Our friend the Friar notes this post, written by someone who is apparently no friend of religious conservatives. Here’s the conclusion:
At present, let me float two theories about the relevance of the Evangelical constituency in Republican party elections. When they are united, Conservative Protestants are very necessary, but not sufficient, for a victory. And when they are not united, as Rudy Giuliani is wagering, they are far less necessary.
Fair enough, but the question remains for the general election: without this necessary but insufficient bloc, there’s no Republican road to the White House.
And by the by, the fact that evangelicals are all over the Republican map (with a portion even on the Democratic map) surely gives the lie to any caricatures about lockstep voting, intolerance of difference, and so on. Could it be that conservative evangelicals look at a complicated electoral scene and don’t rush to a simplifying categorical judgment? How, how, how nuanced and bicoastal of them!
Not "irrelevant." But they're making themselves look like a pack of blockheads. Especially to the extent that they allow some guy like Dobson be their voice, and what's worse, their face.
Men like Falwell, Dobson, they lose votes. They should be told by friends of the cause to stay the hell off the air. Stop allowing the media to portray them as the visage of modern American conservatism.
But they're so enamored with being on television, they're so enamored with being considered a political "player," that they refuse to relegate themselves to their well-deserved oblivion.
Such men do more damage than they know. And their ignorance, their deliberate ignorance, their well demonstrated want of savvy, is little excuse for that damage they wreck upon the nation.