February 21, 2004

DISSATISFIED LOBBYISTS (via Paul Cella):

Evangelicals frustrated by Bush (Ralph Z. Hallow, February 20, 2004, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

President Bush left several million evangelical voters "on the table" four years ago and again is having trouble energizing Christian conservatives, prominent leaders on the religious right say.

"It's not just economic conservatives upset by runaway federal spending that he's having trouble with. I think his biggest problem will be social conservatives who are not motivated to work for the ticket and to ensure their fellow Christians get to the polling booth," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute.

"If there is a rerun of 2000, when an estimated 6 million fewer evangelical Christians voted than in the pivotal year of 1994, then the Bush ticket will be in trouble, especially if there is no [Ralph] Nader alternative to draw Democratic votes away from the Democratic candidate," added Mr. Knight, whose organization is an affiliate of Concerned Women for America (CWA).

Their list of grievances is long, but right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Top religious rights activists have been burning up the telephone lines, sharing what one privately called their "apoplexy" over Mr. Bush's failure to act decisively on the issue, although he has said he would support a constitutional amendment if necessary to ban same-sex "marriages."


This is the kind of blather you get from inside the Beltway, but in the real America rank and file evangelicals and other conservatives, of every stripe, are socked in hard for Mr. Bush, Bush in stronger position at this stage of re-election campaign than predecessors (Will Lester, January 10, 2004, Associated Press)
Bolstered by lopsided backing from core supporters, President Bush is in a stronger position with voters than his father or Bill Clinton were at the same stage of their re-election bids, an Associated Press poll found.

Men, evangelicals and rural voters are supporting Bush by big margins at the start of this election year, while traditionally Democratic-leaning groups such as women have more divided loyalties, according to the poll. The public’s growing confidence in the economy is helping boost Bush’s standing as well. [...]

Bush is in significantly better shape with the public than either Clinton or the first President Bush were at this stage in their re-election bids and about the same as Ronald Reagan before his landslide re-election victory in 1984.


Posted by Orrin Judd at February 21, 2004 1:51 PM
Comments

Where is Ralph Reed on this? He needs to get moving if he's not so engaged now.

Posted by: Genecis at February 21, 2004 2:45 PM

Everything I have read suggests Ralph Reed is mega-engaged. More than anybody other than W he deserves credit for some of the bigger successes in 2002 (defeating Max Cleland, defeating Purcell, and turning the Dem gerrymander in Ga into a net LOSS). I agree with oj that it is hard to believe that fundamentalists could be anything but energized about this election.

However, I have read an article that suggests that the so-called 4 million missing voters on 2000 were more the product of exit poll, demographic misclassification (essentially, many of those "labelled" as "religious right" would not identify themselves as such, thus the "missing" voters). I have to assume the reality must be more that way. Can anyone give me an intuitive reason why they would have not seen W in 2000 for the friend he was?

Posted by: MG at February 21, 2004 5:39 PM

Bush may have given some snippy fiscal conservatives reflux over spending issues, but in conservative churches on Sunday morning, the vote is secure.

And a veto or two, plus a couple more recess appointments, will settle things with the nervous NRO crowd.

This story is just more grist for the media "we want a close election" mill.

Posted by: jim hamlen at February 21, 2004 9:10 PM

Does anyone seriously believe that the evangelicals will vote Democratic? Even if the claim that they are disappointed in Bush is true, they are smart enough to distinguish the party that takes them seriously from the party that despises them.

Posted by: Josh Silverman at February 22, 2004 3:07 PM

Apparently the NYTimes has one former Republican who is having a nervous breakdown who they keep quoting every couple weeks Check the Blogfather.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 22, 2004 11:18 PM
« A UNION OF STATES, NOT INDIVIDUALS (via ef brown): | Main | KERRY VS. KERRY: »