A reader writes:
Thanks for the pointer to Rich Lowry at the Corner.
Lowry compares Romney’s flip-flops to the movements of the Bush campaign in 1999/2000. But I think things have changed since then, and it is this change that I think is the real back story that deserves more attention.
In 1999/2000, Bush did not have to say much about or defend his religion. He ran a little bit on faith-based initiatives, but mostly spent his campaign reaching out for "wider appeal to the party and the electorate." Mostly, the Christianists stood by like a standard-issue politician’s wife: smiling at his side when he needed them, out working the neighborhoods where they had influence, and generally following along when he made guarded statements (remember how he said he would have no "pro-life litmus test"?). He did not need to pander to them, because they mostly already believed he was their man. Once he got through the dirty business of campaigning, he would be coming home to them.
Contrast that with the beginnings of this election cycle, where it is clear the religious right feels it was mostly betrayed over the last six years. Indeed, while the media polling says the Republican’s 06 loss resulted from losing the middle, the Christian right blames politicians for not following through on their promises and loosing the faith-based voters.
Now, it’s no longer possible for a Republican candidate to make guarded statements with a wink and a nod. The Christianists are demanding ideological purity from "their" candidate, which is why the pre-08 Republican contenders (McCain, et al) are forced into this groveling posture.
So the question becomes, how much power do the Christianists really have? They believe they have enough power not only to win the nomination but the general election too. If the movements by all these early candidates are any indication, I’m almost worried they’re right.
The Dish 