Posted on 08/11/2005 3:56:27 AM PDT by pookie18
The liberal polling firm Democracy Corps has released the results of its latest research project. Titled, "The Culture Divide & the Challenge of Winning Back Rural & Red State Voters," the memo encapsulating the results of a series of focus groups paints a grim picture for Democrats. "Most [focus group participants] referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,'" report Karl Agne and Stan Greenberg from Democracy Corps.
Go figure. The same day Democracy Corps released its study, NARAL Pro-Choice America began airing a television ad that implies Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts supports abortion clinic bombers. Whether you call it "the God gap," "the values gap," or "the culture gap," it has never been wider than it is now."
It's been almost ten months since Democrats promised to take "moral values" voters seriously after the drubbing this important voting bloc gave them in the 2004 election. Back then, it seemed every aspiring Democrat politician in America was ready to enroll in the Rites of Catholic Initiation for Adults or start attending an Evangelical Megachurch. "Our moral values are closer to the American people than the Republicans' are," Howard Dean preached in his campaign to become the new chairman of the Democrat National Committee. Dean's opponent Don Fowler went a step further saying, "I am a Democrat because I am a Christian, not in spite of it."
It all came off as a bit solicitous and, frankly, futile. It's hard to imagine anyone uttering the word "values" more frequently than altar boy John Kerry did during the 2004 campaign. And it's not as if Americans of faith were a swing group. President George W. Bush beat Kerry among both Protestants (59%-40%) and Catholics (52%-47%). He won among those who attend church monthly, weekly, and more than once a week, which is to say people who enter a church for reasons other than to ask for directions (though Kerry slaughtered Bush among voters who never attend church). White Evangelicals supported Bush over Kerry by a greater margin than gays, lesbians, and bisexuals favored Kerry.
But then came the backlash. Despite exit polls showing a plurality of voters said "moral values" was their number one issue of concern on Election Day, liberals, libertarians, and even neocons managed to cover their ears and chant "there's no such thing as a 'moral values' voter" long enough to convince themselves they were right.
It got worse. When her estranged husband and Florida state courts decided it was time for Terri Schiavo to go, Christian conservatives and some Republican politicians protested. Loudly. Congress passed a measure to grant the Supreme Court review of her case. President Bush signed it. All involved were accused of placating the Religious Right. Republicans left, right, and center were accused of being "theocrats." All the polls said people had turned on the Religious Right. The "moral values" movement was as dead as that poor girl in Florida. It all ended badly for Christian conservatives (and not at all well for Ms. Schiavo).
It soon became so gauche to be a "moral values" American, Howard Dean called Republicans a "white, Christian party." And he meant it as an epithet.
Except that someone forgot to tell Americans.
According to the Democracy Corps memo:
President Bush and Republicans in Congress were faulted for their lack of effective leadership on these issues and their failure to offer new ideas. Furthermore, there was strong support for some specific progressive initiatives and a belief among many that Democrats would be more willing to tackle these issues and to offer new ideas in the face of current policies that are clearly failing. However, as powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes -- specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit, and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level.
In short, "moral values" issues still trump everything else. And what's more, "moral value" voters still resent the Democrats' derision of their worldview. In the memo's words:
...these attitudes were most powerfully captured in symbolic issues such as display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance, or outlawing public manger displays at Christmastime. On each of these symbolic cases in point, there was a broad perception that Republicans would be on the side of American tradition, Judeo-Christian values, and the forgotten majority while Democrats would stand up and fight for a subversive minority seeking to erode the moral foundation of our country.
The voters are right, of course, just as they were in 2004. But Americans should expect another round of insincere Democrat yawps of piety and "our values are better than your values" talk. And then when the next "moral value" issue strikes (the entire John Roberts confirmation applies) liberals will blame those damn Christians for anything they can imagine. Then they'll lose some more elections until they say, Okay this time, we're really going to pay attention to Americans of faith.
I sincerely appolgize to all the snakes out there.
Agreed. It's all a ruse.
Apology accepted. The poor snakes in my yard were shaking in horror at the comparison. Now I'll have to go out and calm them down.
tsrangerette; well-constructed post, but I respectfully disagree on two points:
"They try to force society to agree with them and adopt their wrong-headed values, not simply be more tolerant of their situations."
That's not Rudy, IMO. Rudy will explain his beliefs if you ask him, but in my experience he has never proselytized on behalf of abortion or gay marriage. I believe he counsels tolerance - you have to do that in New York.
"Ok.....time for Rudy to choose between his NY buds and his loyalty to Reagan."
IMO, Rudy doesn't do, say or think anything on behalf of his NY buds. He is his own man, just as GWB. What you see is what you get. I don't see him tacking. You're other points are well-taken, though.
Not marriage, but MARRIAGES. Rudy is now on wife #3.
Ping
1. Cheney
2. Allen
3. ugh
4. ugh
Can a pro gun control politician like Rudy win in the red states?
The real issue is how many voters define themselves, and are proud to be that way as well.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Heheh. They just don't get it, never will, can't. The moral relativist/secularist/atheist[or faux believers for show]/pro-abortion/homosexualist/feminist/socialists (aka "Democrats") cannot fathom the consciousness of someone whose moral values are based on the bedrock of religious tenets given by God.
They cannot see because their hands are tightly pressed on their eyes, and their fingers jammed into their ears (figuratively speaking.)
Okay, here are two questions for you:
1. How many of you became conservative, after being liberal?
2. Of those, how many used to be non-religious (or even atheist) and liberal, became a believer in God, and then became conservative?
My personal answers to both questions are "Yes".
They'll never, never, get it. It's a sham, a facade, a false front, an advertising problem. It's almost funny, it's embarrassing, it's like watching someone make a total fool of themselves in public, like someone on the bus wearing underwear because he forgot to put on trousers and hasn't realized it. And thinks everyone else is ill-dressed.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
I wonder if the electability issue may not relate more to the attitude and behavior of the VP candidate than to the top of the ticket. In 1952 Nixon was much more of a practical pol than Eisenhower was, and although Eisenhower was the sort of draw which we will lack in '08, that draw might not by itself have prevailed if his VP had been as politically loopy as Eisenhower himself then was. For example, after the victory of Eisenhower over Taft, Nixon's VP acceptance speech pointedly went for party unity by saying good things about Taft - and some of Eisenhower's people took offense!In the sense in which I mean the term, as a VP candidate Jack Kemp in '96 was the anti-Nixon. Jack Kemp is a real statesman and hero of the nation and of the Republican Party. Kemp changed the political paradigm from "Republicans rasise tax rates after Democrats give you goodies" to "Republicans protect you from Democrats who take your money and waste it." And that was exactly the formulation the Republican Party - the nation - needed to end the doldrums of the Ford-Carter seventies.
So Jack Kemp would have been a perfectly legitimate presidential candidate. But when Dole asked Kemp if he'd run as his veep, Kemp agreed on the condition that he not be expected to take on the attack-dog role which is natural to the VP candidate. How did that play out? Kemp went into his debate with Gore as if he were Eisenhower, above the fray, and Gore simply helped him do it. And the result? Gore positioned Kemp as a sort of honorary Democrat - but positioned anyone who would vote for Dole as a racist. And Kemp just simply let Gore do that.
As a VP candidate Jack Kemp was a disaster. The VP candidate must be an advocate for the people who vote for his patron, presidential candidate who is the headliner. Dick Cheney might be the best VP in history; the worst the Democrats thought they could do to the ticket during the campaign was to say that the VP made the presidential candidate look insubstantial - but Cheney never took the bait. Cheney added to the ticket without allowing himself to subtract from his president. Cheney used his gravitas to point out the weakness of Gore. Not Lieberman, Gore.
The characteristics a VP candidate should have are:
Were Cheney's health better, so that he would become the presidential candidate of '08, he would have been absolutely perfect (aside from having severely gored my own personal ox as SecDef years ago). In fact, part of me wants the '08 RNC convention to go to multiple ballots because there isn't an heir apparent. Could do worse than to have the convention identify the candidate of the party. Perhaps even Cheney as a sort of caretaker - if Bush/Cheney finishes strong, the only validation would be to have the president succeeded by his own VP running mate for only the second time in history (Reagan and Andy Jackson; you could add in FDR for having broken the two-term precedent).
- sufficient gravitas to be credible as a president - either by inheritance or as a potential presidential candidate in eight years.
- effectiveness as a political operative; ability to play second fiddle
- ability to unify the party
So I lean heavily to the view that since we don't have an Eisenhower in the wings, we better have a presidential candidate who knows what the VP candidate's role is, and can recruit a good one. And as the Twelfth Amendment illustrates, the best VP candidate is not simply the second-best presidential candidate of the party.
I was putting Rudy up against Hillary. I know he would be hard pressed to win the nomination, I don't expect him to win it. I was just saying that he would pull a lot of Dems with him because he is closer to the center.
OMG, she's gonna have an affair with Carville?
Seriously, you owe me a new monitor for that one.
Both 1 and 2 apply to me. But keep in mind, I'm fairly young. I was raised a fairly liberal household (with a few conservative ideals, to be fair). But about the time I entered high school, I became more conservative, and have been growing more conservative ever since.
I was also by and large an atheist before. Now, well, I'm not so sure, so I figure better safe than sorry. I've looked at a lot of problems and I attribute many of them to a lack of morality, and that pushed me towards religion and conservatism.
I am glad you enjoyed it. That may be the best tactic to beat Hillary is to mock her as she runs to the right to embed into people's minds what a phoney she really is.
Against Hillary? In a heartbeat.
What about a Giuliani-Rice ticket?
That's another point (pro gun control) where Rudy would have to "come to Jesus" before he'd be able to survive our primaries.
Second Amendment is crucial to me, as much as understanding the evils we are facing out there and understanding that God is our bedrock for success in the world struggle.
That's what Rush has been saying ad infinitum.
They just can't believe that EVERYONE doesn't believe exactly as they do, and when confronted with that fact they can only denigrate those who aren't as "enlightened" as they see themselves as being.
God let us have free will so we could grow freely into creatures worthy of being His helpers through eternity.
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."
The Holy Spirit brings faith. Pray to the Holy Spirit for faith, and then you will find it easier to pray to our Heavenly Father.
And eventually your gratitude to Our Savior for making it possible for you to approach our Heavenly Father will overwhelm you with pure joy.
It can take time, a determined mental program of alliance with God against evil, or it can come in a flash with a born again experience.
I will pray for the Holy Spirit to ease your way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.