Did moral issue take a thrashing in the November elections?

TFP ^ | 12.15.06 | John Horvat II

[Coleus]

Sports teams expect opponents to score against them. It is all part of the game. The important thing is to amass a steady string of victories to win the championship.  The same logic that applies to sports does not seem to apply to politics. In the aftermath of the November elections, there has been much talk on both sides of the political spectrum about the decline of moral issues.  Talk is rife about a social conservative consensus that is supposedly wearing thin. Moral values were edged out by the economy and jobs. The pro-life movement is beleaguered. The traditional agenda of opposition to abortion and same-sex “marriage” is all too narrow. Conservatives need to retreat from the moral issues and broaden to other more politically correct fields.  Based on such commentary, one would have thought that moral issues had taken a real thrashing last November. Cultural conservatives were left to simply pick up the pieces and bewail their fate. However, that is not what happened. If anyone was keeping score, about the only thing that did not get thrashed was moral values.

State Marriage Amendments
Consider the State constitutional amendments against same-sex “marriage.” Cultural conservatives extended their winning streak to 27, count them, victories. This year, seven out of eight ballot issues won in a thrashing that should make the other side despair. Tennessee's amendment passed with a whopping 81 percent of the vote. In South Carolina, it was 78 percent. Some 63 percent refused marriage-redefinition attempts in Idaho. In the remaining states, the anti-amendment vote was closer. Meanwhile, only in Arizona did the amendment lose by a razor thin margin. Many attribute the loss to the fact that other side focused on the threat to existing unmarried couple benefits and not same-sex “marriage” issue itself. In sports, a 27-1 record gets a team in the playoffs. In liberal politics, the single defeat is spun as a thrashing.

Electing candidates
Some might argue that these moral issues did not get people elected. Here again, an adjustment needs to be made. There is a big difference from the moral issues themselves and the politicians who often pay lip service to them. Other major issues like Iraq, scandals and corruption also undeniably played a major role in the elections that cannot be ignored.  However, the facts do not show that moral issues themselves were the cause of the defeat. If anyone was keeping score, they would see it is quite to the contrary. Robert Novak notes that EMILY’s List, a group that funds pro-abortion women, supported a slate of candidates that were effectively thrashed. Of the 19 truly competitive House races involving candidates funded and backed by EMILY's List, only two won. In a similar case, Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America donated to the campaigns of five pro-abortion Republicans (including three incumbents). All lost their races.

Of the thirteen incoming House Republicans, none call themselves “pro-choice.” It was a disproportionate number of moderate Republicans soft on moral issues who lost and not the other way around. Consider also the fact that some Democrats broke ranks with the party line and ran and won on pro-life issues.

The South Dakota Debacle?
Liberals point to the defeat of the abortion ban “debacle” in South Dakota as a sign that the pro-life issue is in decline. Framed as dangerous and extreme measure, that ban was originally passed as a constitutional gamble to overturn Roe v. Wade. During the elections, the gamble lost by a ten percent margin. Even in this case, if anyone is keeping score, the victory was hardly an overwhelming thrashing of the pro-life cause in that state.  Pro-life advocates have consistently pummeled pro-abortion radicals in South Dakota. The state has only one abortion clinic open a different day each week. Because of the stigma attached to the practice, no native doctor will do abortions. The sole clinic is serviced by an out-of-state doctor flown in weekly. Pro-lifers have succeeded in passing numerous restrictions on abortion. The state ranks 49th in both number and percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion. Pro-life governor Mike Rounds who signed the failed abortion ban into law handily thrashed his opponent in the 2006 elections.

The fact that an abortion ban could not win in one of the reddest of red states is hardly a sign there is no hope for such moral issues. The same argument is certainly not made for Massachusetts where lawmakers are stonewalling Gov. Mitt Romney’s request that they honor the 170,000 state residents who petitioned to put same-sex “marriage” on the ballot. If legislators fear putting same-sex “marriage” on the ballot in the bluest of all blue states, what hope is there for the pro-homosexual cause?

Moral Values Not Cause
All this services to highlight three points: first the 2006 elections did not signify a rejection of moral issues. It was more a non-ideological face-off between the two political parties, decided by Iraq, scandals and corruption.  Second, the results served to underscore the polarized state of American politics. Both sides of the moral issues have sizable minorities that are contesting the future. Success will come to those who stick to their principles. If anyone is keeping score, they will see that moral values have an excellent record. Rather than diluting their values or broadening into more politically correct fields, cultural conservative should only strengthen their resolve and highlight their moral values. What worked in 2006 were moral values, it only makes sense to use that which worked.

A Cultural War
Finally, the battle for America is not a ball game. It is a cultural war where the rules of engagement are entirely different and those keeping score can and do break all the rules.  It is a war of attrition where this polarization is primarily religious and moral. Each side is trying to outlast the other. On one side is the cultural left with its decade-old attachment to secularism, feminism and all types of sexual liberation. It won the election more by opposing than proposing. It is a movement long in crisis led by aged activists and academics of revolutions past. This side can count on the support of Hollywood stars, a liberal establishment and academia. With the constant help of liberal media, it can spin the worst defeat into victory.

And on the other side are the cultural pro-family conservatives, mugged by the terrible reality of the breakdown of society. With dogged determination, political savvy and prayer, these grassroots Americans have put together an impressive string of victories ignored by major media yet completely obvious for anyone who is keeping score.  That is not to say that this side does not have its own trials and problems but it has weathered many storms. Over the years, its position has often been declared untenable and impossible by more “moderate” sectors that favor the politics of concession. But they have ignored such naysayers and fought on.  Indeed, the odds are still against those who fight on. However, their strength is in something the other secular side does not understand. Faith sustains them as they trust in God – who is keeping score.

[Mr. Silverback]

There is not a single citation of fact in your 863 word post. Do you have any actual, verifiable, citable FACTS to back up your assertions?

[Mr. Silverback]

You will also notice that in post 17, Cold Heat said this:

They have caused the RNC to put up social conservatives in areas that will not vote for them,

I just about died laughing.

[Cold Heat]

I'm so glad that i could amuse you.

Perhaps you can console Santorum, and the various other solid conservatives who were blown out in previously supportive districts.

You either recognize this reality for what it is, or take your denials to the loser club and opine how how you just were not conservative enough.

That's what gets me laughing.....Har, har, har!

You will have another chance to read the tea leaves correctly in less than two years.

My guess is that you won't see it again. But that's OK now. I don't care anymore and have turned a corner. I know precisely what to do and have given you a heads up. You can take my word for it now, or you can take the word of the voters in '08.

Personally, I prefer to be prepared, but I may be last Boy Scout left who has not already deserted the party for the relative safety of the Independent party.

The future of the republican party depends on folks like you. You can either leave, or be much more prepared to negotiate compromises. If you don't do one or the other, the party will remain a poor representation of a minority entity with no chance of success.

My guess is that with no power to enact your agenda, there will be a mass defection when it becomes more clear to you. At that time, we will collect all the broken china and start the rebuilding process. Something I have already participated in before, in the 70s.

I never have liked doing the same job twice, but that's the way it will be. You could have prevented it, and you could make it much easier, but I see no sign that you will.

And so it.....goes......

[Mr. Silverback]

No facts, eh?

Now that makes for a really compelling case.

[Mr. Silverback]

Perhaps you can console Santorum, and the various other solid conservatives who were blown out in previously supportive districts.

Santorum, who ran unopposed in the primary? Santorum, who was part of the RNC support team that kept a rock-ribbed social conservative like Specter over a RINO like Toomey? (Oh wait, I've got that reversed...) Are you going to tell me the Vast RNC Social Conservative Conspiracy prevented anyone from running against Santorum in the primaries? If so, will you cite evidence to support your claim?

You claim you have predicted the 2006 election, but you're only half right. Your prediction of defeat came true, but your concept of the reasons for the defeat was not only wrong, but has been comnpletely disproven with empirical data, just like the 2004 results. It's sort of like a person in 1942 predicting that Germany would lose the war, but saying the reason they would lose was because the German Army had inferior soldiers. Same result, clueless reasoning.

I haven't seen you cite a verifiable fact yet, even though you're discussing the attitudes of the most surveyed and studied electorate in the history of the world. Now that makes for a really compelling case!

[Cold Heat]

Ya know....some people on this forum have been telling me the same thing for years...Where's the cites, blah, blah.

How about this....I'm quoting myself.....

Har, har, har!

I don't need to quote some moron pundit who gets paid for a opinion to verify my own. It is what it is, and from responses I get in private, I am hitting the right buttons.

Most people don't know how or why they feel as they do. The research into this is always flawed. People take the opinion that most likely represents what they want to project. The truth is usually just underneath the veneer. Almost all people lie to pollsters. Some intentionally, many just don't understand their feelings and biases.

One thing for sure, the general electorate won't be electing conservatives back to a majority for some time to come. At least until the tarnished reputation has been repaired and this will take some time and effort. It might be necessary for the party to distance it's self from the Conservative handle.( I'm now ashamed to say) Because the party did some sorry things in my name.

Yes, Silverback, it really is that bad. I think I'm all done ranting. You have not changed a whit over the years, and I would not expect you to. You don't need to believe a word of it. In fact, I hope you don't.

It's better that way.

[Mr. Silverback]

Please note that I never cited a pundit. The articles I cited contained empirical data from scientific sources.

How about this....I'm quoting myself...I don't need to quote some moron pundit

Oh, but it seems you are!

[Concerned]

COLD HEAT WROTE: "Perhaps you [Mr. Silverback] can console Santorum, and the various other solid conservatives who were blown out in previously supportive districts."

Santorum sealed his fate the moment he supported---no pushed---for the reelection of RINO Spectre. Principles went right out the window!...And LOOK where it got us...and him!

I'll end again with two messages to the RNC:

(1)...KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES!!!!!!! The exception should be that the RNC should promote REPUBLICAN PLATFORM PRINCIPLES during the primaries, and run down RAT Platform Principles!

(2) (To partly borrow from the movie TOP GUN)
CONSERVATISM WINS!!!!---NEVER LEAVE YOUR WINGMAN!!!
CONSERVATISM WINS!!!!---NEVER LEAVE YOUR WINGMAN!!!
CONSERVATISM WINS!!!!---NEVER LEAVE YOUR BASE!!!

[Texasforever]

Fantastic analysis. The fact is that for many "social conservatives", if they could get abortion outlawed they would immediately go to the democrat fold.

[Concerned]

MR. SILVERBACK WROTE: "Please note that I never cited a pundit. The articles I cited contained empirical data from scientific sources."

COLD HEAT WROTE: "How about this....I'm quoting myself...I don't need to quote some moron pundit."

MR. SILVERBACK RESPONDED: "Oh, but it seems you are!"

LOL!!! Good one, Mr. Silverback!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Movements and issue groups rise and fall. For example, the 1980s and early 90s saw the ascendancy of Moral Majority. Today, my hunch is that we are seeing early signs that secular Republicans are starting to push back, and that they are less likely to sit quietly in the party's back seat over the next few years." -- Source

[Concerned]

MR. SILVERBACK WROTE: "You [Cold heat] claim you have predicted the 2006 election, but you're only half right. Your prediction of defeat came true, but your concept of the reasons for the defeat was not only wrong, but has been completely disproven with empirical data, just like the 2004 results. It's sort of like a person in 1942 predicting that Germany would lose the war, but saying the reason they would lose was because the German Army had inferior soldiers. Same result, clueless reasoning.

BINGO!!! Mr. Silverback, you are EXACTLY RIGHT!!!

[Mr. Silverback]

LOL!!! Good one, Mr. Silverback!

Thanks! I could almost hear the Sidewinder growling in my headphones...

Of course, that's a Sparrow coming out to play in the picture, but you get the idea. :-)

[Mr. Silverback]

Fantastic analysis.

Um...the guy has written at least a couple of thousand words without providing a single verifiable fact to support his assertions, and refuses to provide any. He's even included some "facts" that are 180 degrees out from what verfiably happened.

Do you have any of the evidence he refuses to provide?

Are you aware that when folks like you and Cold Heat said similar stuff about the 2004 election it was debunked into a smoking hole with empirical data?

You can read my posts in this thread. What say you about the data--no, proof--provided?

[Mr. Silverback]

Thanks, bud. See post 29, we have another person who can't read exit polls.

[napscoordinator]

It could be that Abortion is the most important issue! We are killing off future generations abortion after abortion. Plus, don't you think that putting a baby up a "vacuum cleaner" is a bad thing.