A little bit of schadenfreude as we read of Dr. James Dobson wringing his hands in the wake of Obama’s election:

Dr. Dobson went on to congratulate Obama on “his stunning victory.”

“It was indeed a historic accomplishment, to be the first black man in American history to be elected to the highest office in the land.

“But, to be honest, I have to say that his win causes me enormous concern because he will be the most committed pro-abortion president in our history,” Dr. Dobson said. “He’s in favor of much of the homosexual agenda and he’s going to appoint the most liberal justices to the Supreme Court, perhaps that we’ve ever had. So, there are many reasons why I’m struggling today over the likely path that the nation has taken.”

And the Supreme Court thing is indeed huge. In effect, it keeps abortion legal for quite some time.

And so my question is this: Sure, the religious right might not have been as energized this year, though the Palin pick was designed to foster enthusiasm. And perhaps the enthusiasm of the evangelical right has been dampened for other reasons in recent years - the disappointment with and carnage of the war in Iraq, perhaps; a growing focus among some evangelicals on environmentalism, which would put them more in line with the Democratic Party’s aesthetic on the issue.

There’s a diversity of thought amongst evangelicals that we evil lib’rulz don’t often recognize.

But given that, as Glenn Greenwald noted the other day, we have three justices who probably will retire in the next four years, I simply cannot believe that those so opposed to abortion and gay rights would stay home.

But if they didn’t stay home - well, I specifically remember the conversations back in 2004 about how Values Voters were the key constituency in Bush’s win. Values Voters were the bloc to be reckoned with.

If Values Voters did go to the poll this year - they most certainly did not have the impact they had in 2004.

Update: OK, Tom Murse in today’s Era gets to the question, saying that locally at least - GOP rural voters did not turn up in the same numbers they did in 2000 and 2004:

In Bush’s strongest district here in 2004, Earl Township’s Martindale, the incumbent president took 89 percent of the 408 votes. This year, McCain won with only 76.2 percent of the 366 votes cast.

That’s a nearly 13 percentage point drop, or 84 fewer votes for the GOP’s presidential candidate this year in that district alone.

In McCain’s strongest district here, Leacock Township, the U.S. Senator from Arizona won 81.3 percent of the 1,090 votes cast. Four years ago, Bush won that district with 86.8 percent of the 1,345 votes cast.

Again, smaller turnout.

Smaller Republican margin.

Across Bush’s 10 strongest districts here - all rural - McCain walked away with a margin that was a couple thousand votes short of what the incumbent president won four years ago, a review of election data shows.

He’s got former county commissioner Terry Kauffman saying that either these rural voters weren’t enthused about McCain, and/or that the GOP was simply “whipped at the ground game.” But he’s also got Doublas Eaby, head of the Solanco Democrats, making the point we made around here earlier in the week - that as the county becomes more suburbanized, the GOP’s stranglehold gets loosened:

“We get a lot of people moving west from the Philadelphia area and Delaware County,” he said. “We have one new development of any size, and a lot of those people are Democrats or RINOs, Republicans in name only. They register Republican but vote the way they want.

“Say, 10 years ago this district would have been 700 for Bush and 200 for the Democrat. Now it’s 600 for McCain and 300 for Obama,” Eaby said. “I believe we’re making inroads.”

That ain’t just in southern Lancaster County - but across the county on the whole.