So you're saying that evangelicals won't vote for a Republican like Dole and just sit home instead and let the Clintonistas win? Wow, that's some allegiance to conservatism you have! It almost seems that you count the number of times a candidate mentions God before you decide who to vote for?
And BTW, Ronald Reagan was defined by much more than his religiousness. It's not fair to his great achievements to narrowly define him like that
I'm saying that is what happened. It is the job of the candidate to WIN votes, not the obligation of the voter to prop up the anemic also-ran Senate has-been, though funny, to offer up as a sacrificial lamb.
"Religiousness?"
Ok, I'll give you that RR was much more than a lot of things, but he rolled in his grave when you hit the post button and violated the 11th commandment.
You may forget which wing he had to overcome to gain the nomination in 1980. It certainly wasn't us Jesus Freaks.
Danforth is not making sense.
We are Christians. We vote. No one should be surprised that after we vote, we expect our leaders to follow through with what they promise.
As has been noted, many Christians would sit at home on election day, but I believe that the drive to vote for the Republican party is due to activism within the Democratic Party more than the activism among the "Religious Right."
The last Presidential election drew more on both sides to the polls than before. The Christians in the Republican Party made the difference in the last two elections. We had a greater impact than the Christians who voted Democrat and certainly more than the Christians who stayed home or voted 3rd party.
I believe that the Christian and other believers - especially the pro-family and pro-life - have only begun to impact elections.
We make up a very large block within the Republican Party - and within the Democratic Party once the Hispanics and the Blacks realize that the history of social activism within the Democratic party has been completely overshadowed by what is being called social engineering.
It's not just abortion, euthanasia, utilitarian eugenics and frequent redefinition of what it is to be human enough to protect from organized killing.
For some reason the left and the right have not noticed that voters turn out for traditional marriage ballot initiatives. That even those who are "pro-choice" and who split their "prolife" stance to allow embryo harvesting, come to the polls to vote against same sex marriage or civil unions. How long before the "moderates" notice that the groups pushing for tolerence in marriage are the same ones pushing for abortion, and then notice the connection between abortion, the "right to die" and all the other social eugenic agendas?