More nonsense from Gallup
It's the Gallup organization that's responsible for the absurd contrast current among the theologicaly illiterate between the Bible as the "literal" and "inspired" word of God. The theological meaning of the word usually translated "inspired" has nothing to do with its use in general English. 2 Timothy 3:16 does not assert that the Bible is "inspired" by God in the sense that a painter or even his painting might be "inspired" by a beautiful sunset, or an author or his book by a compelling premise. Rather, the Greek word used in this passage- θεοπνευστος- means literally "breathed (by) God."
Theologically, "inspiration" means precisely that it is literally God's word- that the Holy Spirit caused those who wrote it to write what they wrote (though theories about how and to what extent vary). "Inspired" and "literal" are not alternatives, even though they are not quite synonyms, either; one is a subset of the other. The two terms are close enough to meaning the same thing to render "contrast" Gallup and other theologically uninformed people try to draw between "literal" and "inspired" a tautology- and any poll results derived from that distinction meaningless. And then, of course, there's the corrollary absurdity of suggesting that anybody reads the Bible as a whole literally (how does one read a Psalm literally?). Some literary forms in the Bible lend themselves to literal reading, and even demand it; others, quite the contrary.
But I digress. Another malady of the Gallup people is one they share with other polling organizations: the silly notion that Rudy Giuliani is in any meaningful sense the leading candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Yes, I know: that's what the raw polling data says. And this poll also says- implausibly- that he is acceptable to a greater percentage of Republicans than people like John McCain, Mitt Romney, and George Allen.
Horsehockey, as Col. Potter on M*A*S*H used to say. Romney and most of the other candidates who come off as "unacceptable" in this poll are unknown to most Republican voters. Even George Allen- probably the front runner, in terms of how party professionals seem to line up in this preliminary stage of the campaign- isn't exactly a household name to non-football fans. As the article rightly notes, these numbers will change as the candidates become more familiar to the Republican rank-and-file. The same applies on the other side of the aisle to the high "unacceptable" ratings Democrats attach to the three candidates who probably would be their strongest in November, but who are not currently all that well-known to the rank-and-file: Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, and Bill Richardson.
I do agree that John Edwards shouldn't be written off, though; as things stand, he leads Hillary Clinton and all comers here in Iowa. An Edwards victory (or a victory by anybody else) over Hillary in the nation's first caucus would wound the Clinton candidacy badly.
And Giuliani's numbers will plummet for the same reason the numbers for Allen and Romney and Huckabee will improve . That 73% who find him an acceptable candidate is based upon his being known- and known favorably- for his leadership of New York after 9/11- as well he should be. But how many of those Republican voters know his position on abortion, or other social issues?
As Giuliani becomes known for the social liberal that he is, his "unacceptable" numbers will skyrocket, just as those for his lesser-known opponents drop. Conversely, his numbers in the polls will leak away like a waterbed with a hole in it, while the numbers of his opponents soar.
John McCain may have a permanent problem from having alienated such a large percentage of the Republican electorate; for all his strengths, repairing his intra-party fences will be tough, and may simply not prove possible. But Giuliani's far greater problem is simply masked by a lack of knowledge on the part of the Republican electorate as to where he stands. That knowledge, inevitably, will grow- and when it does, Giuliani's candidacy will be toast.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Theologically, "inspiration" means precisely that it is literally God's word- that the Holy Spirit caused those who wrote it to write what they wrote (though theories about how and to what extent vary). "Inspired" and "literal" are not alternatives, even though they are not quite synonyms, either; one is a subset of the other. The two terms are close enough to meaning the same thing to render "contrast" Gallup and other theologically uninformed people try to draw between "literal" and "inspired" a tautology- and any poll results derived from that distinction meaningless. And then, of course, there's the corrollary absurdity of suggesting that anybody reads the Bible as a whole literally (how does one read a Psalm literally?). Some literary forms in the Bible lend themselves to literal reading, and even demand it; others, quite the contrary.
But I digress. Another malady of the Gallup people is one they share with other polling organizations: the silly notion that Rudy Giuliani is in any meaningful sense the leading candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Yes, I know: that's what the raw polling data says. And this poll also says- implausibly- that he is acceptable to a greater percentage of Republicans than people like John McCain, Mitt Romney, and George Allen.
Horsehockey, as Col. Potter on M*A*S*H used to say. Romney and most of the other candidates who come off as "unacceptable" in this poll are unknown to most Republican voters. Even George Allen- probably the front runner, in terms of how party professionals seem to line up in this preliminary stage of the campaign- isn't exactly a household name to non-football fans. As the article rightly notes, these numbers will change as the candidates become more familiar to the Republican rank-and-file. The same applies on the other side of the aisle to the high "unacceptable" ratings Democrats attach to the three candidates who probably would be their strongest in November, but who are not currently all that well-known to the rank-and-file: Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, and Bill Richardson.
I do agree that John Edwards shouldn't be written off, though; as things stand, he leads Hillary Clinton and all comers here in Iowa. An Edwards victory (or a victory by anybody else) over Hillary in the nation's first caucus would wound the Clinton candidacy badly.
And Giuliani's numbers will plummet for the same reason the numbers for Allen and Romney and Huckabee will improve . That 73% who find him an acceptable candidate is based upon his being known- and known favorably- for his leadership of New York after 9/11- as well he should be. But how many of those Republican voters know his position on abortion, or other social issues?
As Giuliani becomes known for the social liberal that he is, his "unacceptable" numbers will skyrocket, just as those for his lesser-known opponents drop. Conversely, his numbers in the polls will leak away like a waterbed with a hole in it, while the numbers of his opponents soar.
John McCain may have a permanent problem from having alienated such a large percentage of the Republican electorate; for all his strengths, repairing his intra-party fences will be tough, and may simply not prove possible. But Giuliani's far greater problem is simply masked by a lack of knowledge on the part of the Republican electorate as to where he stands. That knowledge, inevitably, will grow- and when it does, Giuliani's candidacy will be toast.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments