask for).

Kid from Brooklyn on October 19, 2006 at 9:08 PM

re: Poll skepticism

Sure, it’s fair to cherry pick a question or an individual poll and to declare loudly that it doesn’t pass the smell test. However, it’s folly to ignore the aggregation of that data as is done pretty well by RealClearPolitics.com, ElectionProjection.com, and from the other side, PollingReport.com.

What is useful even to the more casual observer, is to look at poll over poll trends. Pick your source, Rasmussen, Zogby, Gallup, even Fox, and you can look at the way the wind is blowing.

It doesn’t look good for the GOP right now. The dumber the electorate, the better it is for the dhimmi’s. Now the interesting bit of irony…toward the end of the Foley wave, Studds dies. That man that did everything that Foley IM’d about and more, but he’s eulogized as a statesman, and his “widow” is the poor victim of discrimination because of survivor pension inelegibility. Both mainstream and alternative media pile onto Foley AND Hastert (including some so-called conservative commentators) without sufficiently reflecting on the double-standard. The Sheeple buy into the tripe, and many on the right are busy throwing Hastert under the bus for something he didn’t do, which on the repugnancy scale barely registers compared to actions of the “distinguished” former Congressman Studds.

The poll trends moved. Republicans in general took a hit on this, and I’m sure this was according to plan. The “drunk-dubya” surprise almost put weird-Al into office in 2000. Unfortunate as it would be, to suggest that the polling numbers showing the GOP in trouble and the Dem’s as the odds on favorites for both houses are just lies is wishful thinking.

CZ52GUY on October 19, 2006 at 9:10 PM

Kuo showed his true colors last night on Colbert. There is no question about the timing of release of Tempting Fate.

Valiant on October 19, 2006 at 9:11 PM

I keep hearing about and reading poll after poll after poll which proclaims more or less that all is lost. But I just can’t get around what I find in my neighborhood, my town. Granted it is decidedly rural western Tennessee, but it’s one of the big ’swing’ states, right? Corker yard signs in my area outnumber Ford almost 2 to 1…and I have been watching and counting. My fellow townfolks are not running scared, are not ‘not’ voting, and offer an entirely different opinion and outlook than what the pollsters are force feeding. My own eyes and ears tell me they are wrong. I remain optimistic….hell, almost certain that this huge takeover is just another Dem pie in the sky dream.

dustoffmom on October 19, 2006 at 9:12 PM

I think this is making too much of a stupid thing. I know most conservatives I’ve been talking to give lip service to the idea of “getting even” with the republicans by voting in the dems, but they are still planning on doing the right thing.

Mars Needs Neocons on October 19, 2006 at 9:12 PM

I am a conservative Christian and though I am unhappy with some things that the GOP has done, I wouldn’t even consider voting for a democrat on most issues.

Amy on October 19, 2006 at 9:13 PM

Kuo showed his true colors last night on Colbert. There is no question about the timing of release of Tempting [sic] Fate.

DUH. I assume by “true colors” you mean “exposing Bush administration duplicity and disdain for the common voter in order to provide perspective in the election.”

Constantine on October 19, 2006 at 9:31 PM

My wife and I (evangelicals) plan on voting straight R’s. Here in Tennessee they are putting up the vote for a ban on gay marriage amendment. I know for a fact the churches are buzzing around here to get people out to vote on this. In short, I don’t see many evangelicals sitting home here in God’s country!

Travis on October 19, 2006 at 9:37 PM

(in addition to its many scandals)

Can you name a few of the administrations “scandals” Constantine? And not the bogus ones that get thrown out by the Dems with their media partners on about a twice weekly basis that are almost always complete BS, but the media stops reporting on them once the administration is cleared. So again, please name some of these “scandals”.

I keep hearing about and reading poll after poll after poll which proclaims more or less that all is lost. But I just can’t get around what I find in my neighborhood, my town. Granted it is decidedly rural western Tennessee, but it’s one of the big ’swing’ states, right? Corker yard signs in my area outnumber Ford almost 2 to 1…and I have been watching and counting. My fellow townfolks are not running scared, are not ‘not’ voting, and offer an entirely different opinion and outlook than what the pollsters are force feeding. My own eyes and ears tell me they are wrong. I remain optimistic….hell, almost certain that this huge takeover is just another Dem pie in the sky dream.

dustoffmom on October 19, 2006 at 9:12 PM

I don’t know, I kind of feel the same way, but here in Vermonet, socialist Bernie Sanders is so beloved and been around for decades and appears that he’ll win by a HUGE majority, yet it’s like 10:1 Rich Tarrant (the Republican) signs around. More Sanders signs have popped up in the past month or two, but when I moved back up here in June I was scratching my head like “Wtf? This is VT! Why can’t I find a Bernie sign?” I do believe that polls are often way off, but they’d have to be insanely off for the signs to be a more accurate indicator here. But, some polls go on “likely voters” some on “registered voters” some on “adults”, and a lot of people get polled all the time, while others not at all. People like myself don’t ever get polled (to my knowledge) because I don’t keep a home phone, just a cell (what’s the point, I have cable internet). I know that there are a lot of people like me who are then totally ignored by polls. There are tons of other factors that make them inaccurate, but wanted to say I agree with those who question the polls.

RightWinged on October 19, 2006 at 9:38 PM

Count me in as another “evangelical” who will still be voting for the R. Although I am not completely happy with some of their actions the past two years, I will NEVER, EVER, EVER vote for someone in the Democratic party. Abortion is a big issue for me, as well as security, taxes, etc. Maybe it’s lesser of two evils, but I won’t sit at home on election day either.

Centurion68 on October 19, 2006 at 9:49 PM

Please name some of these “scandals”.

I’m not sure what criteria you use to define “scandal”. But here goes:
Bush Admin. lies leading up to the Iraq war

Bush reserving the right to violate legislation

Those are the biggest ones, but then there’s:
- Ken Lay
- Jack Abramoff,
- Tom Delay, the craven plot to expose Valerie Plame (Scooter Libby)
- Bob Ney
- Mark Foley
- Denny Hastert’s inability to explain how everybody told him about Foley yet he didn’t know.
- Jeff Gannon, Partisan blogger and gay prostitute with no journalism credentials and a fake name who got invited to Bush’s Press conferences.
- Bush Admin. sponsoring fake news

Should I go on?

Constantine on October 19, 2006 at 9:59 PM

I’m another one who is unapologetically a conservative Christian. Yes, I’ve been let down by the Republican party on a few accounts. However, I do give them my support since the opposing party (in my perspective) can not be trusted with the running of this country. There is too strong of a pull to the radical left by the left.

I’m going to the elections.

Paladin on October 19, 2006 at 10:01 PM

As an “evangelical” (I prefer Conservative Christian) I can say that I and EVERYONE I talk to is even more determined to vote. I happen to attend one of the largest churches in Florida too.

That’s not to say they are not disappointed with the current Republican leadership and wouldn’t hesitate to vote them out if there was a solid conservative alternative.

bj1126 on October 19, 2006 at 10:02 PM

As an evangelical Christian, I’m not happy with the Republicans in general, but I have a great congressman and will certainly vote straight R.

It’s interesting to see some of the different areas that are mentioned. I’m in Florida. Maybe some of the Red State folk are more optimistic.

I have wondered if enthusiasm for any GOTV volunteer effort is what’s really going to be lacking.

INC on October 19, 2006 at 10:03 PM

Rightwinged:

The problem is januarius, Catholics lean Democrat.

Rightwinged- The MSM polls are very misleading because any lapsed Catholic is going to call himself “Catholic,” even though they haven’t been to church in 20 years. Also, inherent in the definition of being “Catholic” is that you are loyal to the Magisterium, which means the official Church teachings.

With that definition of Catholic, the vast majority of Catholics who attend mass weekly are Republican and pro-life. One can go to any service here in Northern Virginia and see Republican bumper sticker after bumper sticker. It is very rare to see any Democratic bumper stickers.

Orthodox Catholics are almost uniformly Republican these days, especially the younger generation in their 20’s and 30’s. It has become a very important block of voters for Republicans.

januarius on October 19, 2006 at 10:03 PM

Let’s review. The Democrat Party is pro-abortion, for gay marriage, for bigger government, for higher taxes and against the war on terror.

And the religious Evangelicals will turn on the Republican Party by either not voting or voting for Dems??? Do the pollsters think we are all idiots, or just the Evangelicals? I have a lot more faith in, and respect for Evangelicals and cannot fathom they would make any choice, in or out of the voting booth, that would play into the hands of the Democrats gaining back control in the House or Senate.

I still refuse to believe the results of these polls [or any other polls], and agree with EFG who stated earlier …

the impression I got was that the reporter was doing a serious case of “projecting” what they thought people in the south should be thinking

Bingo. Your instincts were correct EFG. This is right out of the MSM playbook, and after three disastrous election cycles for the Dems/MSM, haven’t we learned to disregard this bullshit propaganda? IMHO polls are taken and poll results are put in print, broadcast on the air, to influence the ignorant, uninformed and gullible voting public. That doesn’t include me, thank you very much.

Why is it, that every single poll taken of late spells disaster for the Republicans? One would think, every now and again a poll would surface, only one mind you, that shed a favorable light on Bush or the Republicans. No, they are virtually non-existent. I for one, find that rather odd. While it is true the world has become a fragile egg of late, this country has defied all odds and is running like a well oiled machine. Screw the polls, except for the one taken on November 7th.

A poll, any poll, will have zero, nada, zilch affect on how I vote.

fogw on October 19, 2006 at 10:09 PM

Constantine, are you an evangelical?

Slublog on October 19, 2006 at 10:11 PM

Sorry, but the it’s obvious the folks in the media don’t understand evangelicals at all. Having been one for a long time (I no longer am) I can tell you that voting is just what you do…it’s almost like the 11th Commandment! My parents are VERY conservative Pentecostals and they are voting…Republican. This whole Foley business has barely raised a blip on their radar. They say it’s one man’s actions. I’m sure that most of America sees it that way as well.

This is a case of the media trying to make news rather than report it. I’m sure of this.

SouthernGent on October 19, 2006 at 10:15 PM

I should add that I don’t intend that question to be confrontational. If you are, I’m interested in the religious left’s view on political policy.

Slublog on October 19, 2006 at 10:15 PM

About why Evangelicals are “defecting” I can say nothing but, I would like to comment on what has been somewhat addressed about polling in general.
There is an excellent essay on the subject in Second Thoughts: Viewing Conventional Wisdom Through the Sociological Eye. Basically, you need to ask “Who do the numbers represent? Who is asking the question? How where the numbers collected? How was the concept tested for operationalized?” Much research has been done on how question order and wording affects outcomes, so we can hopefully assume that the questions themselves are not slanted and the people asking them aren’t biased. The main question, as someone noted, is who do the numbers represent, which usually reflects the methodology. It is not at all uncommon to have surveys done where half the people contacted do not respond (sometimes researchers find others, sometimes not). Consequently, you find yourself with the opinions of an unrepresentative sample. The main reason appears to be, as the essay reads, “on the whole non-respondents view the survey process as both time-consuming and annoying”. You can’t force people, and compensation would provide a whole slew of new biasing possibilities.

apostle26 on October 19, 2006 at 10:23 PM

Also, although I’ve not read about it, there does seem to be some weight in the idea that the cycle of polls and poll-viewing creates a reality unto itself. Maybe a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts?

apostle26 on October 19, 2006 at 10:29 PM

My parents are VERY conservative Pentecostals and they are voting … Republican.

Maybe that’s the deal. I’m not seeing the reality reflected on this poll–most of us here aren’t–because I’m conservative, and Evangelical at the same time.

P’haps we need to go to the KOS Evangelical threads … searching … searching … searching …

Nope. This still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Axe on October 19, 2006 at 10:38 PM

I think the answer is obvious: After years of misery on earth, Christian conservatives are finally rejecting God. Let’s face it, the world is pretty horrible, and it doesn’t seem like there’s any hope it will ever get better. So what happens is, Christian conservatives become agnostic conservatives, overwrought with ambivalence at the realization that a compassionate God can’t possibly exist. And that’s a tough thing to wake up with every morning.

And that’s why they’re staying home. When you lose faith in God, why would you have faith in elections?

Like I said – obvious.

Enrique on October 19, 2006 at 10:52 PM

Enrique,
You’re kidding right?

I think Januarius has pretty much got it. Catholic poll numbers will always be skewed because of Latinos, rich lib snobs (Kennedys), and Catholics-in-name-only (CINOs?).

Catholic = Aligns life with Church teaching. There isn’t a concientious objector status, though many think there is.

PaisleyCow on October 19, 2006 at 11:13 PM

I am a very conservative, evangelical Christian. I even home schooled my children for a number of years to keep them away from the public system. Two of my sons are now voting age and so there are four of us in this family who will be voting a straight Republican ticket. There is no way we will ever vote for a Democrat for many reasons but the number one reason for me is JUDGES!!! Democrats will only give us more judges like the ones we have here in California and there is no way that I or any one else in my family will vote for them.

Rose on October 19, 2006 at 11:14 PM

I’m not thrilled with the Republicans, but I strongly dislike and actively oppose the Democrats.

My feelings exactly.

Maxx on October 19, 2006 at 11:18 PM

There’s a bottom line relationship I see evangelicals such as myself having with the GOP that’s just impossible to have with the Democrats. That bottom line is, that while the GOP isn’t perfect, at least it’s not actively hostile toward and intolerant of my faith.

Well at least not where you can hear them and that makes it better…why?

Benaiah on October 19, 2006 at 11:41 PM

Washington Times got snookered on this one. This is a non-serious guy. Hewitt dismantled him this afternoon. No published data, no published questions beyond the “generic poll questions”, and a nonexistent turnout model.

Look here: http://www.vpap.org/expends/vendor.cfm?VendKey=ORP000226269

Jonathan Swift on October 19, 2006 at 11:49 PM

I have trouble understanding how Constantine could possibly think his list would affect someone’s vote. President Bush didn’t lie. He had faulty intelligence. The Plame mess was a big nothing. The prosecutor had to Grand Jury shop to get anything on DeLay. Gannon was a nothing story. Mark Foley’s emails only reaffirmed some evangelicals’ feelings that you can’t trust gays with young people. The Ley, Abramoff and Ney situations are hardly any reason for a conservative to vote against their personal convictions, seeing as how liberals don’t even come close to us on the issues.

Rose on October 20, 2006 at 12:20 AM

Ehrlich in the Maryland Governor’s race is a loser…

You heard it here first! He will be pwned!

Reason: Embryonic stem cell funding for universities and some private sector…

Will I vote…? don’t know

ar_basin on October 20, 2006 at 12:37 AM

*Reason: Embryonic stem cell Research funding for universities and some private sector…

ar_basin on October 20, 2006 at 12:38 AM

If the Republicans offered me nothing I would still make it my top priority to turn out and vote against the party that sneers at Christians, until it gets worried and transparently sucks up to us, then tries to persuade us that “everyone’s sitting this one out, shouldn’t you do that too?” I have but one vote (since I’m not a leftie) with which to strike a blow against those who call themselves liberal, but would not hesitate to stifle our voices from ever being heard, if only they had the power.

I am, however, vulnerable to being wooed if a real conservative third party can convince me they would deliver what Republicans only promise.

NellE on October 20, 2006 at 1:04 AM

Slublog, I’m an active Christian.

Rose, I suppose I underestimated some peoples’ ability to stick their head in the sand. The “faulty intelligence” is another Bush lie, unless of course he’s referring to the failure of his own. Regarding Bush’s Iraq lies, I’ll refer you to this Vanity Fair article (in addition to the link to the PBS documentary I provided in my last post):

“For the next two months, December 2002 and January 2003, references to the uranium deal resurfaced again and again in ‘fact sheets,’ talking-point memos, and speeches. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice all declared publicly that Iraq had been caught trying to buy uranium from Niger. On December 19, the claim reappeared on a fact sheet published by the State Department. The bureaucratic battle was unending. In light of the many differing viewpoints, the Pentagon asked the National Intelligence Council, the body that oversees the 15 agencies in the U.S. intelligence community, to resolve the matter. According to The Washington Post, in a January 2003 memo the council replied unequivocally that “the Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest.” The memo went immediately to Bush and his advisers.

Nevertheless, on January 20, with war imminent, President Bush submitted a report to Congress citing Iraq’s attempts ‘to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it.’

BushCo actively distorted information and told lies, directly opposing what is own intelligence agencies were telling him. There’s plenty of evidence to support this, and that occupying Iraq was a hairbrained PNAC scheme that they used 9/11 as a justification to enact.

I find your dismissal of all the other issues rather shocking. You seem to care nothing about truth, integrity or the rule of law. Or human rights, for that matter, as shown in your support for President Torture. A pity, as that really should be the point at which liberals and conservatives should be on common ground.

Constantine on October 20, 2006 at 1:19 AM

The British intelligence still stands by their story regarding the uranium and Africa. I trust them, not Vanity Fair. As far as the other issues, there is no way you can say that the Democrats are without blemish. I find their scandals far more alarming. Bill Clinton should have resigned but the Democrats supported him and even now hold him in high esteem. I find that deplorable. Torture? Sorry, but I have not heard one thing on that issue that would cause me to change my vote. And your personal attack about my head being in the sand makes me question your comment about being a Christian. You should be able to discuss this without the venom.

Rose on October 20, 2006 at 1:32 AM

Constantine,

If you are paying attention, and have read the entire thread, you will get the gist of the “Evangelical” opinion represented here.

I have been flamed on other threads here (politely and respectfully, mind you) for stating the opinion that the current Republican leadership has betrayed the Biblical conservative Christians who became their margin of victory. They are so certain that they can count on our fear of seeing the anti-christian party in power, that they don’t feel the need to actually repay our loyalty with even lip service.

I want very much to show them how expensive such errors can be. But understand this as clearly as you can: The LAST thing I would do is vote for a
socialist,
cowardly,
wealth-redistributing,
enemy-abetting,
pro-baby-murdering,
pro-sodomy,
evolutionist,
anti-gun,
fear-mongering,
moral relativist who would support judicial activism, further strip the first amendment of its true meaning, remove every thought of God from public view, and destroy that which made the founding of this country right and good.

If a third-party candidate stands for what I stand for, they will earn my vote. If a Republican stands for what I stand for, they will earn my vote. The Democrat party is dead, a hollow shell infested by maggots, and I would expect any Democrat that stands for what I stand for, to leave the party.

A political party whose moral stature is so low that it turns its back on the man who was the lower half of the national ticket just two years ago, simply because he doesn’t hate President Bush enough, isn’t even worth the effort of the contempt I feel for it.

In summary, I will vote. I would like to vote for taking this country in the right direction. If I must, however, I will vote to slow the movement of this country in the wrong direction. That is a concept no polling of Christian conservatives could ever grasp.

Freelancer on October 20, 2006 at 1:48 AM

Freelancer, you seem to have bought into every extreme caricature of Democrats promoted by the extreme right; you’re Karl Rove’s dream come true. Jeez, as much as Bush is the embodiment of moral vacuum and incompetence, even I can admit he might have some good people working for him, or at least in the Republican leadership.

I can’t think of one candidate who fits your full description, though I would hope there exist plenty of candidates who don’t want to persecute gays (”pro-sodomy”?), don’t want to see people continued to be murdered with easily available handguns, and who aren’t anti-science. I hope you and others like you will re-read the beatitudes and take another look at things using them as a context.

Constantine on October 20, 2006 at 2:00 AM

I can’t imagine pulling a lever for the Democrats again for as long as I live.

Bryan, my Platonic love!

fogw, I adore you!

Freelancer, you spake from my heart!

Entelechy on October 20, 2006 at 2:01 AM

The LAST thing I would do is vote for a
socialist,
cowardly,
wealth-redistributing,
enemy-abetting,
pro-baby-murdering,
pro-sodomy,
evolutionist,
anti-gun,
fear-mongering,
moral relativist who would support judicial activism, further strip the first amendment of its true meaning, remove every thought of God from public view, and destroy that which made the founding of this country right and good…

Freelancer on October 20, 2006 at 1:48 AM

I can think of ??????? John Kerry and Howard Dean from 2004 and plenty in the mill for 2006. Good thing, Freelancer, that you left out “communist”.

Entelechy on October 20, 2006 at 2:07 AM

Constantine,

Pelosi, Reid, Dean, just for starters, fit every description I identified.

I haven’t the slightest interest whatever in persecuting gays. But I refuse to support an agenda that increasingly attempts to force me to approve of a lifestyle the Bible does not approve of.

This is not the forum to discuss your vapid stance on handguns or creation, so I won’t.

You haven’t heard me suggest that your Christianity is lacking, have you? Don’t you dare do so. You wouldn’t have a chance in a straight-up debate with me regarding Scriptural dogma.

Oh, and you must understand that only one of your political stripe would be insulted by the Karl Rove reference. I am merely amused. And in respect for AP’s workload managing this site, I’ll let it rest at that.

Freelancer on October 20, 2006 at 2:14 AM

Rightwinged- The MSM polls are very misleading because any lapsed Catholic is going to call himself “Catholic,” even though they haven’t been to church in 20 years. Also, inherent in the definition of being “Catholic” is that you are loyal to the Magisterium, which means the official Church teachings.

With that definition of Catholic, the vast majority of Catholics who attend mass weekly are Republican and pro-life. One can go to any service here in Northern Virginia and see Republican bumper sticker after bumper sticker. It is very rare to see any Democratic bumper stickers.

Orthodox Catholics are almost uniformly Republican these days, especially the younger generation in their 20’s and 30’s. It has become a very important block of voters for Republicans.

januarius on October 19, 2006 at 10:03 PM

You may be right regarding your specific area, but the numbers have shown Catholics increasingly going left for a long time. I actually wrote a comment on here about this a while back but can’t remember under which post, that contained a lot of the numbers.

But if you’re going by bumperstickers, I think I can make a claim that I would think is more scientifically based (though neither are really). What part of the country would you say is the “most Catholic” part? It’s the Northeast, where I am, hands down. What part of the country is also the most liberal? The Northeast (with the west coast coming in at a close second).

RightWinged on October 20, 2006 at 2:14 AM

There is NO hope of bringing sanity back to the Democratic Party, and the reason is simple: its foundation is a lie (the advantage of socialism). Democrats are twisting in the wind of not being able to openly declare the roots of their “thinking” (Marx), knowing that the results of that thinking have proven to be destructive wherever tried. Even “reasonable” Democrats are stuck in this muck. Evangelicals, it seems to me, know full well that votes withheld from the GOP will only empower the Left, and it seems very hard to believe that this stalwart GOP base would desert it now in such an hour of need.

Halley on October 20, 2006 at 2:35 AM

Rightwinged,
In the 2000 presidential election, Gore won the majority of the Catholic vote with 50 percent to Bush’s 47 percent. The numbers in the 2004 election swung in favor of President Bush 52 percent to Kerry’s 47 percent. (John
Kerry who is actually Catholic, himself).
Is that scientific enough for you? The national trend is that Catholics are voting more conservatively.

Januarius was exactly right in what he said about practicing Catholics being overwhelmingly more conservative than non-practicing Catholics.

Nice Deb on October 20, 2006 at 2:38 AM

Freelancer, your characterization of all the people you mentioned isn’t accurate. But the more important point is I was not questioning your faith as you suggest. Rather, I challenge you to reconcile Biblical values with the actions of the Bush administration, apparently the most un-Christian White House in American history.

Constantine on October 20, 2006 at 2:43 AM

The LAST thing I would do is vote for a
socialist,
cowardly,
wealth-redistributing,
enemy-abetting,
pro-baby-murdering,
pro-sodomy,
evolutionist,
anti-gun,
fear-mongering,
Communist, (hat tip to Entelechy)
moral relativist who would support judicial activism, further strip the first amendment of its true meaning, remove every thought of God from public view, and destroy that which made the founding of this country right and good.

Bravo, Freelancer! That is a near-perfect summation of the Democratic party platform. And as unhappy as I am with the Republicans, I wouldn’t vote Democratic if you put a gun to my head. Nor will I ever. If I have to settle for a party that only agrees with some of what I do, it’s still a vastly better choice than a party that not only doesn’t agree with me, but is the enemy of everything I believe in. I suspect that most conservatives feel the same way.

Screw the polls. They’re meaningless as a guide to your own personal behavior–they would be even if the media wasn’t in the tank for the Demorats, but they are, so doubly disregard them. Just get out and vote. Encourage everyone you know to do the same. Be the boot that kicks their asses off the couch if you have to. It’s the right thing to do anyway, and the choices and the stakes couldn’t be much clearer. Read that list up there again and try to tell me that they aren’t.

ReubenJCogburn on October 20, 2006 at 3:58 AM

Rightwinged,
In the 2000 presidential election, Gore won the majority of the Catholic vote with 50 percent to Bush’s 47 percent. The numbers in the 2004 election swung in favor of President Bush 52 percent to Kerry’s 47 percent. (John
Kerry who is actually Catholic, himself).
Is that scientific enough for you? The national trend is that Catholics are voting more conservatively.

Januarius was exactly right in what he said about practicing Catholics being overwhelmingly more conservative than non-practicing Catholics.

Nice Deb on October 20, 2006 at 2:38 AM

Well your last claim doesn’t come with numbers backing it up, but I appreciate you digging up those that you did… though I’d hardly call that a “trend”. Catholics also went for Jimmy Carter in 76, Clinton both times, and as you said Gore in 2000.

Anyway, I really wish I could dig up the information I happened upon the last time this was discussed. But I guess I should say that Catholics are more “liberal” than the rank and file GOPer, no? Vast majority support abortion, rolling back tax cuts for social programs, almost a third support gay marriage, etc. I think I’ll leave it at that for now, because I’d rather not get in to what a Catholic is and what a “practicing” Catholic is, etc.

RightWinged on October 20, 2006 at 4:13 AM

The LAST thing I would do is vote for a
socialist,
cowardly,
wealth-redistributing,
enemy-abetting,
pro-baby-murdering,
pro-sodomy,
evolutionist,
anti-gun,
fear-mongering,
Communist, (hat tip to Entelechy)
moral relativist who would support judicial activism, further strip the first amendment of its true meaning, remove every thought of God from public view, and destroy that which made the founding of this country right and good.

Bravo, Freelancer! That is a near-perfect summation of the Democratic party platform. And as unhappy as I am with the Republicans, I wouldn’t vote Democratic if you put a gun to my head. Nor will I ever. If I have to settle for a party that only agrees with some of what I do, it’s still a vastly superior choice to a party that not only doesn’t agree with me, but is the enemy of everything I believe in. I suspect that most conservatives feel the same way.

I say screw the polls. They’re meaningless as a guide to our personal behavior–they would be even if the media weren’t in the tank for the Demorats, but they are, so doubly disregard them. Just get out and vote. Encourage everyone you know to do the same. Be the boot that kicks their @$$es off the couch if you have to. It’s the right thing to do anyway, and the choices and the stakes couldn’t be much clearer. Read that list up there again and try to tell me that they aren’t.

ReubenJCogburn on October 20, 2006 at 4:35 AM

lorien1973 wrote: “If enough evangelicals switch to democrats, they could be brought back to sanity.”

The Brownshirt Party (i.e., the Democrats) is too far gone and too filled with hatred of evangelicals to be brought back to sanity. They are too dismissive of what they consider to be their “inferiors” — i.e., any and all conservatives. They mimic the Brownshirts of 1932 in their approach to politics, which is das party uber alles.

The attempts to smear Hastert over Foley, and now Weller goes beyond “hardball” politics. It is the politics of personal destruction that Bill and Hillary Clinton either invented or stole early on. This is all the work of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), the “Tony Soprano” of the Clintonistas.

The only hope for the Democratic Party to become the type of party that Wilson, FDR, Truman, and JFK could recognize would be if the Democrats completely repudiated People for the American Way, NARAL, Soros, Brady Center, and ignored the ravings of nutters like moveon, DU, DKOS, and Hamsher. And if they removed Dean, Emanuel, Conyers, Rangel, Leahy, Kennedy, Durbin, and Schumer from any and all positions of leadership , including “ranking member” status on committees and leadership of the campaign committees.

And that’s not going to happen unless the Democratic Party is broken at the polls and reduced to 3rd party status.

georgej on October 20, 2006 at 5:06 AM

Constantine, you appear to be what our side refers to as a “moonbat.” I could be wrong with this characterization, so feel to rebut.

From your posts, you appear to have all the symptoms and signs. You proclaim the customary “BUSH LIED!” mantra. You refer to non-existent, made up out of whole cloth scandals (Jeff Gannon, Plame outing, Pentagon’s Iraq anti Al-Qaeda agitprop campaign) as if they mean something important to the stability of the Republic (they don’t).

In fact, about the only DU/DKOS “talking point” you appear to have left out was “NO BLOOD FOR OIL.”

You appear to be stuck in simple denial, in other words. Or as Psychiatrist Dr. Pat Santy puts it, you hide

“encapsulated in slick slogans that can be mindlessly repeated until they take on the characteristics of some fundamental “truth”.”

The ironic thing is that your side abhors any commingling of religious values with civic life, and here you are denigrating George W. Bush for NOT commingling, for doing what your side claims it wants, separating church and state in the creation and application of policy.

Now I don’t agree with all of George W. Bush’s positions and policies. Some, in fact, I strongly disagree with.

But your side offers only constant criticism and invective, “armchair quarterbacking” and contrarian backbiting. Overall, it is hard to take your criticisms seriously.

georgej on October 20, 2006 at 6:35 AM

I will probably stay home. Local republicans are running practically uncontested. In the allen vs web race I don’t really care who wins. I lose either way. There is no small government conservative party running.

Roci on October 20, 2006 at 8:51 AM

Sorry about the repeated post, folks. Apparently it got caught in one of the tubes of the InterWeb. Darn that Al Gore!

ReubenJCogburn on October 20, 2006 at 9:07 AM

I still think my theory that people are rejecting God has legs. Anyone read Heather McDonald lately?

Enrique on October 20, 2006 at 9:34 AM

I will probably stay home. Local republicans are running practically uncontested. In the allen vs web race I don’t really care who wins. I lose either way. There is no small government conservative party running.

Roci on October 20, 2006 at 8:51 AM

The oldest trick in the world is for Dems to pretend to be conservatives, and then claim that they aren’t going to vote because everyone is corrupt.

Allen has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate. Webb is a flaming liberal. For a “small government conservative” to profess indifference sounds suspicious.

januarius on October 20, 2006 at 9:52 AM

Re Catholics being Dem or Rep–for years the Dem party was built on 4 pillars–Afro-Americans, “Roosevelt intellectuals”, labor and Catholics. Catholics were concentrated in urban areas, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, and many were union members. As Catholics moved from first to second to third generation, their level of education increased; at the same time, suburbans blossomed post war, making the idea of the Catholic urban/ethnic community revolving around the Church less and less the model, and hence the mentality of block voting less prevalent.

A large number of factors have converged to make Catholics more “mainstream”; it’s not so much that Catholics started to move toward the right; the country did.

honora on October 20, 2006 at 9:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.