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

Skip to comments.

ROMNEY INCREASES OVERTURES TO DISENCHANTED EVANGELICALS
Evangelicals for Mitt ^ | 10/07/07 | Charles Mitchell

Posted on 10/09/2007 7:59:02 AM PDT by Reaganesque

Sunday, October 07, 2007

"ROMNEY INCREASES OVERTURES TO DISENCHANTED EVANGELICALS"

I'm not sure how I missed this Boston Globe article:

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has stepped up his efforts to woo evangelicals in response to the threat by some Christian conservative leaders to back a third-party candidate.

The third-party threat grew yesterday after a key evangelical leader, James Dobson, said that he and other social conservatives had agreed to support a "minor party" candidate if the Republicans choose a presidential nominee who is not conservative enough.

Dobson's statement is viewed as significant in the Romney campaign because Dobson has ruled out supporting GOP candidates John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson, but has left open the possibility of supporting Romney.

"Dr. Dobson is keeping an open mind on Mitt Romney, and I think that is because they do share in common so many values," Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said yesterday.

Dobson, the leader of the high-profile Focus on the Family, whose radio program has 1.5 million listeners, did not respond to a request for comment yesterday.

In response, here are a few fairly random thoughts.

This Globe piece, naturally, doesn't fail to mention that Governor Romney has changed his mind on abortion--which is part of what makes him imperfect (imagine that, in a fallen world!) and, thus, part of what is making conservative evangelical leaders "disenchanted." And we continue to get a lot of mail on this. I keep thinking, though: Even if you think Governor Romney has cynically "flip-flopped" on abortion, do you really think he'd do it again as president? Especially after taking all this flak for becoming pro-life? To do so would defy common sense, not to mention political history. Reagan, Bush, Gephardt--all of these political leaders morphed on abortion, but none re-morphed. And for good reason. If a President Romney did it, he'd be pilloried, ridiculed, and probably denied renomination. The man would have to be a total goofball to do something so ridiculous. Say what you want about him--for instance, I've already admitted that he is, as I am, a complete nerd--but goofballs don't have the success he's had in the private sector.

Now let me make an even more controversial statement: I don't believe most of the evangelicals who have so far refused to support Governor Romney are actually worried, if you pin them down, that he might turn into a pro-choicer in the Oval Office. It would be insane for him to do that. And while I don't think all conservative evangelicals necessarily believe, as we do, that the man has genuinely changed his mind on the merits of legally restricting abortion, I don't think they think he's insane. Rather, I think they're using this issue as a crutch so they don't really have to think through the issue of supporting a Mormon.

Keeping the controversy coming, I frankly don't begrudge them that crutch. I didn't find it easy to decide to support Governor Romney. It helped me a lot that one of the people I respect most in the world--David French--supports him. But not everybody has a friend and mentor like David. I can understand why a few months or years ago, it made more sense to wait for a "better option" rather than think through this complex issue, one Al Mohler called "an excruciating decision."

However, crutch time is over, folks. Now it's crunch time. Iowa is in a few months. The field is formed. No "conservative messiah" is coming. You've got to work with, as Donald Rumsfeld might have said, the candidates you've got. And especially if your name is James Dobson, your options are diminishing. You're down to Governor Romney and then a whole bunch of folks who have shown no aptitude whatsoever at putting a credible campaign together, much less defending the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage on the most inhospitable terrain in the country, past screw-ups notwithstanding. It's time to get serious and pick one of these guys. There simply is no presidential candidate out there who agrees with both our theology and our agenda and has shown himself to have any chance at all of success--and there are several, in both parties, who disagree with both and do have a great chance of success. In fact, one of them is the national frontrunner in each party.

Under such circumstances, and with as little time as we have, "excruciating" decisions have to be made and difficult issues have to be thought through. And if we drop the untenable idea that our president has to be someone we wouldn't mind as our pastor, the choice is clear. I know it's not easy to get there, but it's time to get started. Drop your crutches, folks, and your non-arguments about flip-flops. While we dilly-dally, the other side is amassing tons of money and getting ready to cream us in the House, the Senate, and the White House.

|



TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anypubbieoveranyrat; christianvote; evangelicals; outreach; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: Grunthor

Alan Colmes beat Ann Coulter mercilessly on this issue, and Ann just kept saying (not an exact quote): “Mitt may be a flip-flopper, but so long as he’s flopped my way, and isn’t flipping back, that’s the way I like it”.

If there was a candidate that didn’t flip-flop who had a chance, that would be one thing. But since there isn’t, good conservatives have taken to denying the facts about some candidate’s previous positions just so they can pretend their candidate hasn’t changed.

That does nobody any good.

Dobson doesn’t command my vote, and Ann isn’t always my cup of tea. But if both Dobson and Coulter see something disqualifying about some people, and are open to Mitt, that tells me something.

It’s just a data point, but something all Evangelicals, and all Conservatives, ought to consider. Neither of these two are known for selling their principles.


21 posted on 10/09/2007 9:21:10 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
...you begin to realise why some people really hate us.

No...I still don't realise why.

Just explain to them that this gay man broke his marital vows before God and is currently involved in another sin which disqualifies him from being a moral example in an organization that stresses morality.

22 posted on 10/09/2007 9:22:59 AM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“Dobson doesn’t command my vote, and Ann isn’t always my cup of tea. But if both Dobson and Coulter see something disqualifying about some people, and are open to Mitt, that tells me something.”

Mitt is my number two. Number one is Thompson. Rudy can go to hell.


23 posted on 10/09/2007 9:47:04 AM PDT by Grunthor (If you are going to tell a quarter of your base to get lost, you SHOULD lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pby
Just explain to them that this gay man broke his marital vows before God and is currently involved in another sin which disqualifies him from being a moral example in an organization that stresses morality.

That would be an easier sell if they specifically excluded men who were divorced and living with a new girlfriend.

24 posted on 10/09/2007 9:59:26 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale; All
I concede that I will vote for ANY REPUBLICAN who gets the nomination! Do you honestly believe that after radical leftest have majority power in the government conservatism will ever recover? 1. The fairness Doctrine
2. The leftest judges who will be placed around the country to push forward the leftest agenda from the bench.
3. Illegal Mexicans getting the vote.
4. A leftest Democrat being in charge of the next USSC appointees. 5. Felons getting the vote 6. Democrats using our tax money to fund future voters with entitlement programs. I could go on for pages! If the LEFTEST Democrats, i.e. ALL OF THEM, gain power they have one agenda:::TO ASSURE THEY NEVER LOSE POWER AGAIN! I understand your frustration with the RINOs, they make me sick. However I repeat...It is mind spinning to me that you think allowing criminal Democrats to gain power will help our cause.Democrats in power will simply eradicate Christian Conservatives (symbolically and literally) from the public dialog. In short they will use illegals, felons and judges to drive us out of having ANY say in Americas next generation.
25 posted on 10/09/2007 10:11:45 AM PDT by Nav_Mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

The Log Cabin Republican ad I just saw on FNC is not going to help Mitt Romney.


26 posted on 10/09/2007 10:32:27 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nav_Mom

Oh, I might vote for Romney in the unlikely event that he gets the GOP nomination. But only then.


27 posted on 10/09/2007 10:37:35 AM PDT by TommyDale (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
It would be an easier sell...

Only if you put homosexual relationships on par with heterosexual relationships.

Divorced men who are living with a new girlfriend should not be considered for a position in leadership either.

If people don't like moral standards, then choose a different club to be a part of.

28 posted on 10/09/2007 10:56:05 AM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pby

And if that doesn’t help the haters...show them the statistics relative to abuse.


29 posted on 10/09/2007 10:58:30 AM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pby

I don’t personally try to rate one relationship over another.

The Bible tells me what is sin, and what is not. It doesn’t tell me that some sins are acceptable, and others are not.

I agree that all should be treated equally. It’s why I always bristled when we fought the “immorality” of gays in the military, but said nothing about service people getting “serviced” by hookers.


30 posted on 10/09/2007 11:45:21 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I don’t personally try to rate one relationship over another.

Well...The Bible does and a homosexual relationship is sin (immoral by nature) and not equal with a heterosexual relationship.

So you advocate gay Boy Scout leaders and gays in the military?

31 posted on 10/09/2007 12:25:00 PM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
I saw the ad and I think it is likely to backfire. A pro-homosexual group attacks Mitt Romney, who, according to some, is "pro-gay". Surely they would have better things to say about him if he were as supportive of the "radical gay agenda" as some here on FR would have you believe. But they don't have anything nice to say. They do, however, have plenty of nice things to say about Rudy Giuliani. In fact, the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed Rudy Giuliani.

Which brings up a few questions. Just where does the Giuliani campaign fit into this ad? Did they urge this group to put out the ad? Did they pay them for it? Was it their idea?

32 posted on 10/09/2007 12:25:33 PM PDT by Reaganesque (Romney for President 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque

I don’t think the ad is going to backfire. I think it was the intent of the Log Cabin Republicans to pay for the ad in order to decrease support for Romney; and it will work. The only probem for the Log Cabin Republicans is that those awayed by the ad are not going to go to Guiliani. They will mostly go to Thompson and some, to others.


33 posted on 10/09/2007 12:30:42 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pby
No the bible says homosexuality is a sin, and adultery is a sin. We were discussing a man who lived with a woman having divorced his wife, comparing that to a man who divorced his wife because he was gay.

BTW, if a gay man chooses to be abstinent in order to not sin, he still would not be allowed to be a scoutmaster. Again, I agree with the restriction, but at that point it is no longer about an act of sin.

BTW, I call you on your selective quoting. It's not nice to dissemble and attempt to deceive your fellow freepers to make a point.

My full quote:

I don’t personally try to rate one relationship over another.

The Bible tells me what is sin, and what is not. It doesn’t tell me that some sins are acceptable, and others are not.

So when you only quoted my first sentence, and then added your 'Well, the bible does", you were only saying exactly what I said in my quote. Except as I stated, adultery is a sin, and the Bible doesn't distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable sins.

BTW, not that I adhere to a ranking of sin, but if you did, Adultery is one of the big 10, while Homosexuality is not.

Also, we are all sinners.

34 posted on 10/09/2007 12:43:12 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
...but at that point it is no longer about an act of sin.

Wrong.

According to Romans 1:24 and 26, abstinence doesn't cut it either because homosexual desires are sinful and homosexual lusts are shameful.

35 posted on 10/09/2007 1:07:04 PM PDT by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: pby

Which is why I point out that all of us are sinners. Because lusting after another woman is also a sin.


36 posted on 10/09/2007 6:35:31 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
I do think that the LCR ad will back-fire. The base knows about his switch from pro-choice to pro-life, and this just accentuates the fact that the LCRs are not in Romney's corner. To the base, that is a good thing.

The statement from Romney's camp also points out that the Log Cabin Republicans are playing favorites for his opponent, Mayor Rudy Giuliani (or I guess it could be McCain or Fred since they don't support the Federal Marriage Amendment either):

“This personal, negative attack was launched and paid for by a group recognized as having Mayor Giuliani as their ‘favorite’ candidate," Madden said. "Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment and so it makes sense that a national gay rights group would attack him. The advertisement misrepresents Governor Romney’s courage to admit that he had been wrong on this issue and the fact that he is proud of his strong record of defending the sanctity of life.”

The gay Republicans attack against Romney could turn out to be a positive for the candidate, according to speculation by some political pundits. A New York Times blog post by Jim Rutenerg theorized that "even those conservatives who will buy into the flip-flop claim may take heart that he has 'flip flopped' to their way of seeing things."

37 posted on 10/09/2007 9:01:09 PM PDT by redgirlinabluestate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

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