CE Week #6: “Romney a natural for values party”
Kathleen Parker
Orlando Sentinel
October 8, 2007
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, or 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 last 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 is, 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.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/08/ce-week-6-romney-a-natural-for-values-party/trackback/
This article brings up many interesting points. It really shows that the Republican party is making a split. Does being a Republican mean being socially, and economically conservative, or just economically conservative? I believe we have already seen this split with this Presidency. Bush calls himself a Republican but has all too often disapointed the party’s conservatives. Some Republicans are leaning towards more liberal, or moderate views now. The election candidates definitely reflect that. Now we’ve got Romney, the only one that will support the moral views of the conservative Christians, but wait, he’s a Mormon! This is really going to stir things up. I cannot see the extreme Christians giving him their votes just because he is a Mormon, however I believe most of them will overlook this simply due to the fact that he is the only candidate that does not support gay marriage, stem cell research, or abortion. A party split was mentioned in this article. I believe that it is a very possible concern. This could break the Republican party. However, I agree with the writer on this. It would be a bad decision for the Republicans. They cannot afford to take the hit of a party split. With voters already disapointed in the Republican party, due to the Bush administration support is down. If they split the party they will probably lose many of the Republicans that aren’t as radical and almost lean more Moderate. This is where the majority lies. In that case they would probably vote Democratic, giving the Democrats control of the White House. I hope for the sake of the Republican party and the upcoming elections that the party does not split.
This article deffinitly shows how there is a pretty large split in views in the Republican party. I’m glad to see that they have a leading candidate. But the Republicans are so picky about who there candidate is. A candidate could be perfect in every single way possible but if they had one thing wrong with them like they wernt again same sex marriage then most Republicans wouldn’t stand a hundred percent behind him. Thats were Romney comes in; he is everything that the Republicans wan’t ecept that he is a Morman. That will deffinitly shake things up a bit for the Republicans. I think that in the end the Republicans will stand behind him because he is pro-life, against gay marriage, and doesnt suppot stem cell research. That seems to be the Republican problem sometimes; that they are too idealistic. Its great to think idealisticly but is impracticle most of the time. I think that they republicans need to stand behind a candidate soon so they can gain momentum so they can get more attention and do well in Iowa and New Hampshire. Otherwise they are going to have a ton of trouble trying to beat Hillary or Oboma in the November elections.
In this presidential race, the presidents are asking for everything. A candidate must have a squeaky clean record (Republican all the way, mind you) to even be considered to get the nod for president of the United States. And although, personally, I enjoy this name calling war between Grand Old Party candidates, I find this whole situation as a childish one.
There is no such thing as a perfect politician, just like there is not a perfect democratic candidate in existence. Heck, I don’t think that there is, or has been such a thing as a spotless politician. It might be a cliché, but politicians are kind of known for lying. Lying is a sin, so I’m pretty sure that the Republicans just aren’t going to vote this time around, right? Well, take the sarcasm as you may, but is this article doing anything different than finding one weakness of a politician, and taking all credibility from them? Everyone carries baggage, whether it’s a personal issue, or just a political stance. The Republicans just aren’t going to find their savior candidate because, like it or not, he doesn’t exist. (Or she) What the GOP needs to do is to take a serious look at all the candidates, and just decide which man is going to do the best job as President
For what it’s worth, I found it humorous that the leading Republican candidate in Rudy Giuliani is not even mentioned in the article. I believe that he’s leading by double digits, but is likely the most liberal of the leading Republican candidates. Why does he not face the same scrutiny that the politicians mentioned above faced? The man has run as both liberal and independent. He created gun control in New York for Pete’s sake.