Posted on 11/18/2006 7:45:59 PM PST by Reagan Man
Seems like just yesterday Republicans were warning Democrats not to count their hicks before they were catched.
Democrats said they had a plan to get the guys with the Confederate flags, but Republicans said you can’t con those folks into loving federal overreach. Democrats said they could draw pro-life votes, but Republicans scoffed: “We’re the pros. Get a life!” Democrats said they could attract budget-balancers and Republicans countered: “That is our constituency and you can’t budge it.”
Well, bite your tongues, all you RNC guys and gals with the starched collars. Them there rubes done drug you out the door. Bob Casey Jr. challenged Sen. Rick Santorum as a pro-life Democrat, and when the votes were counted, he was, as Barbara Walters put it, “The happiest man in the womb.” All over the country people told exit pollsters they sent their spendthrift reps over the Bridge to Nowhere.
How did that happen? Are voters so dense they could not spot the fangs under the sheep’s clothing? Can they not divine that electing Democrats will, in the long term, endanger the values they most prize? The optimistic answer is: With a Republican President, a Democrat Congress cannot do much damage, so it’s a good way to send a message. This happy-face analysis assumes that in two years all this is easily reversible.
I also prefer to see the cup as 49/100 full, and if I wasn’t a big believer in the future, I would not be spending half my income on tuition. But I suspect the Reagan Revolution is over … unless the Republicans understand what happened this Election Day. It was simple: The Revenge of the Nuts.
Yep. If asked to identify the exact moment the Republicans lost the Congress, I would not cite the day Jack Abramoff got arrested. Or when Tom DeLay got indicted. When Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney got convicted. When Mark Foley was unmasked. When Bush said neither troops nor Donald Rumsfeld would leave before he did. When Katrina stumped the feds for a week. When 100 soldiers died In Iraq in October. Nope, none of the above.
That moment came in mid-October on the Laura Ingraham Show. David Kuo had just been on, claiming that his co-workers at the Bush White House referred to values voters as “nuts.” Laura flattened him like a pancake, then welcomed her next guest, Robert Novak, who casually let drop that Kuo was right. He, too, had been present many times when administration staffers called their voters-of-faith “nuts.”
Now nuts, foodwise, are very nutritive and are unfairly maligned by being made synonymous with kooks. But that thought offers scant solace to a serious and earnest citizen who has just been consigned to the snack dish alongside the raisins. There are many fine people who vote Republican from a vision of limited government, restrained taxation and fiscal responsibility: they are certifiably normal.
Those of us whose hearts echo with the aborted cry of the unborn, and who think to offer our votes as their proxies, can apparently only participate when on furlough from the asylum. If the eldritch cry of lives snipped before birth or snuffed before death keeps you awake at night, you be hearin’ some strange voices, son; might want to have the nerve doctor check that out. And if you are attuned to a vision of a healthy society being built around a traditional structure of marriage and families, then you are a screaming loon of the most offensive variety.
You think you can snicker at people behind their backs, write them off as a lunatic fringe, and then come around smiling every two years for a vote? No, sirree, Bob. That makes you a huckster and a slickster, and folks down here in the Bible Belt don’t take none too kindly to that kind of moonshine. We have kicked more Bible salesmen and carpetbaggers, phony revivalists and gold-stock peddlers, out of these parts than you city slickers ever seen. Why, look at you boys right now, gettin’ taken by Al Gore for billions with the old Armageddon end-of-the-world grift. Next thing you’ll be sending millions to some e-mail scam artist from Nigeria.
If Republicans ever want to have a party again, the kind with streamers and funny hats and spiked punch, they had better learn some respect. Life does not go around handing out gifts you don’t appreciate, at least not for long. The cultural issues formed an integral part of the Republican rises to power in both 1980 and 1994. They are the product of bleeding-heart conservatism, people who really care for every life and who really care for the soul of our society. Love them—or they will leave you.
[Mr. Homnick, a regular contributor to Human Events, is a well-known commentator and humorist. He also writes for The American Spectator.]
So true. Great stuff, IronJack.
DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS ISSUE MEMO ON LOSS OF CATHOLICS
Washington, DC, (Culture of Life Foundation/CWNews.com) - A memo authored by a prominent Democratic strategy organization calls the decline in support of white Catholics for Democrats "striking" and "a big part of the 2004 election story." One of the analysis' key findings is that Catholic voters are becoming more pro-life, which the authors called "a factor in the recent losses and one of the blockages for Democrats, at least in the Midwest."
The data also reveals that young Catholics are more pro-life than their parents and that bishops who speak out against pro-abortion politicians help bolster the pro-life vote.
The abortion issue is particularly potent for a group called "Democratic defectors" who either identified themselves as Democrats or voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 but voted for President Bush in the last election. Among this group, "26 percent believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases, nearly three times the number for all Catholic Democrats."
The memo was issued by Democracy Corps, a research and tactical advice organization founded by Democrat strategy virtuosos James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum. Titled "Reclaiming the White Catholic Vote," it is based on data from a nationwide survey of more than 1,000 white Catholic voters.
The decline in the white Catholic vote has been steady over the last decade. Clinton won it by seven percentage points; Al Gore lost it by seven points; and Sen. John Kerry lost it by 14 points. The data provided in the report provides a fascinating window into the much discussed Catholic vote and makes it clear Democrats are losing ground because of their stance on a range of cultural issues.
It turns out that one of the most contentious and visible issues in the 2004 election, the denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, did not hurt the pro-life side as many said it would.
The poll found that when white Catholics were asked whether or not they were more or less likely to vote for a Democrat that "is denied Communion by the area's bishop for voting to support abortion rights" 49 percent said they were less likely while 33 percent said they were more likely.
The memo also made it clear that the abortion issue is not going away. "Although the pro-life position is strongest among seniors, Catholics' current pro-life position does not appear likely to lessen with time.
While middle-age Catholics lean toward keeping abortion legal, voters under 30 are more pro-life: 53 percent believe abortion should be illegal in most cases." The pro-life position could be a winning one for Democrats according to the study.
Fifty-nine percent of white Catholics say they are more likely to support a Democratic candidate who is pro-life and 35 percent say they are less likely, giving a pro-life Democrat a 24 point advantage. Even on the East Coast where Catholics are less pro-life, a pro-life Democrat has a 12 point advantage over a pro-abortion candidate.
The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who "[b]elieves in a woman's right to choose but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed, including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption."
This common ground approach is reminiscent of a recent speech given by New York Senator and likely presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which she softened her approach to abortion by calling it a "tragic choice." In the speech she said faith-based abstinence should be embraced but also called on increased funding for "family planning services," a euphemism for contraception, abortifacients, and abortions.
SOURCE http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=36492
MAJOR STUDY BY THE PEW FORUM ON RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE:
Republicans Can't Win Without Christian Conservatives
SOURCE: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:QS6fK2c8AP0J:pewforum.org/events/index.php%3FEventID%3D115
Americans who regularly attend worship services and hold traditional Christian religious views increasingly vote Republican, while those who are less connected to religious institutions and more secular in their outlook tend to vote Democratic, according to a major study by the Pew Forum.
Some of the conclusions of this report were already evident in 2004 exit polling data. For example, voters who attend church more than once a week (16 percent of all voters) chose Bush over Kerry by a margin of 64 – 35 percent.
Likewise, those who attend Christian denominational Churches on a weekly basis (26 percent of voters) supported the President by a 58 – 41 percent margin. Also very telling, those who never attend Church (15 percent of voters) overwhelmingly supported Kerry 62 – 36 percent.
The study further found that traditionalist elements within each religion tended to vote Republican, while modernist groups within the religions trended towards the Democrats. A multiple regression analysis of exit poll and public opinion survey data from 2000 and 2004 enabled the Pew Research Center to assign a relative weight to various demographic markers.
Interestingly, church attendance was tied with race as the most significant factor. But even that number is deceiving; in that race is only an important factor due to the high level of support the Democrats receive from black voters.
These trends represent a major shift over the past forty-five years. White Christian Evangelicals in 1960 favored Democrats by a two-to-one margin; now they are Republican by a 56 – 27 percent margin. Seventy-eight percent of them voted for President Bush in 2004.
In 1960, 71 percent of Catholics were Democrats and now Democrats have only a slight edge among Catholics (44 – 41 percent) and Catholics voted for President Bush (52 – 47 percent) in 2004. These trends have also brought an increased acceptance of religion in the public square.
While Americans do tend to favor the separation of church and state, 70 percent of voters want their President to have strong Christian religious beliefs. Likewise, the study reveals that 52 percent of Americans believe that Christian churches should express political views. Surprisingly, support for political involvement of churches is strongest among younger voters age 18 to 29 (59 percent).
Yes indeed.
Appears there are some FReepers who are still extremely angry about the election outcome. Tough to figure out why. For the last 12-15 months many of us have been warning of the dire consequences Republicans could face on November 7th, should Bush and the GOP keep ignoring their conservative base.
The staffers must think Bush is a nut as well. With the exception of a reported story of Bush calling Ken Blackwell a nut, I've never heard of Bush sharing this view. Bush denied the report.
Bingo.
Yep. Thanks for being a consistent voice for conservative principle.
Right backatcha!
This is the first I have seen of this. "One of the party's major errors was to let loose pro-abort, gay-worshipping Rudy Giuliani. The RNC paraded Giuliani around to campaign for numerous Republicans. To a man, all of them went down to defeat." Doesn't bode well for his presidential aspirations, if true.
I would think that with the historical precedent of major loses in any president's 6th year one could argue that Republicans did dam well considering the mood of the country
BTTT
Nice take. The elitist contempt shown to the all-important churchgoing voting bloc has not gone unnoticed.
Now here's an actual quote posted on FR (complete with misspellings) regarding Giuliani: " If the international or financial scene gets truly dangerous that would motivate voters to go with a proven leader like Rudy instead of an untested politically correct social conservative. The last thing the conservative movement needs in this perilous age is to be hijacked by cultural fanatics who coulden't (sic) find Irag (sic) on a map or read a balance sheet if it was stapled to their foreheads because there (sic) worried about a queer under their bed."
Makes you wonder what kind of fiscal or international debacle will be precipitated to make Rudy look like the savior of humanity.
Some of the Rudy ding-a-lings have also posted that social conservatives are expected to pack up and leave the party should this poseur win the WH (gag).
Irving Kristol (father of Fox pundit Billy) also weighed in with his putdown of social conservatives: "The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be.....to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."
(I pray this guy will get professional help for his dictator fixation.)
Rudy's multiple Nov 7 campaign flops, were preceded by his failed foray into Georgia---designed to show citified Rudy could appeal to Southern conservatives. Rudy was pictured glad-handing Georgians, in support of Ralph Reed's gubernatorial bid. Georgians weren't buying it---Reed went down to defeat.
Rudy's views on core cultural issues are ultra-liberal to the point of being radical. Giuliani is not just pro-abortion, he is pro-partial-birth abortion. He has not flinched from defending the legality of the gruesome practice that the late Democratic Sen. Patrick Moynihan of New York described “as close to infanticide.”
“I am pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said in 1999, when he was contemplating a Senate campaign. When a reporter asked if he at least favored a ban on partial-birth abortion, Giuliani said, “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing.” Rudy even said he would give his own daughter the money for an abortion.
Giuliani’s gay worship is so extreme, he advocated stripping away the special legal status of traditional marriage----even though he had no legal or official mandate to do so. In 1998, Rudy pushed a municipal ordinance that wiped out all distinctions between married and unmarried couples in New York City law, regardless of their gender.
He nailed Giuliani in that column for the radical leftwinger he is. Just look at the current FR poll question, and its obvious there are many liberal and libertarian type Republicans dwelling on FR these days.
Another riff on Rudy's liberal proclivities (and why he will not get conservative votes): then-Mayor Rudy gave homosexuals high-paid city jobs including the son of Liberal Party honcho Ray Harding (who endorsed Rudy and gave Rudy the Liberal Party ballot line).
Russel Harding stole the city blind, giving himself unauthorized salary raises, stealing electronic equipment, enjoying gay porn, internet child porn, and traveling with gay friends on the taxpayers' dime.
When appraised of the ripoff, and that Russel was being prosecuted, Rudy said he "felt bad" for the Harding family.
Rudy never deviated from the liberal drill and dared not uter a discouraging word about the depraved Russel, lest Rudy alienate big buck homosexual and liberal donors and voters.
Will do all I can to help get the Republican Majority back. I made some rather disparaging comments in here right after the election because I was angered by the loss and at a lot of voters that didn't turn out to vote. I see things differently now that there has been time to reflect. My apologies to any that I might have offended.
Lord God, I pray, rise up a righteous leader in this party to run for the office of POTUS. We do not see one, but you know who they are. Place it on their heart to come forward and lead this nation back to her glorious roots. In the name of your son, amen!
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.