Posted on 11/07/2008 7:23:40 AM PST by Alex Murphy
So much for the "new evangelicals."
For the past two years, hundreds of articles have appeared in newspapers across America making the claim that the old religious right was moving left and that Barack Obama, with his religiously infused rhetoric and various "outreach efforts," was leading the charge. A year ago, David Kirkpatrick predicted the "evangelical crackup" on the cover of the New York Times Magazine. "Jesus Rode a Donkey: Why Republicans Don't Have the Corner on Christ," "Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America" and "Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right" are just three of the dozens of books released since 2004 that suggested that evangelicals were rethinking their loyalty to the Republican Party and conservatism in general. The new evangelicals, just in case anyone missed the storyline, were not so backward as to vote on issues like abortion and gay marriage. They were enlightened about the environment and favored government aid to the poor.
Well, whoever these new evangelicals were, they didn't show up at the polls on Tuesday.
John McCain won 74% of white born-again Protestants' votes. And while this was four percentage points lower than George Bush's share in 2004, President Bush's re-election was "the highpoint" for evangelical support of Republicans at least since 1980, according to John Green, a pollster at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. It's become something of a cliché that Mr. Bush has a "special relationship" with his fellow evangelicals -- but it's true. And it's a little unrealistic to expect that Sen. McCain would enjoy the same relationship with them, given that he is not one of their own. But he did just as well as, if not better than, every other GOP candidate in the past...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I am very impressed with the evangelical vote. This is a very good sign and hope for the unborn. I wish my fellow Catholics had such an impressive showing.
Evangelicals will soon be a major target of the 0bama administration, and not in a good sense. They will be singled out for scorn, labeled as “agents of intolerance,” and “dangerous hate-filled zealots.” Eventually, if we don’t watch out, the gas chambers will await...
more mis/disinformation debunked
Regardless of the election’s outcome, our consciences and sacred honor remain intact.
Bobby Jindal could take that % to 85.
That was Bill Ayers plan. My new home page, lest I forget: Eyewitness to the Ayers Revolution
So keep praying so you have the grace to stay the course next time, because without Christ you can do nothing.
This is one reason I am not particularly dejected at the outcome of this election. The country is no more liberal today than it was 8 years ago. To my mind, this is 1976 all over again.
In ‘76, the Republicans had lost their way ... corruption and distinctly non-conservative activity plagued the party. They had a two-term unpopular President (Nixon); a lackluster “moderate” Presidential candidate (Ford) that defeated a far more conservative counterpart in the primary (Reagan) and was directly tied to the unpopular administration (pardons). The Democrats ran a soft spoken leftist that used his Christian morality to blind the electorate ... and they won.
In ‘76, the Republicans, not conservatism, were repudiated.
In 2008, the Republicans lost their way — corruption and distinctly non-conservative activity plague the party. We have a two-term unpopular President that failed to live up to conservative promises. We had a lackluster “moderate” Presidential candidate that beat far more conservative rivals in the Primary (Thompson, Romney), and could be closely tied to the unpopular Administration. The Democrats nominated a mild-mannered, well-spoken leftist that was able to blind the electorate with soaring oratory ... and they won.
The Republicans, not conservatism, have been repudiated in 2008.
But — in both 1976, and 2008, the electorate is still fundamentally conservative. To quote Ronald Reagan in a speech after the disastrous loss in 1976 ...
“Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own. Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed.”
I believe the Republicans lost partially because the Democrats co-opted conservative rhetoric (”tax cuts” for the middle class, renewed victory in Afghanistan, etc), and the Republicans’ proved they could not be trusted to follow through on their conservative rhetoric. We allowed the lines to be blurred.
But, I believe we can utilize this loss as the Republicans did in 1976. We can renew conservatism. Like Reagan did with the “Reagan Democrats”, we can win converts we thought were completely unreachable with a conservative message. This will partially be done when Democrats reveal their true colors.
We lost in 1976, and the media announced that conservatism had been officially repudiated ... and that the short-lived conservative movement was dead. They were wrong then — and they’re wrong now.
H
To my mind, this is 1976 all over again.
Let us remember that this is 2008 and the approach need to be different. Sometimes , we have to be proactive. Like democrats, in 2006 elections, we need to plan for 2010 and take one democrat at a time. We need more registrations and lot of ground work. Radio’s and fox news will help us but, we have to go beyond that and play in the turf of democrats.
Bobby Jindal is a Catholic. Would Evangelicals support him, or would they reject him the same way they rejected Romney for being a Mormon ... or worse?
I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but am asking an honest question.
>> Let us remember that this is 2008 and the approach need to be different. Sometimes , we have to be proactive. Like democrats, in 2006 elections, we need to plan for 2010 and take one democrat at a time. We need more registrations and lot of ground work.
You said we need a new approach ... then stated an approach that is no different from the approach taken between 1976 and 1980. We need to return to our roots — not “reinvent” ourselves. We need to get the conservative message out, speaking to one Democrat at a time.
Most importantly, we need to communicate a cohesive set of conservative principles, and then govern from those principles.
H
I'm working on a regular program of threads identifying those guys and suggesting how that can be done.
Not exactly the same...this evangelical has gladly gone to Mass with friends or when that was the only thing available (overseas). You wouldn't catch me dead in a Mormon temple.
>> Bobby Jindal is a Catholic. Would Evangelicals support him, or would they reject him the same way they rejected Romney for being a Mormon ... or worse?
You’ve got a couple of wrong assumptions here.
(1) Evangelicals did not reject Romney, en masse, because he was a Mormon. If the conservative vote had not been divided between Romney, Huckabee and Thompson ... any of the three likely would have beaten McCain. The trio, however, fragmented the conservative vote.
I am an evangelical, and I personally went with Thompson over Romney for a couple of reasons. (1) Romney’s record in Massachussetts wasn’t particularly conservative, (2) I don’t care for Romney’s style and delivery (he’s a little too much like a “politician” sent from central casting), and (3) the mixture of his record and slick style made me wonder whether he was just telling me what I wanted to hear (rather than what he actually believed).
None of those objections — which were very prevalent on this site — had anything to do with his religion.
(2) I don’t think most evangelicals believe Catholicism to be particularly objectionable. On the basics of Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism are pretty close to one another. There are distinct differences, of course ... but, on moral and religious issues, Protestants and Catholics (and Mormons, for that matter) are generally on the same side.
(3) Even those that found Romney’s Mormonism objectionable (which I contend was a small minority), are still less likely to object to Catholicism. Mormonism has distinct and radical departures from Protestantism ... Catholicism has far fewer.
And ... if conservative voters would vote for a liberal because the conservative candidate was Catholic or Mormon (which I believe VERY few would) — they’re not particularly conservative, and we’ll likely be better off without them.
H
They would support him. Evangelicals were the one group that supported Keyes in Illinois. They would be happy to vote for a good man like Jindal.
I don’t think that would be a big problem. Hey, if JFK could do it, so could Jindal.
You are forgetting one important factor: JFK was a Democrat. Traditionally the majority of Catholics vote Democrat. Just because Jindal is Catholic does not mean that Catholics will vote for him.
Evangelicals will soon be a major target of the 0bama administration, and not in a good sense. They will be singled out for scorn, labeled as “agents of intolerance,” and “dangerous hate-filled zealots.” Eventually, if we don’t watch out, the gas chambers will await...
Which means, evangelicals need to drop the silliness and the fluff, and get the gospel right.
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.