McCain More Vulnerable than Rudy

Political prognostication is a sport destined to achieve a non-perfect record.

Ask Kevin Drum, and he's damn good.

Drum agreed with predictions made last November that after Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, other rightwingers would jump on board the Rudy train. Drum wrote, quoting Rich Lowry:

Just talked to a top social conservative. He says, hinting that more prominent social cons will end up going with Rudy, 'There's plenty more where this comes from.' On the impact of the Robertson endorsement on the race: "What it does for Rudy is it says, 'It's OK to vote for Rudy.' I think there will be more of that, pre-nomination and post-nomination." On conservative evangelical voters and Giuliani: "If Rudy is the nominee, they're going to vote for him — period."

"This strikes me as right. The real core issue of the Christian right has always been 'moral decay,'" wrote Drum.

Did not work out that way with Rudy. No mass of Christians leaped behind him because Pat Robertson said so. And let-them-eat-cake McCain presents even more problems than Rudy, never mind that the GOP establishment hates the guy.

Drum's contention that the religious right voters focus on their conception of moral decay is accurate to a point, but religious right voters are sufficiently independently thinking (I know) that they will not, in overwhelming numbers, automatically and on command fall in line for a GOP candidate who does not speak their language and who is insincere.

As much as I personally disagree with the religious right on just about every aspect of their descriptive views, these voters hold much more nuanced world and ethical views than Drum and Lowry would have you believe; and, more than some Republican operatives may realize: Genuine views.

George W. Bush connected with these voters, and as much as W. is a truly repulsive political and ethical leader, he is genuine in his religious convictions.

In enough churches of the religious right, it's not all authoritarianism and 'our leaders say we must vote for this man to save the world from Satan'.

The churches are a community: People coming together to help an elderly lady paint her house; people coming together and talking about a personal problem; sharing a success; comforting a church member in a crisis; and solving non-political issues about quality of living.

I spoke to several people in Wisconsin at the fundamentalist Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) church in 1998, and wrote a piece scathing and somewhat mocking in tone for a Milwaukee LGBT civil rights periodical.

But as noted then, the church was very community-oriented and a lot of people did a lot of work to help one another out.

Sure, there will be some, possibly many (especially in the south), among the religious right voters who will pull a lever for the Republican nominee, when enough political propaganda and brand pressures are applied.

But there will also be many more, and more than enough to sway an election, who will dedicate their energies in places other than a polling place and political campaigns when they feel insulted and used by John McCain or Mitt Romney; and they may be found in the political offices where you might not expect them to be residing, like in the Democratic nominee's.

[This article appeated in a slightly different version entitled Rudy Can Fail on Nov. 9, 2007.]

###

Rudy Can Fail

Update: Conoson in Salon on Rudy/Robbie.

Kevin Drum, a perspicuous writer at the The Washington Monthly, sees Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani as a precursor of the religious right voters eventually lining up for Rudy in a general election.

But Drum, and Rich Lowry with whom Drum agrees and whom he quotes, are off on this one. Writes Drum:

RUDY AND THE EVANGELICALS....Rich Lowry on Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani:
Just talked to a top social conservative. He says, hinting that more prominent social cons will end up going with Rudy, "There's plenty more where this comes from." On the
impact of the Robertson endorsement on the race: "What it does for Rudy is it says, 'It's OK to vote for Rudy.' I think there will be more of that, pre-nomination and post-nomination." On conservative evangelical voters and Giuliani: "If Rudy is the nominee, they're going to vote for him — period."

This strikes me as right. The real core issue of the Christian right has always been "moral decay." Increased acceptance of abortion and gay rights are symptoms of this, and they get most of the attention, but moral decay itself has always been the bedrock fear that drives everything else.

Drum's contention that the religious right voters focus on their conception of moral decay is accurate to a point, but religious right voters are sufficiently independently thinking that they will not, in overwhelming numbers, automatically and on command fall in line for a candidate who does not speak their language and who is not sincere. [Lowry's writing on this issue isn't serious; he's just spouting a line.]

Ask the first president Bush, whom Karl Rove and other Republican politicos accurately gauged as under-performing with the religious right voters.

As much as I personally disagree with the religious right on just about every aspect of their descriptive views, these voters hold much more nuanced world and ethical views than Drum and Lowry would have you believe; and, more than some Republican operatives may realize: Genuine views.

George W. Bush connected with these voters, and as much as W. is a truly repulsive political and ethical leader, he is genuine in his religious convictions.

In enough churches of the religious right, it's not all authoritarianism and 'our leaders say we must vote for this man to save the world from Satan'.

The churches are a community: People coming together to help an elderly lady paint her house; people coming together and talking about a personal problem; sharing a success; comforting a church member in a crisis; and solving non-political issues about quality of living.

Sure, there will be some, possibly many (especially in the south), among the religious right voters who will pull a lever for a Republican nominee, when enough political propaganda and brand pressures are applied.

But there will also be many, and more than enough to sway an election, who will dedicate their energies in places other than a polling place and expected political campaigns when they feel insulted and used; [and they may be found in the political offices where you might not expect them to be residing].

###

Twenty Years of 100,000 Troops in Iraq in Long Shot Gamble

It's of little importance what administration frontman Gen. David Petraeus has to say next Monday about Iraq.
If he has something on his mind embarrassing to Bush, then he won't say it.

If he tells the truth about Iraq, he won't be around long, so the career-minded General certainly won't be telling the truth, the Bush truth anyway is being crafted by politicos at the White House.

One truth Petraeus won't acknowledge are the lies and lust for oil that have killed 100,000s.

Kevin Drum of The Political Animal points to Fred Kaplan's another substantial bit of truth that likely won't be told:

- The matter if 100,000 American troops in Iraq for 20 years -

BURIED LEDE ALERT....Fred Kaplan has a good piece in Slate today about the upcoming Petraeus report and what Congress needs to ask about it. But I was more taken by an astonishing statement at the end of the piece from Stephen Biddle, a member of Petraeus's advisory panel. Here's his comment about the current plan to restore stability to Iraq via a "bottom up" strategy of working with tribal leaders:

Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years — and that, even so, it would be a "long-shot gamble."

Here's Paul Krugman's take:

Here’s what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he’ll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq — as long as you don’t count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.

Oh, and not to bury my own lede, but just wondering how many troops could get PTSD disability benefits with the money spent on the slimy- PR-induced-Bush-says-"We're kicking ass"- surprise visit to Iraq last weekend. What a man that Bush is.

###