“‘Raw Politics’: Religious right leaning toward Democrats?” is the headline; the reader is then informed:
“Raw Politics” on “Anderson Cooper 360” delivers the latest political news with a wry sense of a humor and without spin.
The humor part may be true, as the “without spin” part is so laughably false. The top graphs of the article:
For decades, evangelicals have been seen as solid supporters of the Republican Party. That could be changing.
The religious right, a cornerstone of the so-called Reagan revolution — the battle over abortion law, and gay marriage — wants a change.
At least some evangelicals do.
Backpedal much? There are two quoted sources for this story. The first is Os Guinness, who is angered by leaders of the Religious Right and recently signed a manifesto condemning Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible. The second source is Mara Vanderslice of Common Good Strategies, a group that works with the Democratic party. So we have a story supposedly about the Religious right that ends up being about “some evangelicals” and containing no quotes from anyone with the Religious right.
There is also the suggestion that the Reagan revolution was about the battle over abortion law and gay marriage, when the latter was not an issue and the former was part of a much broader coalition concerned about judicial activism, as well as progressive economic and foreign policies.
While not mentioned in the text of the article, there is an accompanying photo of Barack Obama, with a caption stating that he “has discussed faith and religion on the campaign trail.” And it is true that Obama made extensive faith-based appeals at the outset of his campaign. Indeed, earlier in this cycle, Obama was seen by voters as a more strongly religious person than every other major presidential hopeful. Insofar as this year seems to be shaping up as part of a post-WWII, 16-year cycle of “change†elections, Obama was nicely positioning himself as a Northern version of Jimmy Carter — a religious man seeking to clean up Washington. Such would appeal to the bloc of Mike Huckabee voters who are socially conservative, but have no problem in principle with government intervention to help the poor and so on.
However, as the campaign has worn on, Obama has been losing support among the religiously observant. After the Pennsylvania primary, John B. Judis wrote:
In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent.
After North Carolina and Indiana, Judis noted the continuing trend:
Obama initially held his own among voters who attend church regularly. In New Hampshire, he bested Clinton by 37 to 32 percent among weekly churchgoers–and he didn’t have to include religious African Americans in the total. But Obama has increasingly lost this vote and gained adherents among the non-religious. In Indiana, he lost to Clinton among weekly and occasional churchgoers but defeated her among those who never attend church. That can hurt him in the fall in states Obama wants to win. In Virginia, for instance, weekly and occasional churchgoers made up 83 percent of the general electorate in 2004. The challenge for Obama will be to reach out to religious voters without reminding voters of his ties to Reverend Wright.
Wright was (and likely is) particularly a problem with the observant:
In both states, frequent churchgoers were more apt to say they were influenced by Wright than were less actively religious voters. In North Carolina, among those who said they attend religious services weekly, nearly six in 10 called Wright important to their vote, almost double the figure among those who never attend services. Even among Obama’s own supporters in the Tarheel state, 45 percent who attend services weekly called the controversy important to their vote; among those, a third who rated it “very important.”
In Indiana, the issue also split voters: About half of those who attend services weekly or occasionally rated the Wright issue important, while only a third of those who never attend services said the same.
Wright even dented Obama’s support among roughly half of black weekly churchgoers.
Obama started this campaign with an image that could have drawn the religiously observant into his camp in large numbers. The Wright controversy, along with Obama’s own comments about small town Americans clinging to God and guns, seems to be losing him this advantage. And with Obama the likely Democratic nominee, CNN’s reportage seems even more like wishful thinking than insightful analysis.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
I don’t get your critical tone at all, Karl. Baracky Hussein is sort of inherently not a lot appealing I think to religious voters, so CNN really doesn’t have a choice but to do stories that say no, for real he is a lot appealing to religious voters. I don’t see how else you expect him to win.
CNN? Ah yes, CNN. Where back in 2001 Ted Turner made a walk through on an Ash Wednesday and derided the plebes who had ash on their forehead.
Yeah, they know all about the Religious Right. And tolerance of Catholics. Of course, Turner later apologized, but the Christianity coverage on CNN has always been pretty much anti.
I love it how Anderson keeps track of how many pairs of shoes he has in the title of his show. He’s teh mostest metrosexual one I think.
more brain dead analysis from cnn.
of course those who call fox news faux news have no problem with it
i suspect that even cnn producers and writers that developed this report aren’t even stupid enough to believe it
feet,
We really have to wait for the BHO the Babykiller stories to interlace a bit with the Church of Marx (Christ Racist Sect) in order to understand how the “religious” vote will turn out. The recent rebukes of Giuliani and Sebelius indicates that the non-cafeteria Catholics will be more likely to adhere to, given that the hierarchy is being publicly pro-active. That ain’t good news for BHO.
I don’t believe that marketing BHO to the observant is going to be much fun at all.
“likely to adhere to solid teaching”
What a link eater.
Maybe, but Baracky said when his daughters get to be like thirteen they can have as many abortions as they want. It’s that sort of pro-family message that Catholics have been waiting to hear for a long time I think.
It was on CNN.
feet,
The message is already getting out to Catholics. It will get through to the evangelicals as well. Even the 22% already in the fold. Wonder if they’ll stay?
This is hardly a surprise, is it? The Democrats have been angling for the religious vote since they lost the 2004 election largely on the perception that they stood opposite the convictions of most religious people. They’re playing one of the most cynical games I’ve ever seen in politics, pretending to represent a legitimate religious point of view while utterly despising the folks they’re attempting to deceive.
CNN is just doing their part to help speed the deception. They’ll surely succeed in drawing some percentage of the religious voters, those not aware enough of their own religion to understand that expecting the state care for them is idolotry, and expecting the state to do their good works for them is laziness at best and oppression at worst.
I do hope that all people of all religions end up voting for Obama, won’t that be the only way to prove they are not racists?
C’mon.
Give me a break!
This is just more leftist “wring your neck” baloney. These idiots still believe that “us illiterate morons” will swallow whatever piece of crap they chum the waters with.
They are, after all, so much more sophisticated and smarter than we are.
You stupid shit!
But, Karl, us Hoosiers dinna vote fer Bammy ‘cuz he’s one o’ ’em Moooooslims.
Go, Junior!
I seem to recall voting for Ronaldus Magnus because of runaway stagflation and an embassy full of hostages.
But the ole memory ain’t what it used to be.
two thoughts.
As an investigative reporter, i suspect i’ve been blessed with good editors. how good? So good that I won’t even think of pitching a story idea I can’t support with facts (you know, those datapoints that support the original thesis). Other reporters? not so lucky, as Karl points out.
As an evangelical, I have to point out that at my church, which appears to be about 80-20 republican the last 2 elections, i get the sense that it’s about even this year.
big issues? weak economy, inflation (gas), national freakshow in Iraq. that tells me that this is still Obama’s to lose. which brasses me off, natch.
Mcgruder:
inflation (gas), I get that. But, national freakshow in Iraq? My evangelical friends don’t see the war in those terms. Am I missing something?
Cowboy,
You’ve never seen Herman’s big fish swim through? Queequeg’ll get him shortly.
Gotcha, Rick, thanks.
…and I read that particular book–Queequeg doesn’t do so well, does he?
national freakshow= not even in 5th inning of that; high casualties; neglecting afghanistan; military overstretch.
people in my church are getting mighty sick of Iraq. I’m in for a penny so im in for the pound, but am fighting a rearguard campaign. Lotta military in the church….older set all served back when that was mandatory, and a couple of the young guys tested into the elites, rangers and SEALs (both families I’m close to). they’re pretty much all former Bush supporters, we’ll leave it at that.
I tell myself the POTUS might look smart in 25-30 years. Until then, well, he exposed his flanks.
McGruder:
Doesn’t that fly in the face of everything we hear from soldiers on the front in Iraq? When you add to that the number of them who re-up once or twice, I can’t believe that the few dissenting voices are evangelical. Is there a reason that members of your church or denomination in general shares what you perceive (no offense intended here) as dissatisfaction with the war?
I dunno. I think the way the Democrats treat — and take for granted — blacks is more cynical, plus it’s been going on for a lot longer.
Is Karl still slurping on Rev. Wright’s cock?
That’s distasteful.
I’m sure Obama would be so proud of thor.
Woook at da wittel Willary Winton fwighters, are they cute. They fwight, fwight, fwight dat wig wully Owama for wero Willary.
My commenting on Karl’s constant slurp is certainly in line with what passes for intellect here at PW. C’mon, unless, Happy, you’re implying Rev. Wright doesn’t wash his cock before Karl slurps on it thus making it distasteful. Then, well, OK then.
Obama is punking Karl, not me. I just pile on for fun. :-)
It was a startling image. But Hillary’s still gonna win her some primaries and give victory speeches and stuff. This is cause Baracky has less delegates than he needs to be able to ignore her. McCain has all the delegates and he gets to eat his waffle. This is politics not some change election writ large. Baracky should know what this means. That poor little man has been yelling I am teh change forever now but half his party is like erm, not so much.
Today on teh NPR Cokie Roberts is gonna tell me about how to drop out of the presidential race gracefully. She should probably more explain how people can drop out of the media gracefully. Disingenuous bitch.
Speaking of Rev.Wright’s cock, where is the useless flap of skin that is attached to it? Has Jeremi gone into hiding? Did Rezko send some collectors out to make him see things more clearly? Did Bill Ayers mail him a Vermont Teddy Bear – the one that wears a robe with 5 M-80’s in a bag of shingle-nails under it?
Where is that monstrous ego? Weird.
Jeremiah is a lot like a vampire. He can’t come in unless he’s invited, and thems what do the inviting have… gotten phone calls. It’s a Chicago thing.
Roger that.
Apparently, Karl isn’t supposed to mention O at all. Perhaps Thor was deep in the sauce last night.
Does this mean I need to start hating white people?
Where is that monstrous ego? Weird.
al–you’re not questioning the timing, are you?
Sure, it’s convenient that just at the apogee of Wright’s damage to BHO’s campaign, he displays his loonitude in very public ways in a short period of time, allowing O to go all repudiatey for saying essentially the same shit he’s been saying for decades.
But if you think that’s more than just a coincidence–you sir, are a RACIST!!!!!
Yeah, this is a pretty sad attempt to convince people they don’t really believe what they do and actually like someone they do not. It presumes that Christians are stupid and easily manipulated, and is transparently weak.