What these fellows are really saying is that they wish there was no such thing as a “values voter” or a “moral values voter.” All four of the above named pundits, as I’ve pointed out before, oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. Two of them—Will and Krauthammer—do so for a thoughtful, but unpersuasive, reason: a constitutional amendment is not desirable and perhaps even unnecessary in this particular circumstance.
Pat goes off on a latest George Will article as the start of all this so lets crack up the George Will.
This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.
Will's argument here was the term "Values Voter" Is an in-accurate term and one that is descriptive of all voters.
Today's liberal agenda includes preservation, even expansion, of the welfare state in its current configuration in order to strengthen an egalitarian ethic of common provision. Liberals favor taxes and other measures to produce a more equal distribution of income. They may value equality indiscriminately, but they vote their values.
Among the various flavors of conservatism, there is libertarianism that is wary of government attempts to nurture morality and there is social conservatism that says unless government nurtures morality, liberty will perish. Both kinds of conservatives use their votes to advance what they value.......
Attempts to assign values-seriousness can get complicated: Freedom and happiness are valuable. Arguably, governmental actions that did much to increase freedom and happiness in the past half-century were state laws liberalizing divorce. These made important contributions to the emancipation of men and especially women from mistaken marriages.
And why is the way George Will asked this question important? Because the two questions on polls are never the same
I supported X because he represents my values is never the same as I supported X because he supports my position on gay marriage, abortion, goes to church, and prays daily.
When the polls are broken down for the later assumption it is never as large as the former assumption.
Its about polls and how they spin and twist words around Pat. This is not to say that Religously conservative aren't a signifigant group. It is however saying that polls show that this group may be more politically deep in their feelings on issues then some folks *(I'm talkin to you Pat)* may think