MSNBC's Gregory is latest media figure to equate "Christian conservatives" with "values voters"
On the March 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, while discussing the divorce records of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), as well as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R-GA) extramarital affair, guest host and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory asked: "Who will Christian conservatives back? Will so-called 'values voters' be able to find a candidate who fits the bill?" Gregory later hosted Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, to discuss the possible impact that divorce and adultery will have on the decisions of those he repeatedly called "values voters." Perkins stated that "values voters" and "social conservatives" will support "the candidate who most clearly addresses their issues and identifies with them and endorses the pro-family agenda."
Gregory is only the most recent media figure to equate "Christian conservatives" with "values voters" -- when in reality, a March 7-11 poll by The New York Times and CBS News found that 46 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party "comes closer [of the two parties] to sharing your moral values," with 41 percent favoring the Republicans.
As Media Matters for America noted, on the October 22, 2006, edition of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Lee Cowan used the term "values voters" to describe social conservatives and members of the Christian right. As Media Matters has also observed, on the October 3, 2006, edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN chief national correspondent John King twice equated "pro-family voters" with "conservatives." And finally, a poll from the February 26 edition of Newsweek magazine included White House correspondent Holly Bailey offering a "'values voter' tally" of "the pros and cons of top GOP hopefuls" in the 2008 presidential campaign, as Media Matters noted. The article listed one of McCain's "pros" as "tr[ying] to make amends with the Christian right."
Media Matters has also documented that Perkins has repeatedly associated with racist groups and individuals, including former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke and the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, even as he has used his own radio show, Washington Watch Weekly, to level accusations of bigotry against Democrats.
From the March 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
GREGORY: And Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani has been married three times, Senator John McCain had a divorce, and Newt Gingrich admitted he had an affair while leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Who will Christian conservatives back? Will so-called "values voters" be able to find a candidate who fits the bill?
[...]
GREGORY: Welcome back to Hardball. Twenty-seven years ago, Ronald Reagan became the first and only divorced candidate to be elected president. So, will divorce be an issue in the 2008 presidential election? Some conservatives think so.
Both Republican front-runners Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have been divorced, and Giuliani's family troubles have become an issue with the Christian Right. Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council, and Richard Land is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. He's also author of the upcoming book, The Divided States of America? Welcome to you both. I want to get to this issue of divorce and the impact on values voters.
[...]
GREGORY: So why is it? What are you upset about? What are you unsatisfied about?
PERKINS: I don't think it's people being upset; I think what social conservatives in particular are looking for in a leader, is someone who can address really what they see as the twin threats facing our nation: externally, terrorism through Islamic radicals, rogue states, and then internally, the moral decline of our country. They want a candidate that can boldly and courageously address both -- not one or the other, but both. We had that in Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush, same way. I think that is what has made the party successful in the past.
GREGORY: But you don't see that in this current crop? You don't look at Giuliani, McCain, and Romney.
LAND: Not the front-runners. The front-runners all have problems. In the case of Giuliani, three divorces -- marriages is two too many for most social conservatives.
GREGORY: Why is that? How did we get to a certain number being too many and one is acceptable.
LAND: Well, look, character. I mean, if we turned around and said, "Oh, it doesn't matter that Giuliani's been -- is in his third marriage or if Gingrich gets in the race; he's in his third marriage." People in the media would justifiably fry us up in a pan and serve us as the hypocrites of the century for making character an issue with Bill Clinton. When it comes to presidents in particular, social conservatives think that character is an issue. And as Harry Truman once said: "A man that will lie to his wife will lie to me. And a man that'll break his marriage oath will break his oath of office." Now, in this country where divorce is so rampant, I think most people will give people, depending on the circumstances, they'll give them a pass on one divorce. But two? That's one too many for most social conservatives.
[...]
LAND: Just today in USA Today, there was a poll that said that people who go to church once a week, 48 percent of them would be uncomfortable voting for somebody who'd been married three times. That number doesn't shock me at all.
[...]
GREGORY: Tony, final point on values voters, 'cause here's the bottom line, and it's kind of a reality question. If, out of the current crop, you've got a Romney, a Giuliani, or a McCain, particularly those latter two, McCain or Giuliani, and they are the favorites -- I mean, there's a question about, well, where are values voters going to go? They may be unhappy, but where are they going to go? And this could be a cycle where values voters don't have the potency they had in the past, no?
PERKINS: I think if you give -- you have those three -- and I would say the field's far from settled. As you see, [former Sen.] Fred Thompson [R-TN] --
GREGORY: It's a mistake to focus on this --
PERKINS: I think it is. But I do think it's going to go -- the support of social conservatives will go to the candidate who most clearly addresses their issues and identifies with them and endorses the pro-family agenda. That is the candidate that will get the support. You have Romney that's out there talking very broadly and very strongly about those issues, staking ground that the others have not staked -- McCain, somewhat; Giuliani refusing to talk about them, saying they're not even important.
we're all values voters, we just don't all have the same values. to equate only religious conservatives with "values" is the height of arrogance.
Take it up with Howdy Doody (Gregory). He's the one talking.
They're all divorced...from reality.
Where is Matthews when we need him? LOL
I AM a "Values Voter"
I VALUE equality under the law. I VALUE civil rights protections. I VALUE a government being truthful for reasons to engage something as significant as a war. I VALUE the infrastructure of this country and therefore VALUE a stable and fair tax system. I VALUE a strong economy and not one built on mountains of debt held by foreign governments. I VALUE civil liberties for ALL Americans - not just those who aren't Muslim. I VALUE the right privacy, assumed to exist for all citizens (clear in the 4th Amendment) and do not believe my rights are enumerated in the Constitution. I VALUE other Americans' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness even if they don't earn 100,000 a year or more. I VALUE a society that protects the LIVING in the society who need the greatest protections, like children. I VALUE free speech. I VALUE a government that abides by the constitution.
I AM a Values Voter. And I vote for Democrats - always.
Please, Mr. Gregory, do not presume to insinuate I have no VALUES because I am not a sex-obsessed, warmongering Evangelical Christian who believes in a race based feudalistic society.
"Will so-called 'values voters' be able to find a candidate who fits the bill?"
I'd tend to give Gregory a pass on this. "Values voters", while admittedly is impliedly exclusionary, has become a journalistic shorthand for social conservatives, particularly the religious crowd. Gregory did initially refer to the group as "so-called values voters".
I hate all these damn labels anyway... I didn't even know I was a left wing liberal until I heard Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Basically, I figured out, it meant anyone who didn't subscribe to their extreme right wing ideology,so I guess I must be one. I also don't know exactly what Bill O'Reilly means when he refers to "secular progressives". But I guess I must be one of those too...
Me too, but I think this is more of a caution from MMFA from what i can see. He needs to be careful, he did initially say 'so-called', yet with the inclusion of the right-wingers ONLY to discuss this, supposed chritians ONLY, white men ONLY to discuss this subject, and flashes of "Republican Family values' on the screen and such, he came real real close to conflating the terms.
Right, AmMutt, he did say "so-called", but it does at the very least, repeat a catch-phrase for the parrot population.Another poster pointed out that MMFA's headline is misleading( or dishonest) to those who only read the headline.
Unfortunately, from my experience, the type of people that form their politics around sound bites and headlines tend to be the ones who consider themselves "values voters".
Unfortunately, from my experience, the type of people that form their politics around sound bites and headlines tend to be the ones who consider themselves "values voters".
Sadly true, it is pretty easy to pick out those who only read headlines or skim articles from those who read them.
Ehhh..
First, he did say "so-called" values voters. I think that clarification is enough to not assume he believes conservatives are the only one with "values."
I think another important distinction is that conservatives SEEM to vote their ideological values more often than liberals...and by that I mean black-and-white principles/beliefs vs. "freedom", etc.
Once again, Media Matters distorts a quote in its headline to suit its ideology. As Irony101 pointed out, Gregory said "so-called value voters" thus implicitly criticizing the term, not adopting it. Yes they do provide the full quote in the article, but for those who choose not to read the article and just browse the headlines, it gives a distortion of what Gregory actually said and so is patently dishonest--the hallmark of Media Matters.
I said that "values voters" has become journalistic shorthand for describing social conservatives. I don't like the term "values voters" in that context because it implies that only social conservatives have "values." I think that was the point MMFA was making. If so, I agree.
And when I said I would give David Gregory a pass I was referring to his intent. I think "values voters" is a sloppy journalistic term, but my familiarity with David Gregory's reporting, and the context in which he used the term, leads me to believe that he was not intentionally implying that only social conservatives have "values."
Ok now your just taking it too far, sure MMFA gets NitPicky sometimes but to call it dishonest is just... well, DISHONEST.
IO,
You are correct - the term "so-called" is very important and most definitely casts a suspicious eye on the term "value voters'.
Gregory was perfectly fair in his reporting........this does not warrant any red flag of misinformation, for sure.
If he was being objective he wouldn't be using the term "values voters" he would be using the term "idealogical voters" or "single issue voters". Words have power if you hadn't noticed, like the word moronic which describes your last post. Your distortions, idealogy, hallmark of dishonesty post is moronic drivel. I wonder if you drooled when you posted that.
"Value" is a term like "quality." Whenever I hear someone say they're looking for "quality" I could scream. They're meaningless without being attached to something.
Gregory was correct calling them "value voters" because that's what they are. Most people, the majority of people, vote according their stand on issues. Christian conservatives vote soley on their skewed set of values.
"Value" is also a word like "Christain" that has been co-opted byt the religious right. Now when you say "Christain" most people will immediately associate it with extreme right wing Christain theocrats. "Value" is the pretty much the same. Its taken on an extreme conotation. So when Gregory refers to "value voters" I don't get the sence that he's paying them the greatest compliment.
But Fabtemp is right. I, for one, always vote my values. The fact that my values support only liberal issues doesn't negate their reality. I think MMFA is correct in pointing out that even a fairly good journalist like Gregory can fall into the trap of using the right-wing jargon. "So-called" doesn't remove the stigma from using a right-wing talking point in his presentation.
"Who will Christian conservatives back? Will so-called "values voters" be able to find a candidate who fits the bill?"
mr. gregory's own words. he was very specifically refering to a very specific group, even with his disclaimer. however, my initial post was not so much aimed at mr. gregory per se, as it was the entire concept, pushed by the christian right and the MSM, that only they have values.
As much as Gregory sticks it to Bush at whitehouse press meetings, you can't really call him biased. He is on Chris' show and he is reading the teleprompt written by Chris' producer.
For the record, I don't think Matthews is as bad as this site says. He rambles off alot, but MM ignores all the pro-left stuff he says too. Matthews is CENTER of the discussion, and its unfair to demand he become bias towards the left by pointing out he is bias in general.