After the
polls closed election night, political diehards stayed up
all hours watching returns as "red" began to dominate
"blue" claiming its winning territory on the map.
For John Kerry it must have felt like one very bad night at
the Risk game board. I felt his pain, having had plenty of
experience with my kids slaughtering me one too many times
around the family game table. I don't play too much Risk
any more.
As predicted,
Ohio became the linchpin that secured a second term for
President Bush. One RNC official attributed the win primarily
to the voters who trusted President Bush's leadership in the
war effort and who liked his character and commitment. Others
insisted the "values voter" made the difference.
So which was
it? Was it the war effort and the President's character that
won the election? Or was it a passionate surge of new voters
and volunteers committed to voting their values? The Iraq
War certainly played a big role in voter turnout. But to
those of us stationed at Ground Zero Ohio there was no question.
We saw it first hand. And there are some interesting stats
to support it.
This article
and one to follow will tell this fascinating story from the
battle lines. As the domestic war has just begun, the final
segment will identify a post-election strategy for supporting
marriage and values in America.
Engaging
a Passionate Volunteer Force
Darrin Klinger,
Executive Director of the Ohio Bush Cheney campaign said,
"Obviously the climate – the war, overseas fighting to
defend the country -- made this election unique. But what
was also unique was the number of new volunteers we had.
Ninety percent of people not normally involved in politics
came out and said they just wanted to help this president.
What brought them was that they believed in the president's
character and commitment. What made the difference was their
passion. And the numbers. Our original goal was 52,000 volunteers.
We got 86,000. The beauty of that was these folks were really
engaged."
Why were these
folks so passionate and engaged? (There's that word again.)
A lead story in the The Washington Post the day after
the election explained:
"…the
untold story of the 2004 election, according to national religious
leaders and grass-roots activists, is that evangelical Christian
groups were often more aggressive and sometimes better organized
on the ground than the Bush campaign. The White House struggled
to stay abreast of the Christian right and consulted with
the movement's leaders in weekly conference calls. But in
many respects, Christian activists led the charge that GOP
operatives followed and capitalized upon.
This was particularly
true of the same-sex marriage issue. One of the most successful
tactics of social conservatives -- the ballot referendums
against same-sex marriage in 13 states -- bubbled up from
below and initially met resistance from White House aides,
Christian leaders said."
According
to this report, the RNC knew Bush needed to bring out 4 million
more evangelicals than he did in 2000 in order to win. Evangelical
Protestants and conservative Roman Catholic clergy in battleground
states such as Ohio "attended legal sessions explaining
how they could talk about the election from the pulpit. Hundreds
of churches launched registration drives, thousands of churchgoers
registered to vote, and millions of voter guides were distributed
by Christian and anti-abortion groups."
Lori Viars,
a county GOP co-chair, headed up registration drives in churches
beginning July 4. Then she gathered "Moms and Kids for
Bush" supporters at a local McDonald's. "By the
time the Bush campaign said, 'You should do voter registration
through churches,' we were already doing that," Viars
said.
Tony Perkins,
President of the Family Research Council said that the same
sex marriage initiatives in battleground states, as well as
concerns about future Supreme Court nominees, abortion, school
prayer and pornography, became "the hood ornament on
the family values wagon that carried the president to a second
term."
The article
conceded that while the exact numbers are not known, the values
voters were "without question … essential to his victory….
According to surveys of voters leaving the polls, Bush won
79 percent of the 26.5 million evangelical votes and 52 percent
of the 31 million Catholic votes." He also got 16%
of the black vote statewide.
In Ohio's
Warren County, Bush got 18,000 more votes than in 2000, and
local activists said churches were the reason. At Clearcreek
Christian Assembly, the Rev. Bruce Moore passed out voter
registration cards and gave a sermon on the responsibility
to vote. His congregation of 400 then turned out hundreds
of other voters.
"…because
of the issues before the state of Ohio and the nation, they
were passionate," Moore said. "It was all hands
on deck. I have never seen a rush for voter registration cards
in my life as a minister."
In all my
years of working in campaigns from presidential to local races,
I too have never seen anything like this campaign. In Part
Two I'll share my experience at Ground Zero Ohio. I can personally
vouch for the fact that the vast majority of the volunteers
were Christian and were there to defend their values. I was
on the phones and I heard their comments. In spite of some
reports that downplay the impact the values issues had on
the election, make no mistake: Issue One (the marriage amendment) in Ohio won the election for President Bush.
Lest
the Politicians Forget
The message
of the impact values issues had – particularly the marriage
issue - on the outcome of this election needs to be told and
retold. President Bush and every member of Congress
needs to be reminded that the marriage initiatives in all
11 states (plus two others that passed this year in state
referenda) were not just strong mandates for favoring marriage
between a man and a woman, they were, for the most part, also
mandates strongly opposing civil unions.
The Election
Battlegrounds were only the beginning. On the national front,
the fight is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even
though Arlen Specter, the new committee chairman, pledged
just a few weeks ago to stop President Bush's strict constructionist
nominees to the Supreme Court, he did a Kerryism and flip
flopped. He pledged not to hold up President Bush's strict
constructionist nominees, if he could be chairman.
We wonder
if he will be the cheerleader needed for such traditional
values causes to persuade his committee to replace the activist
Supreme Court judges with original intent advocates. Sheldon
Kinsel, of Defend Marriage and the Yes For Marriage political
issue committee that helped pass Utah's marriage amendment
has his doubts. He pointed out, "A chairman needs to
be a strong leader for the cause. He needs to do the arm-twisting
and the pushing and pressuring. I'm afraid we're not going
to get any of that from Specter."
Then there
is Congress. We have the momentum for a federal marriage
amendment now. The election was the unquestionable mandate.
Representatives that voted against the wishes of their constituents
need to be given a second chance to do what they were elected
to do: represent their constituents.
On the state
level, those that passed marriage amendments will now face
legal challenges. The question remains: Is marriage
worth defending? Two Utah attorneys, Monte Stewart and
Bill Duncan, think so. They've established a resource for
attorneys nationally to assist in defending the various states'
amendments against the inevitable challenges, The Marriage
Law Foundation.
My friends,
it's time to sing a resounding chorus of We've Only Just
Begun. It's time to gird up our legal loins to defend
marriage and the "white lace and promises" that
give our families and our children strength and security.
We can't wimp out now. If you're an attorney and want to
help, email CherilynBacon@comcast.net.
In Part Two,
some of our own Latter-day Saint volunteers that responded
to www.anxiouslyengaged.org's
call for the 72 Hour Task Force will share their remarkable
stories from the field.