Here's the latest JPG creation for an 12 X 24 inch magnetic car sign ...
Send e-mail request for the JPG image, I'll also suggest a magnetic sign vendor.
"No kickbacks" ... "no quid pro quo" ...
Patton-at-Bastogne
Posted on 04/20/2015 12:22:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Well, at least the Dallas Morning News was kinda nice to Liberty University. In the lede to its story on Ted Cruz in New Hampshire, the newspaper called it a "huge evangelical Christian college." Once upon a time, many mainstream media routinely slapped Liberty with the "F" word: "Fundamentalist."
But the paper doesn't prove its claim that Cruz sounded less evangelical, more secular in his New Hampshire visit to sound more presidential. It therefore pushes a related stereotype: that Americans don’t particularly like evangelicals.
DMN paints Cruz as a conservative's conservative as well as an evangelical's evangelical. It says the believers' bloc can be active and ardent, but that Cruz will have to broaden his appeal to win the White House:
"Cruz’s initial focus on the evangelical vote made tactical sense. In a large, splintered Republican field, having a base to build from could be critical. But there’s a pitfall: By focusing so tightly on social conservatives, he could alienate others, ending up with a very enthusiastic sliver of the electorate."
“People I’ve talked to are excited about him. And yet there are some who are nervous, because of what he’s saying,” said Kathleen Lauer-Rago, chairwoman of the Merrimack County GOP."
The story tries to back up the assertion by citing exit polls in 2012, which showed that equal numbers of New Hampshire people (22 percent) are "very conservative" and "born-again Christians." However, it blurs the fact that "born-again" is not the same as "evangelical," a fact long brought out in Barna polls.
DMN also doesn't report whether the poll said it was the same people in both categories. The most we get is a Cruz supporter who says he and his family are "very conservative" and "conservative Christians." That doesn't prove, of course, that they're all alike.
Other Republican candidates are sized up as well in this story -- Scott Walker, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee -- but it mentions evangelical support only for Huckabee. In fact, as sociologist Tobin Grant has pointed out, as many believers voted for Romney in 2012 as for the more "evangelical" candidate, Rick Santorum.
The DMN piece comes close to promoting another stereotype, of the gruff, aging conservative Christian. The main photo shows pot-bellied old men in VFW hats clapping at a conservative rally in Merrimack, N.H. And quoted sources are said to be 47, 64 and 69 years old. Only at the very end does the story add a 20-year-old college student in Cruz' camp.
At least we get a good sampling of the issues Cruz has been highlighting: taxes, national security, the national debt, gun rights, religious freedom and repealing Obamacare. But we learn little on how he supposedly played these up while downplaying faith matters.
Even after setting up evangelicals as radioactive beings that could taint Cruz' presidential chances, the DMN story quotes Kathleen Lauer-Rago, the GOP officer, that New Hampshire voters share Cruz' talking points. "I don’t think he’s pigeonholed himself at all," she concludes. Well, then, who has been trying to pigeonhole Ted? Political writers, perhaps?
Sociologist Grant challenges the whole image of religious Republicans, saying bluntly, "There is no evangelical movement within the GOP." Blogging for the Religion News Service, Grant says that evangelicals hold some beliefs in common, and they have strong leaders who try to muster political clout. But he says they're not organized as, say, Sierra Club or the NAACP.
Grant even starts sounding like we often do at GetReligion:
This idea that evangelicals would somehow back a candidate simply because some religious-turned-political celebrity said so is more than myth. It is an insulting, offensive stereotype of evangelicals as sheep who believe and act in response to what they’re told. They couldn’t be thoughtful voters (or as thoughtful as any other voter) who decide to back candidates without the aid of pastors or pundits. Evangelicals as loyal, dim-witted followers is a stereotype that continues to exist despite clear evidence to the contrary.
I'll have to say that the Dallas story is more even-handed than some. The Daily Beast ran a dim appraisal for Cruz, by Jacob Lupfer, a political science student at Georgetown University. He says that "party insiders" always ending up choosing who runs for president.
"Unfortunately for Cruz, there is little reason to believe that the Republican Party is going to nominate someone who looks and talks like a televangelist," Lupfer says snidely. "The nominee ends up being someone the party feels is a safer bet for the general election but whose religious commitment evangelicals greet with private, and sometimes public, skepticism."
But neither Dallas nor the Beast reflect actual American views of religious groups. A Pew Forum survey last year found that most feel warm toward evangelicals, just a point or two south of Jews and Catholics. Lowest on the totem are Muslims and atheists.
The DMN story has so many holes, so many assumptions, I'm tempted to say it has social and political variants of tmatt's original religious "ghosts." Perhaps the writer felt free to analyze more freely because the story ran under a "Politics" label. But it would have been packaged better as opinion or commentary.
Got a little hot headed in last post. Wow. It just hurts so much to see my country dismantled. What happened between Reagan and now?
LOL I have said the same.
Reagan has nearly all the states, this was a conservative country and for some reason Bush ruined it with his one term and let Clinton in. Bush again came along and ruined it thus letting in fairy boy.
We cannot afford another left wing loon take office and these Paul’s, Huckabees need to stop. Not that they will because Paul has been groomed by his daddy to run and carry on the family tradition of screwing up conservatives by pretending to be one.
Bush II was an unmitigated disaster. 5 trillion in new debt. Invaded Iraq? instead of Saudi Arabia. Did nothing about immigration. And I blindly followed him. Never again.
same here.
Even some of his bench appointees have been a failure.
how does that happen? Like his father? Don’t they vet these people? Has that ever happened on the other side?
Can’t recall any Dem appointee ever going against the left wing agenda.
Bush went all mushy and thought he would go to the middle of the road and then forgot what the voters wanted because Rove thought he knew better than the American public.
Why is Rove still on TV? or relevant? Fox is cheering for Jeb anyway. I didn’t want to believe it but then I payed attention. Only hear Cruz’ name on Hannity
My question I have asked and it is true about Cruz.
FOX is more liberal tarian to me because they are socially liberal
Dana “the stutterer” Perino, Greg Gutfeld, Bob Beckel, Juan Wiliams, the fruit that’s on at 3pm, Megan Kelly can go pretty hard left sometimes too.
Yea I don’t pay much attention to most of them and as for Kelly . EEK She is totally pro homosexual agenda and does not know how the real world and people like me live or work.
Especially here in soviet Red Hampshire...evangelicals are few and far between...
I needed that. Thanks so much for those links. THAT is what I’ve been wanting to see. I feel the same way. I am not an evangelical. Cruz is the real deal.
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.