ABC News’s The Note provides this poll data from the 2005 CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) gathering of conservative activists last week:
Who will be the Democratic nominee in 2008?
68% Clinton
6% Edwards
5% Richardson
4% Warner
3% Bayh
2% Kerry
2% Clark
1% Vilsack
1% Feingold
Who will be the Republican nominee in 2008?
19% Giuliani
18% Rice
11% Allen, Frist, McCain
4% Owens, Romney, Santorum
5% Gingrich
2% Pataki
1% Hagel, Huckabee, Pawlenty
0% Barbour
Hmm, the conservatives think the choice in ’08 will be between two quite liberal (from their point of view anyway) candidates – the 68% for Clinton is rather remarkable, but maybe it reflects wishful thinking on their part. But I wonder if the Giuliani nod reveals what they see as his personal strength, or a sense of pessimism regarding the conservative social agenda.
Speaking of which, in today’s Washington Post, Terry M. Neal says social conservatives aren’t pleased with the efforts of a certain Mr. Bush:
- Bush has not fulfilled his promise to provide faith-based programs with $8 billion – one-tenth of the supplemental budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan last year alone.
In other words, even as Bush used the faith-based initiative to define himself and energize religious voters, he’s given little more than lip service to the policy.
There are similarities between this and the gay marriage issue. In an interview with The Post in January, President Bush made it clear that this was not exactly his top priority. Social conservatives were also dismayed to learn last month that when Senate leaders drew up a list of 10 priorities, a constitutional ban for gay marriage wasn’t among them. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said on Fox News recently that Senate leaders might not push the amendment this year, but perhaps next.
Better still from my personal perspective: never. Were I a screaming social conservative I might feel a little had right now, but I’m not so I don’t. In fact I feel rather vindicated, but I’m not smug or anything.