Posted on 10/05/2007 5:16:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- Evangelical Christians never had it so good, but they seem not to know it. Instead of supporting the candidate who most shares their values -- Mitt Romney -- they seem hell-bent for the proverbial cliff.
Meeting recently in Salt Lake City, conservative Christian leaders almost unanimously approved a resolution to support a third-party candidate if neither major party nominates someone who is pro-life.
To their credit, these leaders are unwilling to sacrifice conviction for political expediency, but they may be creating their own worst nightmare by dividing the party and making a Democratic victory more likely.
James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, explained in a New York Times op-ed Thursday that Christian leaders believe any presidential candidate has to commit to traditional moral values, including the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage and other pro-family principles.
Minimally, that means anti-Roe v. Wade, no same-sex marriage, no government funding for destruction of human life at any stage and no pro-sex education. These weren't controversial ideas a generation ago, but today they can make or break a candidate in a party whose political base is 30 percent evangelical Christian.
Perfection is a tough standard and hardly anyone is just right. John McCain has a perfect pro-life record, but he supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He also doesn't support the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which conservatives believe is necessary to protect marriage as between a man and a woman.
Under the radar, some conservative leaders say that McCain has contempt for pro-lifers, which perhaps explains his inability to successfully woo social conservatives.
Fred Thompson, upon whom many had pinned their hopes, has turned out to be a disappointment, not to mention a cure for insomnia. In Iowa recently, Thompson had to prompt his audience -- their faces masks of ennui -- to applaud. Freight trains have sparked more animation.
Thompson also doesn't support the FMA, which this week prompted one of his key campaign consultants, Bill Wichterman, to walk out. Wichterman, who previously served as conservative outreach director for former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., had been considered an important "get" for Thompson.
And then there's Mike Huckabee. If Dobson really meant what he said in his op-ed -- that winnability shouldn't be the deciding factor in supporting a candidate -- then Huckabee should be receiving bouquets of Ben Franklins with his morning beignets. A southern Baptist preacher, the former Arkansas governor is a human checklist of conservative values, as well as being personable, likable and funny.
What Huckabee doesn't have is the golden coffer, which means that electability (BEG ITAL)is(END ITAL), in fact, a Christian concern.
That leaves just one person -- Romney -- as the obvious pick for the values party. If anything, the golly-gee guy is too perfect. Nary a follicle out of place, he's never enjoyed a caffeine buzz nor awakened to the rare tortures of having been overserved.
His resume otherwise has perfect creases. As governor of Massachusetts, he fought same-sex unions and embryonic cloning. He's pro-life, even if he was previously pro-choice. As a businessman, he made a personal fortune and bailed out the Olympics. He's even got a beautiful, first-ladylike wife, who thus far has not demanded cell-phone reassurances of unfaltering love during her husband's stump speeches.
The only hitch: He's a cultist. Or so some Christians think. Even though Romney shares their belief in Jesus Christ as God, other doctrinal differences tied to his Mormon beliefs apparently cause deep conflicts for evangelicals.
The crafters of push polls are no doubt working overtime, especially in South Carolina, where nobody goes broke baiting fear and phobia. If they could convince racist voters in 2000 that McCain's adopted Indian child was African-American, they won't have much trouble advancing the idea that Romney is a closet polygamist -- despite the fact that he's the only leading Republican candidate who has had just one wife.
Ultimately, Christian leaders (some of whom make off-the-record, supportive calls to Romney, I'm told) most likely will back the Mormon. But their actions meantime have hurt Romney as he tries to close the deal nationally.
If they were smarter, they'd embrace Romney as the one who can beat Hillary because he, more than anyone else, unites all wings of the party -- economic, security and social.
If.
What a complete LOS. Why should any conservative support a politician who favors murder, homosexuality, and whatever else ills society?
Rino Romney may say he supports these values, but his histroy in Mass suggest otherwise. I think he is saying what he thinks will get him elected. Basically I think he is lying.
Shooting themselves in the foot — guaranteeing another Clinton presidency. It appears that is what they truly want, damn the consequences. I’m not a single issue voter and will support whoever the republican nominee is; I didn’t do that in 92 (shame on me) and we got slick willy and the hildabeast. Look for an instant replay.
I am uncommitted and pro-life.
I look at McCain as the censor of pro-lifers (McCain-Feingold) in political campaigns and totally unacceptable for that alone.
Ron Paul’s anti-war Bush bashing does nothing for me.
The vote in Iowa and New Hampshire (I live in PA and probably won’t have to make this decision for my primary) comes down to either a principled vote for Hunter, Tancredo, Huckabee or a tactical vote to keep Rudy from winning.
The obvious tactical vote based on the polling data at this point is Mitt Romney.
In South Carolina it may be Fred Thompson right now but I’m still trying to figure him out. Is he there to divide votes or be a stalking horse for someone else?
Is that why he’s been “lackluster” in his campaigning?
I like Rudy a lot but his praise of McCain makes me wonder if the deal is to make McCain VP (and good old boy Thompson who supported McCain-Feingold is in there to split conservative votes to give Rudy the win).
I’m pure speculation at this point and analytical.
I do tend to vote principled instead of tactical so I would be hard presssed personally to vote for Mitt.
But honestly it looks like the options for you folks in Iowa and New Hampshire come down to what I described before.
Thank you for dealing with reality. Hillary with be so disastrous, it is a sin to even think of helping her gain the type of power she desires. There may never be another free election. They’re already greasing the skids to make sure that there is wholesale voter fraud. Time may be running out.
I am not a single issue voter either, but Rino Romney is against me on guns, abortion, government health care, and most importantly he is a liar who can not be trusted. He is one of the three that if he wins I will go third party.
There is no way I will ever vote for Rino Rudy McRomney.
“If they were smarter, they’d embrace Romney as the one who can beat Hillary because he, more than anyone else, unites all wings of the party — economic, security and social.”
“If” is right. Apparently, many Christians don’t seem to pray much for wisdom and discernment.
This is not an election for Theologian-in-Chief. We’ve had Presidents in the past who were nonChristans but were still good Presidents.
Lincoln was a great President and didn’t become a believer until much later in his presidency.
Eisenhower grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness.
We don’t know people’s hearts or what God has planned for them.
Romney’s an intelligent conservative who’s got the presence to pull in swing voters. That should be enough reason to vote for him.
These analyses are nearly pointless... unless you just want to rant. Choosing “the lesser of two evils” is what has brought us to the point that we very likely may get Hillary vs Hillary-lite. It’s nearly too late to change our direction away from socialism. The RNC is counting on all of these nay-sayers to lay down their principles when it comes time to pull the lever, regardless of the candidate... they’re playing a game of chicken.
Harranging those who will vote their conscience isn’t the way to garner support for your candidate. This is a marketing exercise... if we really want to win, we need a better product (or at least one that’s significantly different). It doesn’t matter if our candidate is currently polling 1-2%... if they get the nomination, they will get exposure. Many of the candidates we have in contention now won’t look too good with too much exposure...
Hillary can count on 41-43% of the vote—no matter what she says or does. Our side tends to actually vote conscientiously. A poll yesterday said that 27% of the GOP base will not stomach voting for Rudy. The solution to this problem isn’t calling the 27% idiots, it would be idiotic to not seek a candidate we can rally behind.
That’s my two cents on the matter. Your mileage may vary.
lemme see.... mitt Romney may be a Mormon and a god fearing man... BUT, 1) he is from massaupchucks, 2) he supports gay marriage, 3) he supported abortion legislation. He comes across as fake and phony and a lying 2 faced political hack.... whats not to love?
Well, that you will get hillary who
is against you on guns, abortion, government health care, and most importantly she is a liar who can not be trusted. SHe is the one who will win of if you go third party.
What fools (not leaders). The world is much too large, dangerous and complex for serious adults to become "one issue" voters.....This is what non-thinking lib-women think like.
We are in the middle of a world war. We have warriors risking all 24/7 down range. The GOP base needs to understand you fight this nations most serious threats first...(that being terrorists, foreign, and the sickening ilk of the Democrat party, domestically).
FIND A MEGA-CHURCH LOCALLY THAT ACTUALLY TEACHES GOD'S WORD AND NOT ONLY BE THERE EVERY SUNDAY AND WED. NIGHT--BUT TITHE GOD'S MONEY BACK TO HIM.
I do not see much of a difference between them to give a care.
>>What a complete LOS. Why should any conservative support a politician who favors murder...<<
We shouldn’t support abortion. We should not nominate pro-abortion candidate. If our choices at the general are two pro-abortion candidates, it will be a really unpleasant decision whether to take the less objectionable or to vote 3rd party or some other unpleasant choice.
But now is the time to work to get get a good choice.
But Dobson is so focused on threatening to split the Republican party and take his ball and go home even before the first primary he is really becoming a destructive force for the Republican party.
If you’ve got the stomach go check out DU. They are chuckling with glee about Dobson “Nadering” the Republicans.
The AFA and CWA have become harmful, in my opinion.
That’s fine and is your right; I however, look beyond to say....the USSC. I don’t think the world can take another Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That is what you get with Hillary.
>>FIND A MEGA-CHURCH LOCALLY THAT ACTUALLY TEACHES GOD’S WORD AND NOT ONLY BE THERE EVERY SUNDAY AND WED. NIGHT—BUT TITHE GOD’S MONEY BACK TO HIM.<<
Why a mega-church?
There are only two of those in the country, bub.
NOT ONLY BE THERE EVERY SUNDAY AND WED. NIGHT--BUT TITHE GOD'S MONEY BACK TO HIM.
Another one of these creatures -- Had your fun for the last 4 months, trolliekins?
Know the truth and the truth shall set you free! (And attract lightning and cats...)
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.