Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on May 11, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“This could turn out to be the election where both parties realize that the evangelical vote is so hopelessly split down the middle that it’s not worth courting them at all because what parties need are blocs that can be appealed to en masse. Paradoxically, evangelicals would become less relevant than ever before.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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:
Tell me all about it, Mr. Unbiased Reporter.
OneGyT on May 11, 2008 at 10:09 PM
There can be a difference between a conservative and a Republican. Adriana Huffington once had conservative ideals and then did a 180 degree turn. If these bright college students do a 180 degree turn from a conservative philosphy to a liberal extremist view like Huffington, then conservatives indeed have a huge problem for the 08 elections.
Travis1 on May 11, 2008 at 10:10 PM
i stopped reading at “Young”
if the young vote does actualy turn out to vote its because they have been told to by their teachers.
they will be told who to vote for by them as well.
never been so glad i went to a comm college.
trailortrash on May 11, 2008 at 10:13 PM
What? I believe the article suggested that less than 5% of the young evangelical voters cited had become DemoRats, and only 15% had, indeed, left the GOP in the first place. Sounds like a normal election cycle for the traditionally tormented 18 year old voter.
I don’t know where that’s the “middle” of anything, and I’m guessing that the other 2/3 of the voters that the leftist Seattle Times declares have left the GOP are gone because of the pervasive presence of homosexuality and general immorality there, and the socially liberal nominee for the Presidency.
Hard to imagine those voters finding a happy home in the party of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jaibones on May 11, 2008 at 10:14 PM
If you are young and not a liberal, you have no heart.
If you are older and not a conservative, you have no brain.
If you are one of today’s young adults, you think you know it all, and are corrupted by moral relativism… you are also ignorant of history and are therefore DOOMED to repeat it!
I’m feeling too old to be optimistic anymore.
singlemalt_18 on May 11, 2008 at 10:16 PM
I know a young, conservative, evangelical Catholic group. Some of them have been moved to the far left on the issue of illegal aliens and even illegal immigration, because of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Their teaching is, literally, in favor of open borders. At least that is what some of these young voters believe.
These are profoundly conservative people. What a shame.
Jaibones on May 11, 2008 at 10:22 PM
It’s sort of strange for a newspaper in Seattle putting themselves forward as an expert on evangelicals.
INC on May 11, 2008 at 10:22 PM
These are same folks telling us that Moki is winning in Basrah and Sadr city. Man it is all projection with these folks.
mred on May 11, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Why does this just reek of those “lifelong Republican to vote Democrat”, stories? You know, the ones where, upon a little real digging we find that the “lifelong” has donated repeatedly to Dems while registering otherwise.
And where did they find that young, ah, creature, in the photo?
Yikes!
heldmyw on May 11, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Speaking as an evangelical (and a rather young one at that), most evangelicals are as clueless about politics as the rest of the population. Many of them will sway politically as the rest of the population will–especially the younger ones.
But there is a trend that I’ve seen. It’s almost as if some evangelicals are embarrassed to be somehow connected with the political conservative movement (even though many of them actually are conservatives), and they’re desperate to show their friends that they’re politically moderate, so they try to connect themselves with Mr. Change, Senator BO, even though much of his platform–if they actually paid attention–would be abhorrent to them.
Pope Linus on May 11, 2008 at 10:28 PM
You’ve got to be kidding!
You mean every pundit,CNN hit pieces on Religion,and every
article on Religion has backfired for the left!
So after nauseating effort by the media to tell me 6 ways
of Sunday that Mitt Romney was a Mormon,and all about the
Mormons!
And here we go about how Republicans are voting for a Democrats!
Well,ya know some people are saying that some people are
going to vote for Liberals over Republicans,really!
Lets see,Catholics and Mormons in the Republican party
didn’t split them up,so that angle backfired for the left.
So now they’ll try,you know what, all the Republicans are
going to vote Liberal,for the love of all that is pure and
good,when does this Liberal madness end?
canopfor on May 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM
what exactly constitutes an “evangelical”?
blatantblue on May 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Heh, your post gave me a quick flashback. I went to college on the GI bill. The college I attended gave special consideration to vets. That was to get the GI bucks but hey they made it convenient for us even working shift work. My entire class was made up of vets, most just back from Vietnam. How do you think the liberal profs fared in that situation? Ahhh, the memories.
Oldnuke on May 11, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Wish I’d been there to see that!!
INC on May 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM
And I quote:
Wow. 15%! That’s half of the number defecting right.
Darnell Clayton on May 11, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Hm. Praytell, if the “evangelical vote” isn’t determined by moral (and even religious) issues, then why call it the evangelical vote? It’s not an evangelical vote anymore, it’s a bunch of kids who coincidentally go to evangelical churches.
It is a pity actually, regardless of one’s views on abortion, which Cho refers to, that he would categorize it as a game or a tool for manipulation. Quite frankly, I’ve not understood those who call themselves Evangelical Christians who are upset with the current President. Huckabee seemed to play the Pied Piper very well with a tune that claimed they were neglected. But hasn’t Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Bill. Or does Cho think Bush was manipulating the game of life there?
Here is an issue I wish Bryan would chime in on. I’m very curious as to his thoughts.
Spirit of 1776 on May 11, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Someone who does what Jesus told them to do…
Red Pill on May 11, 2008 at 10:47 PM
I don’t understand how anyone who truly embraces Christianity but especially an Evangelical Christian could compromise on an issue like abortion. To me that means that no true Christian could vote in good conscience for a candidate who believes abortion is acceptable.
Oldnuke on May 11, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Here’s a link with a definition of evangelical. Hope this helps.
Oldnuke on May 11, 2008 at 10:51 PM
No matter what, a conservative will not be elected this time around. Deal with it, and start planning for 2012.
Akzed on May 11, 2008 at 10:52 PM
So unless someone has been to every tribe and continent, and preached the gospel to every creature, he’s not an “evangelical”?
Akzed on May 11, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Whether you realize it or not, you are making your own “prophecy” for this election. We don’t even have official nominees for either party yet. You may think it’s a done deal and we have to “deal with it”, but let’s see what the next 4 months bring…
Red Pill on May 11, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Ann Coulter made the point that the Evangelical vote has never been a particularly useful bloc vote; at best, it’s about 65% Republican. That’s heavily Republican, but not nearly so heavy as the Jewish vote (80% Democrat) or the black vote (90% Democrat.)
The problem the Democrats have had in the past is not that they’re unappealing to Evangelicals; it’s that they’re unappealing to Christians, period. The party that elevates the state above God, that approves of rampant, promiscuous sexuality, coddles those with compulsive sexual disorders, favors redefinitions of marriage, favors euthanasia of the extreme elderly, infanticide of the young, and suspicion toward religious people, is not a party that most Americans are going to vote for. They needed to solve their image as “anti-religious,” which is why we’ve heard so much disgusting religious-sounding nonsense from Democratic candidates.
In the meantime, Republicans have eschewed religious talk (mostly because of scolding from Democrats), so now a larger proportion of the voting public thinks of Democrats as Christian and Republicans as pagan. This is yet another place where Democrats have taken the high ground by outright lying (they still regard religion as idiocy, they’ve just learned to use religious talk). If the Republican party does not shake off it’s fear of offending Democrats and start articulating moral imperatives accurately, we’re not only facing long-term minority status, we’re facing an American neo-Marxist state.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
philwynk on May 11, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Why is prophecy is quotes?
One needn’t be a prophet to see that, unless McCain and/or Hussine die, it’s pretty much a done deal. If you believe otherwise, I guess you’re a prophet.
Question: can one go to heaven without being an “evangelical”?
Akzed on May 11, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Leftist Catholicism never ceases to amaze me. I really don’t think that bloated welfare states which keep perfectly able-bodied citizens addicted to lives of relative squalor funded by poverty-level government checks is really what Jesus was hoping for from us.
I don’t think He’d be happy about all the baby-killing, either.
Am I just being presumptious and/or blasphemous? I hope not.
p.s., God forbid, Catholic Church, that countries be allowed to exercise some control and oversight with regard to immigration, particularly nowadays. And I say that, with disgust, as a practicing Catholic.
Kensington on May 11, 2008 at 11:01 PM
I know this is absurdly idealistic of me to say, but boy you really wish that doing “The Right Thing For The Country”(TM) and saying screw all these voting blocs would be enough to win an election.
Maybe I’m becoming a cynic but screw them all. African American bloc. Evangelical bloc. Jewish bloc. Gays. Union members. Gun owners. Non gun owners. Elderly. Hispanic. Whoever. Screw em. Just do what you gotta do and stay out of everyones way.
Dash on May 11, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Let me help you understand it, then.
A vote is not an endorsement of every part of a candidate’s platform. It’s just a preference: given the candidates on the ballot, which would I prefer? If you’re given two bad choices, a vote for the less bad does not mean you approve of that badness, it just means you’re being sensible. Conversely, if you’re given two good choices, your vote does not mean you disapprove of the person who did not receive your vote.
I’m seeing far too many Christians who confuse their devotion to Christ and the truth — which must never be compromised in the slightest — with political advocacy. Politics is not the pursuit of the truth, it’s the means by which humans with diverse points of view negotiate how they’re going to govern themselves. My pursuit of God leads me to debate honestly, keep my word, treat others decently, and defend positions I think are crucial. It does not, however, prevent me from voting for the least worst candidate.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. My townhall.com blog has links to get there. Thanks.)
philwynk on May 11, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Which has done next to nothing in terms of limiting abortion, let alone wiping it out in unnecessary cases.
Darth Executor on May 11, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Of course.
One cannot go to heaven, however, without having appropriated Christ’s sacrifice for their sins, and having been regenerated by the Spirit of God. This is plain, orthodox Christianity. Evangelicals believe it — and accept any person who appropriates it as their brother in Christ.
philwynk on May 11, 2008 at 11:12 PM
This, coming from you, is the biggest irony of them all, and you are oblivious to it. Quit dreaming. Deal with reality. It’s McCain and Obama. No one knows who’s going to win until Nov. Then, it’s either McCain or Obama.
Entelechy on May 11, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Wishful thinking.
SouthernGent on May 11, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Under such circumstance there is normally a run on Lithium at the nearest pharmacy to the campus.
Sigy on May 11, 2008 at 11:42 PM
If you’re part of God’s flock, it’s other “sheep” you “turn the other cheek” to, give another chance to, give the benefit of the doubt to–not the wolf, not Satan. Wolves aren’t meant to get second chances. If you’re an Evangelical who doesn’t feel the need to destroy evil, doesn’t feel the need to guide stragglers away from the wolf’s jaw, then what are you here for? Why would you call yourself an Evangelical? The Evangelical Left seems to trust the Wolf more than they trust the Shepard. That’s the problem.
RBMN on May 11, 2008 at 11:44 PM
I like your response, especially this part.
I understand your position but given the very nature of abortion I simply cannot understand how any Christian could compromise on it. I vote for people who have values unlike mine, but there are issues that I absolutely will not compromise on. Would you vote for a convicted pedophile if that was his only flaw and he was head and shoulders better than his opponent on every pertinent issue? I realize that is an extreme example but hopefully you’ll see the point. In any case this is a moot issue for a presidential election since the president has no power to change the present constitutional interpretation. His/her only shot at changing this would be judicial nominations and they might not vote as anticipated anyway.
Oldnuke on May 11, 2008 at 11:50 PM
I doubt Jesus would have been even born given that Planned
AbortionParenthood would have taken away the democrats excuse to nail Jesus to the cross.Kini on May 12, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Is that because they were uncommon to begin with, or is there another reason? Are you saying that the law was ineffective? What is in the power of the Presidency you think that block would rather see?
Spirit of 1776 on May 12, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Of all of humankind’s various features, the one that varies the most is the ear.
Holmes on May 12, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Like yesterdays oatmeal, this too shall pass.
After we get to it after the conventions the left will continue lying about McCain (they’ll have too) and it will become obvious, McCain will have a down the middle record to run on and that will be obvious too.
Neither ultra left potential nominee dares come out of the closet and McCain may not suit us but he suits a lot of people.
Speakup on May 12, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Obama is a dysangelical.
profitsbeard on May 12, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Ahhh, the chickens come home to roost. Logic vs faith = logic loses-> generation next “I don’t need your stinkin’ logic.”
Live with it.
peski on May 12, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Paradoxically, evangelicals would become less relevant than ever before.”
Evangelicals have never been relevant to me. I consider them one step above radical islam.
God bless America, who ever he may be.
Semper Fi
winemkr on May 12, 2008 at 1:33 AM
And we call liberals elitist?
But you’re right, dumb young people who can’t think for themselves, who needs ‘em..
Reaps on May 12, 2008 at 1:51 AM
Don’t Click.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 12, 2008 at 2:26 AM
The Obama campaign seems to be going to great lengths to keep his platform secret. His speeches and other public appearances are devoid of specifics. Interviewers’ attempts to get specifics from him are met with with accusations of, “distraction from what the American people want to hear.” And most of the media have no problem granting his every wish. And these child voters don’t yet have the sense to think and research for themselves.
I wonder if the small movement of Evangelical kids is just the first fruits of liberals long domination of the MSM and college professorships and Jon Stewart and Nickelodeon and SNL, etc., etc.?
snaggletoothie on May 12, 2008 at 3:22 AM
Vote for yourself in November.
If you believe in God, Family and Country, vote for yourself because there is no political party that represents your conservative beliefs.
Be honest with yourself, don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, don’t vote for evil at all.
You want your voice to be heard?
You want to show Washington D.C. that you are fed up with it?
You want media attention?
You want to form a Conservative Party?
Then vote en mass, all of you Conservatives, vote for yourselves.
And when they ask you “whom did you vote for?” say I am a Conservative and I voted for myself because nobody on the ballot represents me.
Start the Conservative Revolution at the polling place.
Believe me, it will work.
But all of us Conservatives have to do it.
Let’s show the world that our number is greater than what they thought.
Let’s make a difference.
Let’s claim our right to be heard and respected.
The Republican Party has rejected us.
Get out of it. Why are you still voting for it?
Stop the hypocrisy. Stop wasting your vote for people you don’t believe in.
What good are you doing to yourself and your country if you vote for someone who doesn’t represent your core values and beliefs?
Don’t fool yourself.
Don’t think about power and who is going to get it if you vote for yourself. Think about the future gains you will ripe by making that difficult choice (for some of you).
It will take time for Conservatives to claim their country back, but every big goal starts with a small step.
Don’t be afraid, you will do the right thing. And you will feel good about it because after so many years of voting for the lesser of two evils, finally you get the chance in November to vote for what you TRULY believe in.
Your conscience will be clear and you will never regret it.
Trust my word.
Indy Conservative on May 12, 2008 at 4:11 AM
Don’t pay attention to Indy. Write in Bullwinkle for president. I’d recommend Rocky the Flying Squirrel but he’s really too small to be POTUS.
snaggletoothie on May 12, 2008 at 4:18 AM
Huzzah! Huzzah! HUZZAH!!!
The Seattle Times is reporting that Evangelicals are voting for Obama?!?
It MUST be TRUE!!!
SteakRules on May 12, 2008 at 4:49 AM
Don’t cry for conservatives, Evita.
misterpeasea on May 12, 2008 at 4:52 AM
Vote for yourself in November.
Don’t be afraid,you will do the right thing.
Indy Conservative on May 12,2008 at 4:11AM.
Indy Conservative:Indy, sounds like you want to “Lets roll”
with this Republican revolution,I’m sold,
I’m in!
So the deal is, your on point,tip of the
spear,for motivation heres General Pattons
Famous speech to the troops!
http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html.
[Indy,I'm kidding,eh! :) ]
canopfor on May 12, 2008 at 6:28 AM
Don’t pay attention to Indy.Write in Bullwinkle for
president.I’d recommend Rocky the Flying Squirrel but
he’s really to small to be POTUS.
snaggletoothie on May 12,2008 at 4:18AM.
snaggletoothie: “he’s really to small to be POTUS”,So
other than small,the squirrel is qualified
LOL,I like it! haha.
canopfor on May 12, 2008 at 6:53 AM
Arianna
HuffingtonStassinopoulos was never a conservative. That was part of her act when she posed as the wife of a closeted gay politician. When he lost office she divorced him, kept his name & money and turned into another TeresaHeinz KerrySimoes-Ferreira.miles on May 12, 2008 at 6:56 AM
Two points.
First, as close as the 2000 election was, a slight weakening of the evangelical voter group would have doomed Bush’s first attempt at the presidency. It doesn’t take much to matter.
However, disaffected women who are disgusted at how the Dem establishment turned on Hillary could be an even more important group.
Still, there is a long time between now and November. The race will be determined on how effectively Obama can move to the center after running a historically leftist campaign. And can the general population accept the most collectivist president since Roosevelt? We’ll see.
mugged by squirrels on May 12, 2008 at 7:07 AM
This Southern Baptist evangelical wont compromise on abortion. And I will never support any candidate of any party that is pro-abortion. I’ll write in or stay home first. And I’ll see myself in Hell before I vote for Obama for any reason.
abcurtis on May 12, 2008 at 8:15 AM
An evangelical is one who has Christ as his savior, and who is willing to share the Gospel of Christ with anybody at any time. We do not consider what we believe to be “private” as liberals do. Jesus never said, “Dont go into the world, dont teach thems the things I have taught you, dont baptize them and make disciples.” The Apostle Peter says we are to be ready at all times to give a reason for the hope that lives within us. (1st Peter 3:15)
I dont “push” my beliefs on anybody, but if you ask, I will answer.
abcurtis on May 12, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Joe Lieberman was on Fox just now, talking about McCain’s big speech today on global warming. Brian told him that conservatives are not happy about this. Lieberman said very subtly, that McCain didnt care what conservatives thought, he’s independent and this is who he is.
I’m writing in Mr Magoo in November and let the devil take the hind most.
Another thing – Mike Gallagher said a caller on his show last week said he thought McCain would pick Hillary as VP. Somehow I wouldnt be the least bit surprised.
abcurtis on May 12, 2008 at 8:30 AM
If young evangelicals are really attached to the “sanctity of life”, they might be interested to know that Barack Obama, in the Illinois State Senate, voted against a bill that would have required doctors to care for babies born alive who survived a late-term abortion attempt.
In his own words, Obama “wouldn’t want to punish you with a baby”, so he punishes the babies. What would Jesus do?
Steve Z on May 12, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I’m damn serious about the Conservative Revolution.
General Patton is one of my heroes.
Indy Conservative on May 12, 2008 at 9:24 AM
This shows a complete ignorance of the current “evangelic” landscape these days.
It’s the “emergent” movement that is sliding leftwards with its insistence on deconstructing, rethinking and not really holding with much that is true.
I can only speak for protestantism. And until this is factored in because someone takes the time to actually observe this, you’ve got a very skewed vision of things.
That the catholics have gone nuts on immigration (whether the church officially teaches lawbreaking or not) is more obvious.
Mommynator on May 12, 2008 at 9:25 AM
It’s all been said above.
maverick muse on May 12, 2008 at 9:25 AM
All that article told me was that people under twenty-five should not be allowed to vote unless they served in the military. Then again I also believe that you shouldn’t be allowed to vote unless you own real property.
srhoades on May 12, 2008 at 9:46 AM
These mutts (authors) would not know an Evangelical if one rang their doorbells.
pabarge on May 12, 2008 at 11:00 AM
The only real voting blocks are minorities.
Esthier on May 12, 2008 at 11:49 AM
That is their goal.
Red Pill on May 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Comment pages: