If Christian conservatives stay on the sidelines during the fall campaign, presidential hopeful John McCain probably stays in the Senate.
Christian conservatives provided much of the on-the-ground, door-to-door activity for President Bush’s 2004 re-election in Ohio and in other swing states. Without them, the less organized and lower-profile McCain campaign is likely to struggle to replicate Bush’s success. And so far, there’s been scant sign that the Republican nominee-in-waiting is making inroads among these fervent believers.
“I don’t know that McCain’s campaign realizes they cannot win without evangelicals,” said David Domke, a professor of communication at the University of Washington who studies religion and politics. “What you see with McCain is just a real struggle to find his footing with evangelicals.”
If “Christian Conservatives” don’t show up and McCain wins anyway it will cause a complete scrapping of the current Republican coalition.
I’m not to sure McCain wants to be president after all. I sure wouldn’t want to be the way things are going.. LOL
He just cannot keep himself from shooting himself in the foot, trying to be a “nice’ guy..
Gloria in SC
Without “Christian Conservatives” Sen. McCain doesn’t have a ghost of a chance of winning. If, for whatever reason, conservatives decide not to vote because they dislike some aspect of Sen. McCain, they are, in effect, casting their vote for Sen. Obama. Can they possibly really want him as our next president? The choice is that simple – cast your vote for McCain or you’re voting for Obama whether you visit a voting booth or not.
RE: “they are, in effect, casting their vote for Sen. Obama. . . . ”
No — when the Republican Party nominated a non-conservative as their presidential nominee they “cast their vote for Obama” . . .
I’ll be voting for a President — but not from either main party. And that’s solely the Republican Party’s fault.
They have chosen to run a little experiment — that is the experiment of discerning whether they can win the presidency running a person who is simply not a conservative. I have no idea whether their experiment will work for them, but of course, I will not be enabling false results for their experiment by voting for their non-conservative.
Should McCain win the presidency, then their experiment will have worked for them — running for and winning the presidency with a non-conservative. They will, then, feel free to do so again for the next decades — and that’s fine. Should that happen, I’ll understand that conservatives who are thus not represented will need to spend the decades even scores of years necessary for building a conservative party.
And make no mistake — the Republican Party will be at fault for that.
They had a choice to make. And choices have inevitable consequences.
It’s a shame their little “experiment” will just hurt the country by having two unqualified candidates for the highest office in the world.
In the LAND, not World.
sorry
Jim E. <><
You are absolutely correct, even miller. Not voting for McCain is of course voting for Obama. I wish it were otherwise, being and independent and hating the 2-party system as I do, but those are the facts on the ground. And refusing to vote for a qualified bi-partisan in these trying times just because he’s not as “conservative” as some folks might like will put a an unqualified leftist in the White House and utterly destroy the economy.
RE: “And refusing to vote for a qualified bi-partisan in these trying times just because he’s not as “conservative†as some folks might like will put a an unqualified leftist in the White House and utterly destroy the economy.”
Nope. Voting for a non-conservative when one is an actual conservative for some is a violation of both conscience and principle and as such is wrong. Further, when such things are true about a voter, it would be enabling and very harmful to convince the party that nominated such a man that this was in fact a good thing.
The economy in the short-term — four years — is far less important than the entire country in the long term over the next scores of years. It is sad that the Republican party has placed conservatives in that position of having to choose between the short term bad and the long-term horror — but there we are.
The Republican party is in the midst of making some very important decisions about what their identity will be over the next decades, and I intend to help them make that decision with honesty and integrity and valid data — my vote.
For those of us who do not see Mr. McCain as “non-conservative” but rather as not tied to his party’s apron strings, finding someone who will stretch beyond the ridiculous games of the two party system is a far better thing than finding someone in our exact mirror image. And far better for the country as a whole. It is the demands of the fringe groups in this country – which, unlike the Church, IS and SHOULD BE a conglomerate, and therefore should be governed by those who can work in such a structure – that has terribly weakened her.
Continue with such partisanship if you so desire, but do not try to justify it by insiting that wrecking the economy throughout my children’s childhood will be “far less important than the entire country in the long term.” Please – how silly. What we do with the economy in the short term at this juncture in the global scheme of things may determine where we go in the long term, for pete’s sake. What’s good for this country is to help bring her back together and get her poised for upcoming world changes now, not to continue to play political games – or else your short term bad will turn into your long term horror.
RE: “but rather as not tied to his party’s apron strings . . . ”
Oh — he’s certainly not tied to his party’s expressed written-down statement of beliefs, that’s for sure. And thankfully . . . I’m not tied to either party.
RE: “who will stretch beyond the ridiculous games of the two party system is a far better thing than finding someone in our exact mirror image . . . ”
Indeed — as [i]I[/i] am stretching “beyond the ridiculous games of the two party system” since neither party represents the principles of conservatism. I’ve chosen to go by [i]principles and values[/i]when I vote — not by finding people like me.
RE: “It is the demands of the fringe groups in this country . . . that has terribly weakened her.”
No, it’s the demands of people who think the Constitution of our country is an interesting artifact inapplicable to law or freedom that has weakened our country — rather like those in the Church who think that their founding document is merely an interesting artifact as well.
RE: “Continue with such partisanship if you so desire . . . ”
LOL.
Richly ironic that the person trumpeting “vote for the party’s candidate no matter what” is accusing the person who is voting for the candidate of [i]neither[/i] party of “partisanship.” No, either McCain represents the conservative principles in which you believe, MJD_NV, and if that is the case go for voting for McCain . . . or McCain does not represent them, in which case it is [i]you[/i] who are “partisan.” But you can certainly not accuse me of being partisan [well, you can, but you’d be irrational] when I am a member of neither party at all nor will be voting for either party’s nominee. No, the Republican party has lost the vote of an independent, and you are accusing that independent of being partisan. As I said . . . richly ironic.
RE: “but do not try to justify it by insiting that wrecking the economy throughout my children’s childhood will be “far less important than the entire country in the long term.â€
Oh, I’ve no need to justify my principled vote at all. It is you who must justify your vote based on money. That’s cool — but I’m far more interested in our country’s freedom over the centuries to come than over the “economy.” And besides . . . if the Republican party had been interested in the conservative vote or the economy, then of course they would have nominated a conservative who knew what to do about oil prices, taxes, and regulations. Instead, they apparently were interested in [i]your[/i] vote — and that’s going to be an interesting experiment for them.
I honestly don’t know how it’s going to turn out. McCain might win with the votes of non-conservatives. And if so, the Republican party will move along with its new strategy, and conservatives will need to go through the many decades it will take to found a party that nominates conservatives, all the while enduring the shrieks of partisans denouncing them for “losing elections” by not voting for whomever the Republican party chooses to nominate as the least liberal of the two choices — now [i]that[/i] will be an interesting next fifty years for sure. On the other hand, the Republican party may not win with McCain and will then have to make some hard choices about which direction they wish to go — and I will help them with that by supplying them with excellent data concerning what sort of candidate conservatives will vote for. I . . . and many many others.
RE: “not to continue to play political games – or else your short term bad will turn into your long term horror. . . . ”
Irony again — from the Party Man. And I’m not the one talking about the “short term bad” — you were. I’m the one talking about the long-term horror.
No, the person playing political games is the person saying “vote for the Party — not the principle or the man, since you do not believe as he does.” Since I don’t believe that you would ever be so unprincipled it is sad that you would expect for me to be so unprincipled.
Yes, yes, your yammering about, “but they don’t have a candidate for me, me, ME!” is all about principle. Got it.
Glad to hear you are an independent. Baffled as to why on earth you would make statements like, “The Republican party is in the midst of making some very important decisions about what their identity will be over the next decades, and I intend to help them make that decision” which sounds like a partisan trying to punish her own party, but there you are. Glad to hear it is not so.
RE: “That’s cool—but I’m far more interested in our country’s freedom over the centuries to come than over the “economy.†” Uh huh. And what will a plummeting economy mixed with a liberal administration bring us? Why, bless my soul, a loss of our freedoms. Possibly the loss of the current SCOTUS mix and a tilt back to the left. It will take us decades to recover. Just in time for my children to have to undo the messes you’ve left them, thank you very much.
“now that will be an interesting next fifty years for sure”
Indeed. And I am afraid that even “principled” political games that are one sided, even if not partisan, will be to blame.
I have no qualms about Mr. McCain. As someone who’s been on the inside of governement for the last 15 years I have seen that it takes a combination of strong contacts and a maverick spirit to get anything accomplished, no matter what one believes. And as a moderate to conservative leaning political independent, I am thrilled to have a conservative candidate who is independent-minded and has a moderate streak. So I am very much voting on principle.
But even if I were not satisfied, the stakes are much too high at this juncture to allow a liberal administration. All factors are pointing to amazing and unsettling times globally, and we need to be strong and poised for that, for the sake of our future as a country. If being a mother who would vote for the benefit of my children over my own high-mindedness is a crime, then I plead guilty.
Sarah – I’m conservative, as you say you are, but I’m sure there is a difference in our definitions of Conservatism. Meanwhile you exemplify the old saying that “the perfect is the enemy of the good” – your “perfect”, that is.