Posted on 10/18/2006 7:26:17 AM PDT by IrishMike
The hand-wringing and moaning are as palpable as they have ever been as cowering Beltway Republicans wait for the dreaded Blue Wave of Democratic rule to crash over their heads come November 7th. The gloom and doom predictions, long a tool of the liberal media, have now reached the pens of some conservative pundits who have joined their liberal brethren in predicting that the end is near. But is it?
One of the most annoying ploys on the left is the suggestion that the dreaded "Christian Right" is abandoning the GOP in droves and will stay home on Election Day. Much like their former bedfellows, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, just who makes up this huge, all-powerful group is unclear. Is it denominational or political, or both?
If all those who identify themselves as Christian are counted in its membership, the CR is vast indeed, but we know that to be untrue by virtue of election results. So, according to those on the left, it must consist of only those who actually embrace and live their lives according to the tenets of Christianity; in other words, those who are polluting the voting pool by adhering to their outdated values. In the words of my particular co-religionists, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Are there sincere religious practitioners who embrace some policies of the left? Of course, and many of them question the right's stance on issues like the death penalty and illegal immigration. On the other hand, it's hard to find practicing Christians or other devout believers who can staunchly support key liberal positions on abortion, euthanasia and the homosexual agenda. Most who continue to vote Democratic simply ignore this and pull the lever out of habit. But there are many, many who cannot and will not.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The pundits underestimate the size of the voting block who would comprise as the "Christian Right". I'm among that voting block.
A wise FReeper wondered yesterday why we never see stories about disaffected Democrats, when there are undoubtedly just as many of them as there are disaffected Republicans. Speaks volumes about the MSM.
I'm voting Republican no matter what crap they report as "news".
The groupthink that controls their minds--and would control everyone's, if they could pull it off--is partly because they tend to be mind-numbed robots who cannot think for themselves, partly because of the propaganda that saturates them, and partly because, to them, truth is whatever you can convince people that it is.
I'm not conservative; haven't been to church in about 20 years; am a vegetarian; have lived all over the world; have more than 15 years of college education, including advanced degrees; have homosexual friends, some of whom have adopted children; defy categorization--as do my friends and family members (something that Leftists can neither tolerate nor understand); am definitely not sexually prudish, repressed, or inexperienced--and there are many other things about me--and, I dare say, others who post here on Free Republic and who vote against the Democrat Party--that defy the suffocatingly oppressive mass paradigm of the Left.
It is truth that the Left seeks to suppress. And with good reason: truth destroys everything they stand for.
Truth, in fact, devastates the mass paradigm groupthink delusion that they adore and in which their minds are locked.
I was a "disaffected Democrat" who now votes primarily Republican. The Democrats LEFT their mainstream supporters many years ago and that fact needs to be hammered home.
1) There will be little no protection of traditional marriage:
2) Abortion-on-demand will be de rigueur:
3) Religious freedoms will be attacked except for Islam:
4) The tax-exempt status of many Christian organizations will be revoked as will the tax cuts:
5) Massive amnesty will be given to illegal aliens:
6) Border protection will not be enforced:
7) We will lose clear vigilance on the war on terror in favor of the terrorist here and abroad:
8) Abandonment of the Iraq war will occur and the consequential blood bath will begin:
9) The United Nations will be given a larger role in the US Constitution - guns - taxes - and the use of our military:
10) Freedom of speech will be sorely curtailed as Kerry, Reid, Durbin and others have already tried:
11) More liberal judges to legislate from the bench
12) The Terrorist Bill of Rights:
The Secular Progressives funded and led by George Soros are trying to hi-jack your country. Hold your nose if you must but go to the poll and
My father is 73 and voted for Democrats almost his entire life. The past few elections he tells me that he can no longer support Democrats based on what the party has become. He's now voting Republican, I just said "Welcome home Dad".
Most of what you say is correct, except for the illegal immigration issue. Bush is really hard-headed about this. I think this is what peaves most conservatives, not the war in Iraq. They don't understand why a conservative leader wants to import a Third World population en masse, and why he keeps cozying up to the Dems on immigration.
That is my issue with him. It is hard to get behind him on the WOT when he sends our best and brightest to Iraq while letting the world invade us.
That's fanstastic. There are too many ignorant voters who continue to vote D based solely on a "tradition" that no longer exists over there. These people need to be waken up to the issues.
Great post and like the tag line.
Like the post, with #4 and #11 big on my list.
There is one issue that overrides the economy. That is national security. Since 1980 if there is danger the voters will vote Republican even in bad economic times.
It is interesting to look at the change in positions of the two parties over the last 75 years. In the 30s the Republican party was isolationist. It believed that if we just left the rest of the world alone, it would leave us alone. The day before Pearl Harbor Robert A. Taft made a speech in which he made the point that if we remained neutral we could avoid a war with the Axis powers.
Of course Pearl Harbor on the following day blew that out of the water. Then for a few years both parties agreed on the need for international intervention by the USA.
But by the time Jimmy Carter was elected the Democrats had changed sides. The Democrats were in the "suck up to dictators and they will leave us alone" mode.
Ronald Reagan put the Republican party firmly in the position of using our national strength and power to defeat the Soviet Union and win the cold war. As the Republicans became more interventionist, the Democrats gradually changed to isolationists.
The cut taxes policy of the 1930s Democrats became the policy of the 1980s and later Republicans. On both the Domestic and Foreign policy sides the Republicans and Democrats have switched sides.
It is interesting to note that a majority of voters did not change sides. A majority of voters switched parties but not views on the major issues.
The media, which thinks that the voters have changed their minds, fails to take into account that the voters for at least the last two generations has not changed their views. They have changed parties but not their views.
Democrats have done what the Republicans did 75 years ago. They have chosen to oppose the President and his party out of dislike for the president. It is a very dumb thing to do. They are not in opposition based on belief or logic. They are opposed to a man because he has defeated them in 3 straight elections.
I am reminded that the media hated FDR. And the media's polls reflected their views. They polls showed in 1936 that Alf Landon would win the presidency in a landslide.... that the Republicans would take the house and senate. But on election day FDR won the biggest victory of the 20th century and a fillibuster proof senate.
Why? Because he reflected the views of a majority of voters. The polls were wrong in 1936. They were wrong in 1948. I believe they are wrong in 2006.
The pollsters have two problems. They are modifying the results based on outdated turn out percentages of Republicans and Democrats. The Republican get out the vote effort is the best ever. The Democrat turn out effort is not nearly as good as it was just a few years ago. It is nothing close to what is was here in Ohio just a few years ago. It was always Union based, and the Unions in Ohio have lost 150,000 members in the last 15 years.
The pollsters are failing to take into account that the number of Republican and Democratic voters are nearly equal. And with the huge Rove directed turn out effort it is very likely that the Republicans will hold the house and senate.
The media has banked its credibility on a huge Democratic win. If they fail, some of the media will change sides. There will be huge pressures to make a profit. Media heads will be fired. Someone will figure out that a right wing cable network will be a huge success. That network will go on the air and bury fair and balanced FOX, as well as CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
We need to remember that even ABC is to some extent driven by profits. ABC may be run by left wingers... but it signed Sean Hannity and distributes his program to stations all over the USA including stations owned by ABC. Why? Because it needs the money Sean's show generates.
But the real change that effects an election is the grass roots effort created by Karl Rove. Two years ago the volunteers managed to reach 250 thousand voters by election day. This year the REpublican volunteers reached the 250 thousand mark with 3 weeks left to go.
LS says the Democratic grass roots effort in Dayton, a traditional Democratic strong hold, is next to nil. Perhaps that is because much of the Democratic (Union) base does not support the national party. They are not isolationist, they are not for tax increases, they are not for the goofy things much of the party leadership supports.
I remember the 1974 governors race in Ohio. The race was very close. And as usual Cleveland results were the last in. Republican candidate James Rhodes was only a few votes ahead with Cleveland still out. He "knew" he had to be at least 50,000 votes ahead with Cleveland out to win. So he called in the press and conceded to Gilligan about midnight. He believed he would lose by about 40 thousand votes so he conceded and went to bed.
He was awakened about 4 in the morning with the news that he had won. He did not believe it at first. But it turned out that the Democratic party in Cleveland did not like the positions that Gilligan had taken. They had done nothing to turn out the votes for Gilligan. Rhodes to his great surprise carried the Cleveland area.
What LS reports leads me to believe that at least in Ohio the Democratic party base may not support the cut and run position of its leaders. Perhaps that is why their grass roots game is not in play.
The media polls were dead wrong in 1936. They were wrong in 1948. They may very well be wrong in 2006.
Lets all think like we are going to win and work like we might very well lose.
Amen, Bro. This disturbs me. We are agreeing way too much here. I think your take on voters changing/not changing parties is substantially correct.
It's great to read others who understand the historical context.
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.