The Washington Post has not, I am happy to report, been ignoring the role of religion in the Republican race for the White House. I mean — duh — the Monday edition contained two — count ‘em, two — different stories by reporter Perry Bacon Jr., about the current fortunes of Mike Huckabee and the role of religion in all of that.
And when it comes to the Democrats, the Post is simply ignoring the potential pew-cap issues to the same degree as everyone else. So we can still home — and pray? — for improvement there sometime before the Democratic National Convention.
This is why I was surprised when Post politico Dan Balz wrote a totally faith-free feature entitled “8 Questions Super Tuesday Could Answer.” Here’s the first question and a chunk of the answer:
Will Either Race End Today?
(1) Democratic strategist Bill Carrick put it best: “To paraphrase Churchill,” he wrote in an e-mail, “the Democrats are at the end of the beginning and the Republicans are at the beginning of the end.”
The Republican race is on the brink of ending, unless John McCain stumbles badly. GOP rules mean he should win a big batch of delegates by carrying such winner-take-all states as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Missouri. California has become more competitive, which prompted Mitt Romney to return to the state for a late rally. He hopes a win there will trigger a conservative backlash against McCain.
Even if McCain has a good night, Romney and Mike Huckabee may stay in the race, but unless Romney can pick up in the neighborhood of 400 delegates, he may have trouble catching up.
Of course, there are other ways to answer that question. McCain wins, unless Romney can peel away more evangelical Protestants from Huckabee. McCain might still lose, if the evangelical alpha males can continue to turn folks against him. McCain wins, if it starts becoming clear that Huckabee could end up being his running mate and some evangelicals with forgiveness in their hearts decide that the Arizona senator has been voting pro-life and sitting in Baptist pews for a reason.
I kept waiting for other religion angles to show up in this feature and they never did. Here are the other questions included in the pre-Super Tuesday rundown:
What Constitutes Victory? …
What States Bear Watching? …
Where Will Edwards’s Voters Go? …
Can Obama Win Latino Votes? …
Will Women Continue to Be Clinton’s Secret Weapon? …
Can McCain Win Conservatives And Pro-Bush Republicans? …
Which Democrat Is Positioned for A Long Campaign After Today?
I don’t know about you, but I see several religion ghosts in that list — especially the questions about Latino voters and Obama (and Hillary) and, as I mentioned earlier, the question about McCain winning over “Conservatives And Pro-Bush Republicans.” It’s interesting, these days, to see anyone use the word “Conservative” without an adjective of any kind — libertarian, economic, social, religious, whatever. That’s the ghost, of course.
OK, I will mention the Democrats, since the Post piece raises the issue of female voters.
Once again, there are members of the National Organization for Women who are sending around emails once again claiming that the Clintons are more committed to abortion rights than Obama. This is an interesting tactic, in a race that may pivot (what else is new) on the votes of centrist Catholics (or, as John C. Green once told me, “Catholics who go to Mass once a month instead of once a week).
The e-mail from Rosemary J. Dempsey, president of the Connecticut National Organization for Women, told members that Obama’s record during his time in the Illinois Senate included several instances in which he voted “present” instead of yes or no on abortion-related legislation.
The e-mail quotes Bonnie Grabenhofer, the president of Illinois NOW, as saying that “voting present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support,” and adding: “We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. … Voting present doesn’t provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman’s right to choose and these bills are unacceptable.”
This raises a question for me: Are there any real differences between Obama and the Clintons on the moral and social wedge issues at the heart of this political era? Who is more likely to pursue moderate, compromise positions and risk the wrath of the left?
Of course, to answer that kind of question, it would really help if we knew more about what Democrats believe on these kinds of moral and religious issues today and how those beliefs might affect their votes. But, your GetReligionistas have been saying that for some time now. Correct?
UPDATE: Well, the ultimate evangelical alpha male has spoken in an attempt to affect the voting today and in the future. Here is what Dr. James Dobson has to say:
“I’m deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
“I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down. I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.
“But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I’m affiliated. They do reflect, however, my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.”
The online crew at National Review contrasted that statement with recent materials from National Right to Life, which is not a liberal organization. Check that out, at the same link used above.
 | Posted at 3:01 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (8) |
February 5, 2008, at 4:03 pm
I suspect that Dobson is engaging in a desperate act of face saving with this statement. The polls are indicating that there will be a massive shift of evangelicals away from his beloved Republicans toward the Democratic candidates. It looks like he is trying to disguise that by suggesting a sitting on your butt approach to the general election by his evangelical followers.
His weird, convoluted discussion of the positions of McCain is only another reflection of his mental processes. It is unfortunate that the sincere sounding unction in his voice doesn’t come across in this written communication.
This has all the marks of a man losing his grip on political power.
February 5, 2008, at 7:40 pm
I do have to ask what the issues are that really at the heart of this political era. From a religious point-of-view, there are of course moral issues. But others have different root issues as the uproar over McCain illustrates. Why is dedicated social conservatism plus the best chance of winning if polls are to believed not not sufficient. I can understand someone wanting a closer match to one’s beliefs, but I don’t understand the positions of some. It seems that being willing to compromise is the unforgiveable evil to a few.
February 6, 2008, at 7:26 am
To build on Jerry’s comment, the refusal to compromise reflects the underlying theological bedrock of many of the Protestants in this social conservatism, viz. their sectarian orientation. Their tradition is that of separation and purity, and so it tends to the moralistic and the drawing of the bright lines.
This stance is well-reflected in the view regarding the War (what clearly is the moral if not the wedge issue of this political era): the framing of the issue in moral, absolute terms, and among the social conservatives a suspicion of, if not outright hostility towards Muslims, and Islam generally.
February 6, 2008, at 9:16 am
The war is hot at the moment.
But I think any analysis of the past three decades would find that the pivotal issue in American politics is control of the Supreme Court and, of course, that is linked to debates on abortion and other social issues.
Ask Hillary about that, and Obama too. And ask James Dobson.
February 6, 2008, at 10:08 am
The fact that McCain, a new Baptist (flip-flopper? LOL) lost the South in yesterday’s election speaks volumes about how he’s viewed by Evangelicals. And, contrary to Asinus’ point, social conservatives still matter, mostly because a vast majority of Americans proclaim themselves to be conservative on at least a few of the issues social conservatives champion.
Terry, McCain has trashed Judge Alito because he “wears his conservatism on this sleeve” and has privately declined to praise him. It makes me wonder exactly WHAT KIND of justice “Mr. Gang of 14” would appoint as president. I submit, more Souters and Kennedys than Thomases or Alitos.
I note with some chagrin that the MSM is failing to take great notice of the fact that his positions are “liberal” in many cases. Inatead, it is said, he gains support from “moderates” - that old boogie man of a worthless word!
February 6, 2008, at 12:07 pm
The East Valley Tribune here in Arizona ran a super-Tuesday-story this morning containing this interesting quote:
Personally, I think the most interesting question isn’t ‘Why evangelical leaders don’t want to support McCain?’ — there are plenty of obvious reasons, and I think Jerry and Harris are probably close to the mark. A more interesting question is ‘Why didn’t these same leaders support Huckabee in the first place?’. The quote above suggests one reason. Do evangelical leaders value fiscal conservatism almost as much as social conservatism? Was it just too hard for a religious elite to support a populist candidate? Maybe, maybe not. It’s an interesting question because I haven’t heard a convincing answer.
February 6, 2008, at 1:16 pm
Mark Steyn opined today that last night’s Huckabee surge was a reflection of Southern evangelicals’ anti-Mormon bigotry. I wonder if that’s gaining traction anywhere. I tend to doubt it, but I haven’t seen any evidence either way.
February 6, 2008, at 1:35 pm
I heard one “talking head” on TV say that Huckabee’s surge in the south but not amongst Christian conservatives elsewhere might be reflective of him being a Baptist. I really don’t know but wonder if there could be some denominational bias?