Not just Dobson. It's much more organic than that. It's local pastors. It's email chains. Homeschool associations. But if you gave them a quiz on the difference between the Supreme Court's overturning Roe v. Wade and a RLA, I don't think the simple majority of them could quantify them to any real degree. And they would be glad to have either one. And if they can't quantify the difference between the two, why are they suddenly and adamantly opposed to one of the positions? Because they were told to be.
So, attacking a person who holds a slightly different position strategically while aiming to accomplish the same goal is the epitome of stupidity. And Huckabee attacked Thompson, knowing that that was where he could gain support. He didn't attack McCain, even when McCain stood between him and victory in South Carolina. Any reports of push-polling against McCain by Huck's surrogates at Common Sense Issues? I didn't think so. Does McCain support a RLA? I didn't think so.
In short, seeing a vast sea of difference where's there's really only a stream of difference in tactic and magnifying that difference into a question Peter's going to ask us at the pearly gates is exactly what was done to Thompson by Huckabee's campaign and his willing supporters in Evangelicaldom. Cynical and machiavellian. Which Jesus is way down with. As long as we advance the cause, right?
I can assure you that we in the Homeschool associations can quantify qualify the difference in merely overturning Roe and the RLA. None are against overturning Roe, but it is obvious that we need a RLA defining "personhood".
And on that note, Thompson was never against abortion because the unborn baby is a person. Otherwise he would have believed in protecting the unfortunate children of rapes, incest and the Space Shuttle size loophole of the "life of the mother".
Not just Dobson. It's much more organic than that. It's local pastors. It's email chains. Homeschool associations.
I have to give you a lot of credit here. You recognize the power of the Christian grassroots, something most FredHeads I have argued with deny. But do you also see the power of the Christian networks?
[Overturn Roe v. Wade or RLA] I don't think the simple majority of them could quantify them to any real degree.
I agree, to a point (see next).
[...] why are they suddenly and adamantly opposed to one of the positions? Because they were told to be.
I must differ with you. The RLA is driven by the Christians. Granted, it is driven by Pro-Life zealots, but they are a very high profile and visible faction. The point of the spear, as it were, and huge in number among the Christian Right (as opposed to mainline churches)
For a few years now, the RLA has been a demand of the Christians, born of an impatience with the Republicans, who mouth promises they never deliver. Their impatience is well justified too. They have been supportive of Republicans since Reagan, and have been long-suffering with little to show for it, and especially considering the horrible toll on the children of an entire generation. I sympathize with their insistence.
That insistence had calcified into a tenet of the SoCon movement long before Fred, and long before this election cycle. I dare to say that it is misguided to suggest that the Christians (by and large) are uninformed on this particular issue. They have been loudly uncompromising for some time now.
But in my disagreement with you, I wish to agree in a more general sense- I do believe that Christians are turned inward, into their own community and structures, and are largely uninformed by way of the world.
They tend to listen to Christian radio rather than Conservative radio... They tend to get their news from Christian news services and websites that cater to Christian issues (because Christian issues are ignored by the MSM)... And they tend to hang out on Christian forums.
I do agree that Christian networks have tremendous influence on Christian thought, and can certainly be capable of spinning an issue in a particular direction, though in an aggregate sense. There is no leadership that can direct it all.
So, attacking a person who holds a slightly different position strategically while aiming to accomplish the same goal is the epitome of stupidity.
Yet who is to blame for that? As I said previously, the RLA is set in stone. To blatantly deny the Christians' position is certain to court their ire. Regardless of Fred's intentions, and frankly, irregardless of merit, this is the very crux of a horrible mishandling of a primary issue.
And Huckabee attacked Thompson, knowing that that was where he could gain support.
Granted, but Huck attacked Fred where he was exposed, in the place where Fred showed a great weakness- Fair game in political battles. I mean no offense, but the fault is in that which was undefended, not in the action of the opponent that spies out the weakness. Surely you must admit that.
He didn't attack McCain, even when McCain stood between him and victory
Not true. McCain's support does not come from the Evangelicals or Conservatives, other than the military, to be sure. Fred and Huck have always been competing for each other's supporters.
In short, seeing a vast sea of difference where's there's really only a stream of difference in tactic and magnifying that difference [...] is exactly what was done to Thompson by Huckabee's campaign and his willing supporters in Evangelicaldom.
Again, I must disagree, for the reasons already covered above. Fred's outright rejection of what Christians consider to be a solid demand was a wrongheaded and ill conceived direction.
In his defense, I think that in part, if he were given due time to explain the difference, the Christians may have softened somewhat. But the truth of our electoral process is that it is driven by tiny sound bytes. his position was largely distilled, and I do have some sympathy for that, whether I agree with him or not.