Posted on 05/17/2006 12:15:13 AM PDT by Ranald S. MacKenzie
President Bush is an easy target these days. Two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the job he is doing and even Bush’s loyal supporters are taking the opportunity to pile-on. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and other evangelical leaders are criticizing the president for inaction on social issues dear to their hearts and threatening to withhold their support in the November elections.
While the threat seems intimidating at first glance, the concept of staying home in November carries little long-term consequences for President Bush and Republicans but virtually certain consequences for the very issues social conservatives wish to promote.
First, President Bush is not on the ballot in November. Evangelicals patted themselves on the back in 2004 for reelecting the president, returning the House GOP majority, and taking over the U.S. Senate. Evangelicals demanded credit, recognition, attention, and action on their issues.
Conservative evangelicals were promptly disappointed with the president for not taking strong action to prohibit gay marriage. It shouldn’t be a big surprise since he only paid lip service to the issue during his first four years in office.
Now, President Bush has no real electoral reason to cower to evangelical threats, because he won’t be on a ballot ever again. So, by attempting to punish Bush in November by staying home, evangelicals will actually punish conservatives like Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), Sen. George Allen (R-VA), Cong. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Cong. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), Cong. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), and others who could be sent packing by voters instead.
Note to evangelicals: it will be harder to get your agenda passed by exercising a strategy that allows political friends to be defeated for reelection. Then you’re left with an uncooperative and unpopular president, minorities in Congress, and no friends in those minorities.
On a macro-level, Republicans are already in danger of losing their majorities, but dismal turnout by base Republicans will make Democratic takeovers near-certainties. Then, conservative evangelicals would have no hope of getting their issues passed and would be lucky to get a meeting with the new majority, let alone private nurturing.
And with a Republican minority, conservative evangelicals will have to wait for 2008 and moderate-talking Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to ride in on a white horse and trumpet conservative social issues he has never championed in his life.
Conservative evangelicals find themselves in a political predicament of their own creation. They have chosen to put all of their eggs in the Republican basket. But now that President Bush is as popular as the bird flu, they have nowhere to go. Instead of utilizing the incredible diversity and potential of the one-quarter of the U.S. population that calls themselves evangelicals, the movement’s leaders have chosen to paint themselves into a partisan corner.
So, while Republicans could suffer significant losses at the polls in November, they are in no real danger of losing the largest section of their base to the Democratic Party. Conservative evangelical leaders are determined to control the Republican Party instead of expanding their influence into both parties. That’s also why Democrats shouldn’t read too much into any electoral gains this fall. Democratic gains will be a result of President Bush’s lousy job numbers, not the effectiveness of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s embarrassing outreach to evangelicals.
The current rhetoric of Dobson, Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and others shows a complete misunderstanding of the political environment. President Bush is not broadly unpopular because he has failed to ban same-sex marriage.
Yet, conservative evangelicals continue to press him to do so.
With the War in Iraq and increasing threats from Iran, if President Bush were to spend all of his time and energy on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, he would simply look silly, and his job approval ratings would likely plummet even further.
The idea of “staying home” to punish the Republican Party is absurd. For conservative evangelicals to tout the fundamental need for freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but simply ignore their own opportunity to vote here in America is hypocritical.
For too many conservative evangelicals, the message appears to be: if you don’t get what you want, stay home. Apparently, to some of these evangelical leaders, the best way to win the political game is to take themselves out of it. That makes little sense in today’s world, or in today’s politics.
Well, using reason and facts are better than getting suspended for reacting like the babies do; even if doing so is rather tempting. ;^)
What bothers me is how Bush plans to clean up what's spilled.
Blanket amnesty? No way. If Bush builds a tall wall, I want to see criminals tossed back over it, on a catapult if need be. I want to see the laws enforced that we have. There is no need to make new unenforced laws. I don't want illegal criminals getting welfare, free education and health care.
I want to see employers charged for hiring illegal criminals, as they should be. If we make the tit taste bad, many will go back the way they came. Will that get rid of all of them? No, of course not. How about something sensible, like giving employers, who say they need these workers, an pportunity to sponser as many as they need, then, if they pass criminal screens and the normal health checks, they can be given work permits and fast tracked for citizenship. Allow those who claim refugee status to stay and work while their claim is verified.
At least this way we will know who they are, and they will pay taxes. The way Bush is going about things is all wrong.
For those who say we are handing Bush over for impeachment, that's just silly, unless you are talking about his not upholding hi oath to protect our borders nd uphold the constitution and laws of the land.
I've always been a strong Bush supporter, but this has really got me P O'd. Would i 'sit home november? No way, and i would NEVER vote for a RAT. But, I would vote for an alternative to get rid of a rino if possible, and I hope that there are a few willing to put their hats in the ring in states where we have them, as I'm sure there are many other conservatives thinking the same as I am.
When pigs fly.
Garbage in, garbage out. The writer's premises suck.
That's what I said. It's far better to strengthen the team than to split it between both parties. The writer has faulty logic (or wishfull thinking)
Please stop using the term RINO to mean a politician who isn't a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar right Conservative. That is NOT the meaning of the term!
President Bush, unlike President Reagan, is NOT offering any illegal BLANKET AMNSESTY.
And now, I'll tell YOU what I want. I want all new members and all old members and everyone who wants to be a member of FR to have to take and pass a very simple test on how our political system actually works, the powers delegated to each branch of our government, and a section on American and world history. You don't pass the test with at least a 75%, you can't post anything. THAT'S WHAT I WANT, BUT I'M ABOUT TO GET THAT, ABOUT AS MUCH AS YOU ARE GOING TO GET YOUR CHILDISH DEMANDS.
...she shouted petulantly.
And as far as aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamesty goes, that IS what Bush is offering. READ his SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH.
I read it, I heard it, I know and understand the meaning of the word "amnesty"; unlike you.
Get back to me, child, when you've finally attained some graces, civility, maturity, and intellect. Until then, go play outside and let the adults do the debating.
Your solution is downright stupid. The President has done nothing to be warrant impeachment.
Ya'll STOP THIS CARPING!!!!!
Thanks for defining conservatism. And here I'd thought that it was about adhering to the constitution as written, smaller government and that throwing money at a problem wasn't always the best solution. 40 plus years of working for something and it turns out I didn't even understand what it was.
What remains unsaid is that the problem isn't people sitting on their hands come election time but the thousands of die hard foot soldiers that stuff envelopes, make telephone calls and get people to the polls on voting day. You seem to be saying that they should somehow get enthused and ignore the big spending constitution ignoring party and work like dogs, for free mind you, anyway.
Oh, they, like me, will hold their nose and vote republican but I'm interested in how you propose to motivate them to put in 20 hour days for a party that seems to spit on their values. Scare them that unless they work hard they'll be electing democrats? Convince them that the last six years has been a dream? Or maybe just a head fake to confuse the media and that republicans have been "just kidding"? Oh, how about calling them names and telling them they're not conservatives? That's always a good way of encouraging people to work really hard for you; insult them.
In the past, as far back as Nixon, it was about party building and how hard work would eventually yield a conservative party and for decades that was good enough but then the future was here, we had a majority and many feel that we met the enemy and he was us.
So I'll be looking forward to your plan for convincing those people to get back to work so they can work to elect big government, big spending, constitution ignoring legislators because if you know of a way you're smarter than anyone in the republican party.
Careful what you dare, there's real anger at Bush. Except for two justices whose worth is yet to be proven, Bush has crossed his voting base in a way no president has done in a hundred years. These voters aren't going to vote Democrat, married women with kids aren't going liberal but will just pass on this election.
There's no doubt a Pelousi House will go for impeachment. There's no telling what mischief a Reid Senate will get into.
There would be one great satisfaction in this. Dems regard Hagel and McCain as traitors, Dems NEVER tolerate speaking out of turn in their own ranks. Hagel McCain etal will be stripped of all perks, their offices replaced by broom closets, and will never see the light of television again. As will Hastert and the rest of the compromisers will not even be invited to C list parties.
Bush is pulling a Bob Dole, deliberately throwing this election. That speech was just dumbfounding.
The author makes the same mistake most people do when discussing "evangelicals". He acts like they/we are all one-issue voters. I would probably fall under the evangelical umbrella, but I'm far from a one-issue voter. A gay marriage ban is WAY, WAY down on the list of issues that I care about. Even abortion probably isn't in my top 5.
He assumes that the 25% of voters who are classified as evangelicals will stay home if so called leaders tell them to. The number is MUCH smaller than that.
"Conservative evangelicals find themselves in a political predicament of their own creation. They have chosen to put all of their eggs in the Republican basket..."
And the other basket is the CPUSA. Evangelicals are our Blacks.
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.