Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The conservative Right matures
The Citizen ^ | March 13, 2007 | Cal Thomas

Posted on 03/13/2007 2:53:17 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Put it this way: if you are about to have major surgery and your only choice was a church-going doctor with a high mortality rate, or an agnostic with a high success record, which would it be?

Conservative Evangelical Christian voters have come a long way in a short time. From their nearly unanimous condemnation of Bill Clinton for his extramarital affairs, a growing number of these “pro-family” voters appear ready to accept several Republican presidential candidates who do not share their ideal of marriage and faith.

Among those seriously under consideration by these church-going folks is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has been married three times and who had an affair with the woman now his wife when he was married to wife number two.

The second wife, Donna Hanover, once recorded a political commercial for Giuliani, touting his virtues as a husband. She called him “honest and very kind” and “this is the kind of man I wanted to be the father of my children” and “Rudy is such a great Dad.” It’s on YouTube. In recent days we’ve learned from his son Andrew that he and his father are estranged, but that they’re working on it. Andrew says he got his values from his mother.

Another of the thrice-married is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who, last week, trod the Damascus Road to Colorado Springs. On the syndicated radio program of psychologist James Dobson, Gingrich confessed that he had an extramarital affair with the woman to whom he is now married while he was married to his second wife. Gingrich acknowledged not living up to his own standards, or God’s.

A third Republican presidential candidate is Sen. John McCain, who has been married twice. He is disliked by many social conservatives more for his support of “campaign finance reform,” which they regard as an attempt to limit their speech, his work on immigration with Ted Kennedy and past remarks that some evangelical leaders are “agents of intolerance.”

Mitt Romney has the right social conservative views, fairly recently bringing them into conformity with their own, but to some conservative evangelicals he has the “wrong” religion.

Romney, a Mormon, is the poster boy for family values: one wife, handsome children, and no apparent personal skeletons in his closet, but some, not all, evangelicals can’t get over the Mormon belief that Jesus once visited America. They also reject the “Book of Mormon,” which they believe tells “another gospel.”

That substantial numbers of conservative evangelical voters are even considering these candidates as presidential prospects is a sign of their political maturation and of their more pragmatic view of what can be expected from politics and politicians.

It is also evidence that many of them are awakening to at least two other realities — (1) they are not electing a church deacon; and (2) government has limited power to rebuild a crumbling social construct.

The Census Bureau recently noted that only 23.7 percent of the U.S. population fit the ‘50s stereotype of heterosexual married couples with children. Even in the “golden age” of the ‘50s, the figure was just under 50 percent.

Until this election cycle, most social conservatives supported candidates and policies based on the married with children “ideal” family model. It may be the ideal, but it is no longer widely practiced, including by many conservative evangelicals.

Researchers have found many conservative Christians live in states where divorce rates are highest. These states overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage. Too bad they don’t do a better job supporting opposite-sex marriage in which they claim to believe.

No politician can “fix” broken heterosexual marriages. If they could, some of those mentioned above would have fixed their own. The crumbling “traditional” family is the result of many social and cultural factors. The solution, like the fault, lies neither with government, nor with politicians.

While “character issues” can overlap with other concerns when considering for whom to vote, conservative evangelicals are beginning to see them as less important than who can meet the multiple challenges faced by the nation.

Put it this way: if you are about to have major surgery and your only choice was a church-going doctor with a high mortality rate, or an agnostic with a high success record, which would it be?

I’d choose the agnostic.

Conservative evangelicals have grown up. But they still can’t stand Hillary Clinton, though she’s only been married once and is a Methodist. Jimmy Carter, also once married, only lusted in his heart. It makes one nostalgic for the “good old days.”

[Email Cal Thomas at CalThomas@tribune.com.]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: election; humanity; morals; satanic
Earlier thread - not listed on Editorial page - thus buried.
1 posted on 03/13/2007 2:53:20 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Put it this way: if you are about to have major surgery and your only choice was a church-going doctor with a high mortality rate, or an agnostic with a high success record, which would it be?

Death of the corporeal body means nothing to the true believer! Just a fast-track ticket to salvation! Halleluia!!!

2 posted on 03/13/2007 2:56:12 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do suck seed." - Jerry 'Curly' Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I'm shocked your post went into a black hole.

I've linked it and reposted under editorial.


3 posted on 03/13/2007 2:57:39 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The Census Bureau recently noted that only 23.7 percent of the U.S. population fit the ‘50s stereotype of heterosexual married couples with children. Even in the “golden age” of the ‘50s, the figure was just under 50 percent.

That's misleading. First of all, are children counted in the overall population? Since they aren't usually married and usually don't have children, that skews the figure for "heterosexual married couples with children" downward. Secondly, are couples whose children have grown up and widows and widowers not counted in the "heterosexual married couples with children" figure?

I would probably take the unbelieving doctor who as well if they other was likely to kill me. Who wouldn't?

4 posted on 03/13/2007 2:58:39 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

re: From their nearly unanimous condemnation of Bill Clinton for his extramarital affairs

I would beg to pick a nit with Cal here. The condemnation of Bill Clinton by the conservative Right was a lot more inclusive than simply his extramarital affairs. Everything about him was cause for alarm for this member of the conservative Right.


5 posted on 03/13/2007 3:00:23 PM PDT by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwparkerjr

"I would beg to pick a nit with Cal here."

The tone is patronizing.

And he doesn't mention Reagan's marriages - that would undermine his thesis, and self-appointed sense of superiority.


6 posted on 03/13/2007 3:02:15 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Cal hasn't been reading FR recently.


7 posted on 03/13/2007 3:02:44 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwparkerjr

I don't think he disregards everything else, but Thomas is addressing marriage.


8 posted on 03/13/2007 3:03:53 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I don't see supporting Guiliani as having anything to do with the maturation process. Quite the opposite.


9 posted on 03/13/2007 3:07:28 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Guiliani is a Democrat in Republican drag.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV

I have avoided posting anything on FR for the last month given the high level of vitriol on most threads. I am encouraged whenever I read Cal.


10 posted on 03/13/2007 3:07:52 PM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV
Put it this way: if you are about to have major surgery and your only choice was a church-going doctor with a high mortality rate, or an agnostic with a high success record, which would it be?

This analogy would work if it was the only difference between Rudy Giuliani/John McCain/Mitt Romney and other conservatives. But it's more than just religious preferences.

That said, Mitt's the safest bet of the trio. McCain and Giuliani?

11 posted on 03/13/2007 3:08:17 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (Vote for Duncan Hunter in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas

Agree with HitmanLV - death of the earthly body to the true believer means nothing! Give me someone who is at least pro-life!

Wake up people! The media wants Rudy, because he will be beaten. Romney scares them because he totally breaks the Daddy Warbucks (Dole, Fred Thompson, McCain, Cheyney and yes Giuliani)image of republicans they are trying to brainwash the young into having. I am no booster of Romney, his flip flops arrouse deep suspicion. But he can look into a camera and come right back at you looking incredibly good (both in physical appearance and speech content).


12 posted on 03/13/2007 3:14:55 PM PDT by Nickh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
That substantial numbers of conservative evangelical voters are even considering these candidates as presidential prospects is a sign of their political maturation and of their more pragmatic view of what can be expected from politics and politicians.

It is also evidence that many of them are awakening to at least two other realities — (1) they are not electing a church deacon; and (2) government has limited power to rebuild a crumbling social construct.

The Census Bureau recently noted that only 23.7 percent of the U.S. population fit the ‘50s stereotype of heterosexual married couples with children. Even in the “golden age” of the ‘50s, the figure was just under 50 percent.

Until this election cycle, most social conservatives supported candidates and policies based on the married with children “ideal” family model. It may be the ideal, but it is no longer widely practiced, including by many conservative evangelicals.

Points to remember.

13 posted on 03/13/2007 3:15:04 PM PDT by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Cal going to bat for Rudy. Dunce.


14 posted on 03/13/2007 3:17:11 PM PDT by pissant (http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I know that one day you'll read the entire article before posting a comment.


15 posted on 03/13/2007 3:20:01 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Conservative Evangelical Christian voters have come a long way in a short time. From their nearly unanimous condemnation of Bill Clinton for his extramarital affairs, a growing number of these “pro-family” voters appear ready to accept several Republican presidential candidates who do not share their ideal of marriage and faith. Among those seriously under consideration by these church-going folks is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has been married three times and who had an affair with the woman now his wife when he was married to wife number two.

If I suspend credulity and hypothetically accept Cal's premise...What does it profit a man to mature emotionally yet let his intellect become a babbling brook?

16 posted on 03/13/2007 3:20:11 PM PDT by TigersEye (For Democrats; victory in Iraq is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I did. That is what he is doing.


17 posted on 03/13/2007 3:22:51 PM PDT by pissant (http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pissant
He remarked about the field and didn't endorse anyone.
18 posted on 03/13/2007 3:29:01 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

What exactly is this "high success rate" that the "agnostic" Rudy Guiliani has?


19 posted on 03/13/2007 3:37:16 PM PDT by abishai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I know. He does not need to say anyone by name. And you would not have posted this article if it did not come across as doing exactly as I stated it was doing. Supporting Rudy.


20 posted on 03/13/2007 3:38:28 PM PDT by pissant (http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pissant
You'll want the last word. However, I posted it because it talks about the election and how the GOP is challenged and rising to the occasion.
21 posted on 03/13/2007 3:42:52 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
LOL. I'll let you get it, this time. :o)

You'll want the last word. However, I posted it because it talks about the election and how the GOP is challenged and rising to the occasion.

22 posted on 03/13/2007 3:44:13 PM PDT by pissant (http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Cal Thomas is full of hair dye. No one listens to what this guy has to say anymore--except liberals of course.


23 posted on 03/13/2007 3:48:45 PM PDT by dmw (Aren't you glad you use common sense, don't you wish everybody did?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
I suppose if "political maturation" means selling out your values for political expediency...

I find this op-ed condescending. He's implying that Christians' voting goals are actually to get REPUBLICANS elected rather than to get CHRISTIAN-ACTING/LEGISLATING leaders. Are Christians now just the lackeys of the Republican Party? Are we supposed to vote for whoever is most likely to win as a REPUBLICAN, even if their positions are antithetical to our own Christian beliefs?
24 posted on 03/13/2007 4:38:47 PM PDT by Skokie42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

btt


25 posted on 03/13/2007 6:08:44 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson