It looks like "family values" just aren't the campaign issue they used to be.
"USA Today" reports that in this election cycle, so-called "family values" are lower on the agenda. Of course, Republicans have made this a staple of their political campaigns for three decades now. But in the current campaign, Mitt Romney is virtually alone in stressing the issue. A "USA Today"/Gallup poll shows that although most voters say "family values" in general are important to them, they don't care all that much about candidate's personal lives.
There are several reasons for this shift, including cultural changes in society and the backgrounds of several of the Republican candidates. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson have all been divorced and remarried.
There's also the importance of issues like the war, terrorism and the economy. One Republican strategist says today's atmosphere has been shaped by a series of traumatic events: the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war, adding, "In the 1980s and 1990s, the perfect shot was the candidate, the spouse, the kids and the dog. In the 21st century, it's all about action. It's all about getting things done."
Here’s my question to you: What does it say about the U.S. in 2007 if "family values" have lost their punch as a campaign issue?
To watch the Cafferty File video click here
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Randall writes:
People have finally figured out that "family values" was just a red herring, Republican bumper sticker slogan, which was used to keep people from paying attention to the real issues, i.e. the Iraq War, the skyrocketing deficit, the recession we are now in, a lack of a single pay health insurance for everyone, and a government that has never worked for the people but only for the military industrial complex and big business.
Darach from New Jersey writes:
It means that the citizens of this country are looking for a more pragmatic leader, not one who is going to preach to us about what our values ought to be. Leave that to us. We're smart enough to decide those for ourselves.
Richard from Enterprise, Alabama writes:
Just look back at what we got in 2000 when the courts gave us a "family values" president. We just can't afford another 8 years of family values.
Paul from Brooklyn writes:
Jack, Hopefully it says that the American public has begun to awake from their slumber and are realizing that saying you are for family values and actually having them are two different things. Maybe having a president who vetoes healthcare for children, congressmen that cruise airport restrooms and molest children & adolescents, spiritual leaders who do drugs with gay male prostitutes etc. have finally taken their toll. Well, it's the Christmas season. We can dream.
Darryl from Oregon writes:
It says we've finally figured out that family values start with the family, not the government. There is very little government can do to affect family values, although keeping mothers and fathers home with their families rather than sending them into a stupid war might help.
Mike from New York writes:
Jack, The Republican charade is over. We've found they have many families and no values.
Maybe Jack will read yours tomorrow.