For a Trusty Voting Bloc, a Faith Shaken

The New York Times ^ | October 7, 2007 | Laurie Goodstein

[Soft Bigotry]

AFTER the 2004 elections, religious conservatives were riding high. Newly anointed by pundits as “values voters” — a more flattering label than “religious right” — they claimed credit for propelling George W. Bush to two terms in the White House. Even in wartime, they had managed to fixate the nation on their pet issues: opposition to abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research.

Now with the 2008 race taking shape, religious conservatives say they sense they have taken a tumble. Their issues are no longer at the forefront, and their leaders have failed so far to coalesce around a candidate, as they did around Mr. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

What unites them right now is their dismay — even panic — at the idea of Rudolph W. Giuliani as the Republican nominee, because of his support for abortion rights and gay rights, as well as what they regard as a troubling history of marital infidelity. But what to do about it is where they again diverge, with some religious conservatives last week threatening to bolt to a third party if Mr. Giuliani gets the nomination, and others arguing that this is the sure road to defeat.

[PGalt]

It is taking time for the word to get out, and for habits of thought to change, but eventually the conceit that it is necessary to defer to the superior "objectivity" of someone just because they have access to "the wire" will be seen for the patent fraud that it always was.

BTTT!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

a gatekeeper when the walls are down.

Nice analogy...

Yeah, it's really terrific, isn't it? (Wish I had been the one to think of it).

[shrinkermd]

I agree—this article has a legitimate factual basis for noting that litmus test conservatives do not approve of Giuliani at the very least and, perhaps, Mitt Romney as well.

They assume they will prevail. If they prevail, then what? If they fail, then what. Will RINOs really return and support a candidate whose supporters have demonized theirs? Conversely, if the litmus testers lose and Giuliani is the candidate what happens—thus far, according to Dobson et al, they are going to take their ball and go home.

The issues are clearly demarcated in this article. Just attacking her as biased, MSM infected and so forth are insufficient arguments against observed, factual findings of serious disputes within the Republican Party.

[roses of sharon]

LOL, panicked and shaken?

Now that’s boring, old, talking points.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

People who work at journalism full time ought to be able to do a better job of it than people for whom it is a hobby. But that's not going to happen as long as we "professional" journalists ignore stories we don't like and try to hide our mistakes. We think of ourselves as "gatekeepers." But there is not much future in being a gatekeeper when the walls are down.

Newspaper sale$ decline should be blamed on the journos - By Jack Kelly

[exDem from Miami]

For Christian conservatives, any action - or inaction - that allows Hillary to win the presidency is immoral.

[Route66]

I hate it when the NYT attempts to speak for me. I have a candidate and my faith is not “shaken”. They certainly do seem bent on stirring up trouble among the GOP base.

[johnny7]

...“there is not much future in being a gatekeeper when the walls are down.”

I always make it a point to read Kelly's articles... not surptised that the quote came from him.