Focus on the Family leader James Dobson, had this to say about a McCain presidential candidacy:
Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances. … [Legislation to create obstacles for ministries such as Focus on the Family to reach constituents with action messages about pending legislation] came from McCain, and the McCain Feingold Bill kept us from telling the truth right before elections and there are a lot of other things. He’s not in favor of traditional marriage, and I pray that we won’t get stuck with him.
As a Christian who comes from a very evangelical background, I can personally testify to the power that Dobson holds in the community.? Many evangelical voters?hear his voice on the radio every day on their way to work, and while he is not speaking for Focus on the Family as a whole, his personal opinions do hold much sway amongst other Christians.? McCain’s very tenuous relationship with the evangelical Christian community is beginning to show those same signs of strain that caused his campaign to snap in 2000.? It looks as though McCain might very well be immensely damaged with a key constituency.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I don’t know how evangelicals and people of faith can forgive McCain for publicly criticizing Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson the way he did when running against George W. Bush in 2000. The remarks betray a temper and malice that are not at all presidential.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
He was right, though…about Robertson and Falwell. They are hateful people, and McCain told the truth.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
There are some negative words that could be attached to John McCain. I do not think that “malice” is one of them, however.
January 14th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Woodrow,
It looks as though McCain might very well be immensely damaged with a key constituency.
The only way McCain is really hurt by this is if the the SoCo evangelical voters manage to unite around a single candidate (say, Romney). Right now the evangelical votes appear split between Giuliani, Romney and Gingrich, with Brownback, Huckabee, Hunter and Tancredo taking the fringe. McCain is consistently first or a close second in all the 2008 polls so far and I’m sure the percentage of SoCo’s that support him are quite small. As long as the anti-McCain votes get split, it makes it more likely that McCain will win the nomination.
January 14th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
“When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”
“I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”
– Barry Goldwater
January 14th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Hunter,
Like evangelicals or not, they’re still a key constituency in Republican primaries, and that’s just how the game is played.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I’d like to know who Dobson is leaning toward. Gingrich, Huckabee, and Tancredo are not even exploring at the moment. Do the Evangelicals even have a horse in this race? If so, who? I agree with LJ’s statement that this will only hurt McCain if they unite behind a candidate such as Romney. That may not happen. If the Evangelicals can’t unite – they will be weak.
What would happen if McCain gets the nomination? Would they not vote or vote liberal?
January 14th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I understand that. I just find it amusing that the man at the head of the resurgence of American conservatism was even more vicious in his criticism of the likes of Falwell and Robertson. Now it’s to the point where a GOP candidate all but has to kiss the ring of those guys to get the nomination. Just interesting, that’s all…
January 14th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Goldwater became quite a little social liberal after his run, where previously he had seemed rather indifferent. I’m not surprised he’d have a problem with the evangelical influence.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
It’s often said that Goldwater “became” a social liberal later in life. I’ve yet to see much evidence that he was ever a social conservative and that his views changed.
January 14th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Hunter,
I think a lot of negative attention is focused on evangelical Christians in the Republican Party because they seem to be a lot more outspoken and active.
I’d like to see a Republican nominee that didn’t have to also “kiss the rings” of the NRA, or the ATU, or the Reaganites. There’s a lot of ring-kissing and homage-paying involved in winning elections, but that’s just how it goes. I don’t think Christians aren’t the kingmakers of Republican primaries any more than those other groups.
January 14th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
But if they didn’t exist, I guarantee we wouldn’t have W as our President.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Very interesting article!
http://www.iowansforromney.com
January 14th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
—
At that time he also warned the GOP Christians and conservatives “will abandon them if they continue to ignore the most important issues.”
—
If only! That would be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party in ages.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Guys,
This is serious news for McCain. There are three major groups that make up the Republican party base: the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, and the small government conservatives. There are a few others, but these are the big three.
The evangelicals are a major part of the social conservatives. Dobson is a major player in the evangelical movement. Therefore his dislike of McCain is a big problem for McCain.
Is it the end of McCain’s campaign? Don’t be silly. First, the evangelicals are only part of one of the three major components of the Republican coalition. Second, there is a full year before Iowa. There is plenty of time for McCain to attempt to change Dodson’s mind or marginalize his opposition.
The last thing McCain can do is come out swinging. It will just awaken memories of his meltdown in 2000 and prove once and for all that he doesn’t have the temperment to be President.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
The religious conservatives, that brought the GOP out of 40 years of the wildnerness by adding an extra dimension to the tent, abandoning the party would be a good thing Nusrat? This is what scares me about many within the Republican Party and some on this site in particular: they seem utterly unaware of components that have helped to make the GOP a majority party. Hint, the missing piece wasn’t fiscal conservatism. If I have any objections to a Rudy candidacy its that, while Rudy would likely win based on star-power, a Republican who took social issues out of the realm of debate could absolutely shatter our long term coalition. And some people don’t seem to be terribly concerned about that fact.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:03 am
It would be a very good thing.
In the short run, a terrible thing. The Democrats would keep gaining in the House and Senate, and probably have the Presidency for a few terms.
However, the new Republican Party would be excellent for libertarians, like me, who like small government. What would be left in the Republican Party? Social Moderates, libertarians, and Fiscal Conservatives. That, to me, is a much better constituency than the current mix.
The evangelical loons do nothing but hurt the Republican Party; in fact, I voted for the Democrat in my district this year because we had an evangelical loon who made some very disconcerting statements regarding the separation of Church and State.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:07 am
To clarify…
I mean nothing but hurt the Republican Party in principle. To have people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson in our coalition does not give us the moral step-up.
In fact, it opens up the door to the challenges of hypocrisy. When the Social Conservatives pretend to be more moral than others, they, and ultimately the Republican Party, gets slammed much harder for moral lapses than do the Democrats (read: Ted Haggard).
January 15th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Nusrat,
You might appreciate the religious conservatives a lot more if you pondered on the point of having a “big tent”. Pragmatically, although you don’t give a hoot about social policy, giving the religious a reason to vote Republican helps advance libertarian and fiscally conservative policies to your liking.
…Ideally. This is how it ought to work. I’d argue that the GOP has been neglecting the Nusrats out there. Some social conservatives have been extremely short-sighted in ignoring the other wings of the party. A so-con who cares nothing about other essential GOP planks would be smart to keep those planks attended to.
The answer isn’t expunging a wing of our ranks. It’s making sure they get their share. When the big tent wins, everybody under the big tent should win too.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:38 am
murphy,
You’re right. Perhaps I was a bit hard on them…
Yes, that is the point of having a coalition-party system like our own.
I was just upset with the fact that they refuse to compromise, as you point out. The fiscal conservatives/libertarians have been compromising for so long with these people that we’ve given them a lot of ground. Now that it’s coming down to three social moderates, the Evangelicals are starting to see what we’ve felt like for so long.
We all need to compromise.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:46 am
And it’s sad that it’s come down to this:
When talking amongst friends, political affiliation often comes up.
I am an independent libertarian, but when they ask which of the two major parties I agree with most often, I say, “The Republicans…but I’m not one of the right wing fundamentalist nuts!”
I wish we could come to a day where I don’t have to throw in that reservation…because I really do agree with you guys more than those guys…limited government…but these socos really don’t care much about limited government; they just want a party to advance their religious principles, no questions asked, no compromising involved. Is this a group we want in our party ranks?
Here’s a hypothetical: The Communists, in 2050, get big and realize they can start using the Democrat Party to advance their economic principles. They make up about 30% of the Democrat Party base. Again, purely hypothetical as a parallel.
Sure, the Democrats would benefit from advancing a few Communist ideals here and there…but let’s say they wanted to move towards principle and be more moderate of a party, so the Communists disband from the Democrats. Many Democrats would, rightfully, be very happy, for although they lost many Democrats, they gained a lot of independent voters who would never vote for a party with Communists in it. It would be terrible for the Dems in the short run, but in the long run, they’d be more principled and more moderate, which is better for everyone.
That was an extreme example, but it points out that it is ok for a moderate to be happy in the case of an extreme faction of your party breaking ranks.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:06 am
I agree very strongly with the point Nusrat is making. I get annoyed when I hear talk from the evangelicals about “taking the party back” when it’s the moderates, the fiscal conservatives, libertarians, etc who have had the party “stolen”.
It’s also very accurate to point out that Bush would not be president now without the support of the religious right. Actually, I daresay John McCain would be President now – assuming he won a second term in 2004.
And honestly, I really wouldn’t be that surprised if by 2050 you see the two-party system on both sides coming apart: with the Republicans being center-right, the Democrats being center-left, and the hard-core fringe elements in either side forming their own parties. In that scenario, I think the traditional Republicans/Democrats would still be the major players for the presidency, but you’d probably see Congressional delegations from elsewhere.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:17 am
My problem with that philosophy and idea Nusrat is that’s its been tried before and to poor effect. That hypothetical party you’re describing has alot more in common with the Republican Party of the 50′s, 60′s, and 70′s, when we were losing everything but the presidency in staggering margins, then it does to the modern day Repuhlican Party. Fiscal conservatism is a hard sell. It really is. Because while many people agree with it in principle, they find themselves unwilling to advocate it when it is THEIR programs that are being threatened. Want a new gazebo for your local town? Sure, who wouldn’t? In my opinion, and I think this is borne out by the polls on various issues, the Republican Party has been winning for exactly three reasons. Taxes, Defense, and social issues. The first is such a broadly appealing advantage that it has given us automatic pull. The second is such an important issue, that it has given us an automatic pull. And the third has such a monolithic block of voters willing to vote EXCLUSIVELY on these issues (which I’d argue isn’t the case for social liberals), that we have a built it unpersuadeable base. With the way the war has gone, I’d argue that the second may well be evaporating as an advantage. And the Democratic Party has become quite a bit better since the Dukakis days at couching their tax policies. If we abandon social conservatism where does that leave us? And not just short term, but long term. Because like it or not, without fail, year after year, when the public is asked about who they trust more on a whole host of domestic issues like education, health care, the economy, etc, etc, they favor Democrats. Because they’re eager to for the people of this country, what they’re too lazy to do for themselves. So I think abandoning social conservatism would get us a to exactly one place: irrelevance. Both short and long-term. And I don’t consider myself a social conservatism. I’m against the death penalty, for gay marriage. But I think your idea of a utopian libertarian party that ever gets near to majority status is hopelessly optimistic.
P.S.: Falwell and Roberts are maniacs, but what do you have against Dobson. He’s always struck me as a reasonable guy within the evangelical movement.
January 15th, 2007 at 5:13 am
I really think Dobson is more harmful than positive for the republicans, and for the country as a whole. The bad thing about him is that
so many people list to him. But the issue at the heart of this, beyond Dobson or Falwell or Robertson, is to what degree do we really want religion influencing public policy? The people who say “Most of this country is Christian so everyone else should just shut up” really misunderstand the constitution. Dobson doesn’t like McCain because he thinks that McCain’s policies won’t be in line with conservative Christianity. And I think that attitude is the wrong one to have in a democracy. Religion is different to every individual. I would dare say that no two people in the same congregation have exactly the same ideas about God. So really, basing a public policy strictly on scriptural interpretation is wrong. We should create public policy that benefits everyone. But nothing I say here will convince any evangelicals.
January 15th, 2007 at 8:06 am
It seems to me as though you’ve all missed the main point to be derived from Dr. Dobsons’s comments. Tell me again, who is supposed to deny whom the Republican nomination in 2008?
Don’t forget — as if you could — that the “Conventional Wisdom”, the MSM, and the Beltway Punditocracy have all been saying for months, if not years, that the Christian Right, for whom Dr. Dobson is a major spokesman, will deny Rudy the Republican nomination — that’s right, Rudy, not McCain. I have not heard one single peep from these self-appointed “Wise Men” to the effect that John McCain will have any problem whatsoever with the Christian Right as he seeks the nomination. Now, essentially out of the blue, a scant year before the start of the Primary Season, we have a man who is certainly one of the half-dozen or so most important spokesman for the Christian Right saying: “Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances”. Take careful note also, that Dobson’s interlocutor, when he gave Dobson the opening to opine about McCain, also gave him ample opportunity to include Rudy in his remarks, and Dobson implicitly declined to do so.
I have also heard the self-appointed “Wise Men” say that the Christian Right will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. My point here is simply this: The “Conventional Wisdom”, the MSM, and the Beltway Punditocracy are so ignorant of the Christian Right, as well as Social Conservatives or Values Voters in general, and ultimately so smugly disdainful of these groups that it is nothing more than a tribute to the utter hubris of the “Conventional Wisdom”, the MSM, and the Beltway Punditocracy that they profess to know anything at all about how the Christian Right will decide to vote when faced with the specific array of choices that will apparently present themselves in 2008.
Indeed, if you visit my — unabashedly pro-Rudy blog, “Run Rudy Run” (http://lutherhardy.blogspot.com/), you will see one documented instance after another where one segment or another of the Christian Right is “warming up” to Rudy’s candidacy because they want his leadership, and are willing to tolerate certain areas of disagreement with him in order to get it.
I have finally come to understand thoroughly, what I probably should have groked all along: The “Conventional Wisdom”, the MSM, and the Beltway Punditocracy are all so self-contained, self-referential, and smug that their opinions tell you more about them than they do about the subject matter of the opinions themselves. That, my friends, is the unmistakable and certain mark of a fool! Rudy, and all the rest of us, would indeed be foolish ourselves if we paid undue attention to the essentially anti-Rudy litany coming from the self-appointed “Wise Men”!
Now, as to my invitation to visit “Run Rudy Run”, below is an excerpt from a posting (sans chart)I made on 01 December 2006, that speaks directly to my comments above and directly to the point to be taken from Dr. Dobson’s comments:
“At least as important as Mr. Murdock’s prose, however, is the chart (reproduced below) that he compiled from Quinnipiac’s “Thermometer Reading” poll (conducted 13-19 November 2006), in conjunction with his article on Rudy in National Review On-Line, yesterday, 30 November 2006. I don’t believe I have ever seen anything quite this astounding. One should study this chart carefully!
“At the same time that the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom” are loudly trumpeting John McCain as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008, Rudy leads every current potential candidate in every category of potential voters! Let me say that again louder: RUDY LEADS EVERY CURRENT POTENTIAL CANDIDATE IN EVERY CATEGORY OF POTENTIAL VOTERS!
“Even when non-candidates for 2008 are considered, Rudy still leads in 8 of 9 categories. The 9th category is “Republicans” where Rudy comes in a close 3rd to two non-candidates: 1. Condi Rice 72.3%; 2. President Bush 72.1%; 3. Rudy 71.7%. More importantly, however, even in this category, Rudy leads actual potential candidates, McCain (by 9.5 percentage points), Gingrich (12.8), and Romney (18.9), all by margins that are solidly above that category’s announced margin of error of +/-4.4%.
“Most importantly of all, however, in the category of “White Born-Again Christians”, Rudy leads the entire field by substantial margins. Here again, Rudy leads actual potential candidates McCain (9.2), Gingrich (18.5), and Romney (19.9), by margins that are solidly above that category’s announced margin of error 0f +/-4.7%. What is most important here is that this is the very category that the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom” say is supposed to deny Rudy the Republican nomination.
“Moreover, that’s all they have to say against Rudy. Let me say that again louder: THAT’S ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY AGAINST RUDY! There is no other reason advanced by the MSM and the “Conventional Wisdom” as to why Rudy won’t win the nomination than that the Christian Right in the South won’t vote for him in the primaries. Yet, not only does Rudy lead every other name advanced in this category, he also leads Mitt Romney, supposedly the new “darling” of the Values Voters, by almost 20 percentage points! Don’t forget, Rudy doesn’t actually have to win this block of voters. All he has to do is garner enough of their votes so that they don’t vote as a bloc for someone else and thereby deliver a primary win to that someone else.”
My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!
January 15th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Good work, Luther.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:46 am
My take it that there will be a Republican nominee with or with out Dobson and the Evangelicals. They can choose to participate or they can stand by the sidelines & pout. If there is a Republican who wins that they dislike completely that candidate will have to make up for the loss with independent and swing Democrat voters.
I saw a poll recently in SC that had Gingrich close to 30%. He probably won’t even run! I think most of that vote is Evangelical hold out on a prayer vote.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I think when Huckabee enters, the evangelicals and social conservatives will finally have someone whose opinions on moral issues are firm and unwavering, and who is someone they can get behind of and support.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Not to burst your bubble Peter, but it looks to me like Huckabee’s book may indeed be becoming “cannon fodder” or whatever phrase it was he used. Less then 2 weeks after its release its #484 on amazon.com’s bestseller list. It has just two reviews. I went to two bookstores yesterday to read a copy and there was no sign that the book had ever existed. Perhaps, these aren’t as broad of indicators as they seem, but they hardly indicate any reason to believe more then a million copies of the book will sell. He’d probably be lucky to get a quarter of that I’d imagine.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Luther,
I think you go way overboard with your MSM bashing. I have seen countless mentions of McCain’s problem with the religous right written by MSM types. After South Carolina ’00, it has been a constant theme in analyses of GOP dynamics.
January 15th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Libertarians,
You all need to face the fact that there simply aren’t enough capitalist-loving, small-government pro-defense folks around to elect a Republican to the Presidency. I am not first and foremost (or even second and “second-most”) a social conservative, but we need that wing of the party to win.
I also wonder where the heck this nation would be morally without the social conservatives. Who would argue so strenuously for civility, tradition, faith, traditional morality and patriotism as they do? We need them not just in the GOP, but fighting the moral fights every day in the real world.
And what do libertarians believe, anyway? That abortion of convenience should always be the law of the land? That people should be able to ingest whatever illicit narcotics they please, and who cares how many people get hooked? That freedom of “artistic expression” is right to trump everything else in Hollywood? That anybody or any group who wants to get married should be able to do so, so that the monogamous, heterosexual example that has sustained so many cultures for so long becomes just another equal choice?
The GOP, and conservativism, aren’t about freedom, only. We should stand for liberty. Govern ourselves, but with responsibility for our actions and care for our communities.
The way I see it, the problem of absolutism among social conservatives exists but is very small compared to the demerits of so many GOP candidates in so many races. The latest election serves as an excellent case in point. Santorum was wonderful, I know, but Conrad Burns? Mike DeWine? Jim Talent? They are dull as dishwater. One of the GOP’s problems is that so many of its candidates are too inartful to motivate the social conservatives while still exciting enough other folks to get elected. Basically, the problem (most of the time) is the candidates, not the social conservatives.
Why should any socially conservative person support McCain after what he said about them in 2000? I’m not really a social conservative, but even I was offended by him!
January 15th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
—
That abortion of convenience should always be the law of the land?
—
Nope. Just that the Federal government shouldn’t play a role in it at all; it should be a states’ rights decision.
—
And second of all, part of the problem is in the prohibition of it. The government staying out of personal drug use would be no more condoning it than free speech condones Nazi propaganda. Prohibition is just not the answer, be it alcohol or marijuana. They would still be regulated, just as alcohol would be (which puts me at odds with the radical Libertarian party, which is why I’m an independent). And libertarians don’t take a “who cares how many get hooked” stance; they would care, which is why they would put their efforts towards educating people about the dangers.
That people should be able to ingest whatever illicit narcotics they please, and who cares how many people get hooked?
—
Nope. First of all, the drugs would no longer be illicit
Just a fact, though: 0 people have died directly from marijuana use…much better statistics than alcohol.
—
That freedom of “artistic expression†is right to trump everything else in Hollywood?
—
Basically. Since Hollywood is private, they should be able to release whatever they want, and people should have the right to see it or not see it depending on their tastes. If something offends you, you have the right not to see it.
—
That anybody or any group who wants to get married should be able to do so, so that the monogamous, heterosexual example that has sustained so many cultures for so long becomes just another equal choice?
—
I can’t speak for all libertarians, but I can say for myself that I don’t think the government has much of a role in governing marriage in the first place, but since it is governing heterosexual marriages, it should extend the same rights to homosexuals. After all, the government subsidizes abusive heterosexual marriages. I think it is a personal choice that the government does not have a role in at all.
—
I also wonder where the heck this nation would be morally without the social conservatives.
—
The social conservatives are certainly not the guiding moral hand of our country. The same social conservatives are often very pro-death-penalty, which I see as directly at-odds with a pro-life outlook. Besides, there is no “morality” of a country; there are many private senses of morality, and since there are many different concepts of morality, it is not the government’s place to define one particular morality as “better” than any other, with the exception of cases that affect other people, such as rape, murder, theft, etc.
To paraphrase Milton Friedman, “Freedom also involves the freedom to be a fool.” If one wants to harm oneself, go right on ahead; back to the drugs thing, if someone wants to do drugs, they can. The government shouldn’t stop him, as it’s no different than the seat-belt law, which I am obviously against.
I just find the statements that some Republicans make that the Republican party is the party of “smaller government” is directly at odds with the War on Drugs, the Republican Party’s insistence on using illegal wiretaps, etc.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
my “is” in the last line should be “as”.
January 15th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Nusrat,
Thanks for stating your views clearly.
As somebody who graduated with an honor’s degree in economics from The University of Chicago, I am very familiar with Milton Friedman’s work.
Did you know that a Chicago economist or two is against seat belts because he (or they) think they decrease the cost of accidents and thus cause people to drive more recklessly? If you take their arguments as far as they sometimes want, you get ludicrous positions.
I suggest you examine a few societies where drug use is treated with a libertarian attitude. Try Amsterdam, where the streets are littered with heroin needles.
I bet you are a young man. Twenty years ago, when I was in college, half the people I knew (maybe even myself) would have described themselves as libertarian. As adults with children, only a couple of us call ourselves that now. We know that what our children see on a daily basis is often very damaging to their developments as healthy human beings with good habits. It’s a constant fight to teach one’s children good values and habits. Libertarians want to make it even harder. (By the way, I agree with you about each state being able to establish its own abortion laws, if any.)
In a civilized society, sometimes people need to be stopped from destroying themselves and the broader culture.
Something else: libertarianism and secularism can not exist as a society’s main culture for long. Other “isms” come in and fill the ideological void. In many areas of Europe, for example, that other ism is Islamic Fascism. And libertarians, who believe all lifestyles are equal and that privacy trumps all, are philosophically incapable of fighting it (hence, your opposition to “wiretapping” of calls with suspected terrorists and their enablers).
January 15th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Oh, I’m not against wiretapping. I’m just against the wiretapping without warrants, as Bush seems to want to do.
January 15th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
And thanks for the civility you bring to discourse. We may agree to disagree, but we’ll certainly hold respect for each others’ views; that makes this a pleasurable experience, discussing politics on here. I love reading about what makes people of other modes of thought tick; it helps me assimilate the world better.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Tano:
With respect, you miss my point. Yes indeed, I have seen MSM stories on McCain’s potential problems with the Religious Right — though not as many as Dr. Dobson’s comments and others would seem to indicate ought be written. But, that’s exactly the point, the constant focus of the MSM, and the “Wise Men” is on McCain. Yes, he’s got this problem and that problem, but of course we all know he is the “Front Runner”. These journalists and commentators avoid any mention of Rudy unless they are forced to acknowledge his existence – For example, the NYT, Rudy’s hometown newspaper, a town where he is a former mayor and still a hero for reasons in addition to 9/11 — buried the announcement of Rudy’s Exploratory Committee on something like page 17 or 18.
On those occasions when these people are pinned down and more-or-less forced to confront the notion of Rudy as a Presidential contender, with rare exceptions, e.g., Chris Matthews, they are completely dismissive and disdainful of the very notion that he ought be taken seriously. More importantly, the ONLY reason they EVER give for their dismissiveness is that Rudy can never win the Republican nomination because the Religious Right will never vote for him in the primaries. Even when various polls are waved under the nose of these people, they do not let down their hauteur, simply waving aside the polls by saying, well that’s only “name recognition”; when the Religious Right voters really learn of Rudy’s past positions, they will turn against him.
There is a veritable mountain of hard empirical evidence, still a-building — the Dobson comment, the Quinnipiac Thermometer Reading, many non-media commentaries to the effect that the Religious Right is indeed warming up to Rudy, and poll after poll after poll showing Rudy in the lead at every level, national, state, and local, including numerous that include sophisticated push-polling that demonstrates that the respondents are indeed aware of Rudy’s past positions — that clearly show this MSM, Beltway Punditocracy, attitude to be complete hogwash. Yet still they persist, these people who actually profess to be arch-empiricists.
If I were NOT a Rudy supporter, I would still find this MSM performance to be downright insulting. In this instance, in my considered judgment, the MSM thoroughly deserves any amount of opprobrium that I or anyone else can heap upon it.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I just found this site and find it very interesting. I love in a suburb of Detroit and consider myself an independent that’s voted democrat since the 2000 elections. As a Christian I dislike the Moral Majority enough to fight an automatic “vote against” attitude. My leanings are very liberal but I’m still for gun rights, a strong defense (without the ratcheting loss of personal rights) and have problems with women getting multiple abortions, I’m not against abortions though.
I’ve never noticed a lean toward McCain leading in the Republican party. Our local news always lists them in order and Rudy is always at the top, usually by a sizable margin.
I honestly haven’t come close to making a decision for 2008. Unless someone in the Democratic Party steps up I don’t see anyone I favor, Clinton is a lost cause with no chance of winning outside of states like California and New York, and Obama isn’t experienced enough (I honestly don’t think his race will hurt him too much).
The Republican Party only has Rudy to interest me. McCain lost all respect from me when he started courting the MM, immediately losing his standing as a moderate in my eyes, appearing desperate enough to curry favor from anyone that would give him a vote.