Not to pick on Mike Huckabee today, but he published numbers and opened his mouth:
“If Republicans in this election vote in such a way as to say a candidate’s personal life and personal conduct in office doesn’t matter,” he declared, “then a lot of Christian evangelical leaders owe Bill Clinton a public apology.”
Who all is he attacking? Rudy? Gingrich? "Christian evangelical leaders"? Cannot be smart.
Tags: Huckabee, Social conservatives
I think that the press, and bloggers, sometimes misunderstand the power of people like Richard Land, an SBC leader. Today, according to the Hill, he joined Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina (and John McCain supporter) to help introduce a bill on comprehensive immigration reform:
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) joined a group of Democratic senators and evangelical leaders in calling for action on so-called comprehensive immigration reform.
…
The lawmakers were also flanked by a group of Hispanic evangelical leaders and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Church.
Now, Hispanic Evangelical leaders shouldn’t be surprising, although, I should point out that they are probably Republican. Richard Land is the one that I want readers to think about.
He is considered a conservative leader. This probably tells us that the SBC will have, at least, a positive stance towards comprehensive immigration reform. Will they say that much about it? Probably not, and few churches are likely to mobilize over it. (although, speaking as the chairman of the Missions Board at my baptist church, some pastors and lay leaders are acutely aware of some of this because it may impact the legality of some of our programs)
Will this protect candidates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Sam Brownback from conservative criticism? My gut is, probably not. A leading Member of Congress on this issue even told me that social conservatives consider immigration reform to be as much a danger to the country as gay marriage. I told him he was over stating it.
However, will this help with outreach to social conservatives and religious voters? Maybe. Marc Ambinder at the Hotline wrote an interesting post on this question.
Tags: Congress, Immigration, Social conservatives
Hugh Hewitt’s latest book, has gotten both positive and negative reviews. I myself thought it was a touch hagiographic. One of the more negative reviews came from Redstate’s CEO, Erick Erickson:
But in objective substance, Hewitt comes up deficient.
Hugh bashed back, essentially calling Erick a bigot:
The attempt to use Romney’s candidacy as a step-stool for attacks on the LDS is shocking when it occurs on the left, and worse when it occurs on the right.
Erick responded with a title that says it all:
I do hope Hugh Hewitt now realizes I’m not some sort of religious bigot.
Erick continues by accusing Hugh of de facto misunderstanding the constitution and talking down to the people he’s trying to sway.
Then today, Erick asks Hugh to be consistent and call James Dobson a bigot.
And another Redstate editor, Hunter Baker, is also going after Hugh.
Hugh has a lot of readers, as does Redstate. I’ve always thought that the inclination of the Romney suporters to call people opposed to Romney bigots, regardless of whether or not their opposition to Romney was based in religion both offensive and counter-productive.
Is Hugh being offensive and counter-productive with his megaphone?
Tags: Romney, Social conservatives
Well this might be a bombshell. Or maybe not… Richard Land, Southern Baptist Convention political guru, says that he would not vote for Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton:
“Some would stay home, and I would counsel them not to do that,” Land said of the prospects of a Giuliani-Clinton presidential race. “They need to go and vote. They can always not vote in that race. I would go and vote, and I would vote for congressmen and I would vote for state senator and state representative, I would vote for U.S. senator, I would vote for governor. But I would not vote in the presidential race.”
Ummm. That’s nice. But will the flock follow this shepherd over this cliff? I doubt it.
Do you believe that because DC conservative leaders say something, will the voters do what they are told, especially when there is a disconnect? What happens when local leaders endorse (or work for) one candidate, while national leaders go another way? The Ralph Reed experience demonstrated that, sometimes, DC conservative leaders might have … other incentives. I look in IA and NH and I see John McCain, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee locking up conservative leaders… Jonathan Martin pointed out some of this.
Tags: Giuliani, Social conservatives
Mitt Romney’s campaign has a problem with them misrepresenting his positions. Romney has misrepresented his position on abortion, as has his spokesman. Now, Jay Sekulow, one of Romney’s advisors on social conservative issues was asked by a student at CPAC how Romney stood on the human life amendment. See what he said:
Does Jay Sekulow not know Romney’s position on abortion? If so, how is he doing outreach to social conservatives? What is he telling them?
Tags: Life, Romney, Social conservatives
How else do you explain Newt Gingrich’s radio appearance with Dobson yesterday. He, in essence, asked for absolution from America’s Protestant Pope. Conserviatves, especially conservative Christians, like a redemption story. I still contend that George W. Bush’s alcoholism is a fundamental part of his narrative for the Christian community. Jesus saved Bush. That’s why Newt uses this kind of language:
"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There’s certainly times when I’ve fallen short of God’s standards."
Deal Hudson points out that that the solid conservatives in the race ought to be scared:
The solid social conservatives already in the race — especially Brownback and Huckabee — wouldn’t want to see Gingrich get in the ring.
Although I wonder if it is the social conservatives as opposed to the straight movement guys. The social conservatives never really trusted Newt. I would also note that Mitt Romney has a big problem with Gingrich entering the race, according to their senior strategist Alex Castellanos:
The document underscores Romney’s aim to become the "only electable choice" for socially conservative voters. But the plan anticipates that Romney could face a serious threat if Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who is considered one of the GOP’s leading conservative intellectuals, decides to enter the race.
Newt’s only problem is that Republicans are afraid of him getting in the race. They are convinced he would lose. A recent Gallup Poll put his fav/unfav at 29/49. And I refer to an earlier CNN poll that found that 48% of Republicans do not want Newt to be their nominee.
Tags: Gingrich, Social conservatives
Update: Hugh Hewitt responds to the Giuliani bit with an explanation that reminds me of Jonah Goldberg’s thesis.
The Hill interviewed Richard Land, the Chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Convention. He had some interesting comments to make about the leading candidates for President. First, Rudy Giuliani:
Beginning with Giuliani, Land said “the vast majority” of social conservative voters will not vote for the former mayor even if he gets the nomination and faces off against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Furthermore, a Fox News poll pointed out that 57% of GOP voters do not know that Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice:
The biggest red flag for Rudy has to be that only 42% of Republicans surveyed correctly identified him as pro-choice. Twenty-one percent of Republican voters have it wrong and think Rudy is pro-life, and another 36% of Republicans don’t have a clue what his position on abortion. In other words, nearly six out of ten registered Republican voters have yet to learn something about Rudy which, we can infer from the first question on abortion, will make close to half of them either "somewhat" less likely or "a lot" less likely to vote for him.
Land also claimed that Rudy’s "personal" problems will create a real problem for Rudy, and Newt!
He also thought that John McCain had problems, with the standard list of problems — judges and BCRA:
Though Land doesn’t question McCain’s consistency on abortion issues, he said McCain’s involvement in the “Gang of 14” — the bipartisan Senate group that prevented the “nuclear” option on judicial nominees — and his refusal to support anti-gay marriage proposals severely hurts his chances with traditional-values voters.
In the end, Land said, social conservatives are concerned about the kind of judges a President McCain would nominate.
“Voting pro-life is not enough,” Land said. “He has got to express himself in other venues
Perhaps the most interesting was statements on Romney:
“Conservatives would see that as ‘He’s seen the light,’” Land said. “They would see it as less of a flip-flop than as a journey.”
Of Romney’s Mormon religion, Land said it’s not a “deal-killer.”
However, the leader of the SBC’s North American Missions Board, which is responsible for evangelizing to Americans, had some very harsh words to say about Mormonism in the context of Romney and the LDS Church’s PR plan:
He says although the Mormon Church wages an expensive public relations campaign, using terms familiar to appeal to evangelicals, the core teachings of the church do not line up with scripture and are inconsistent with evangelical Christianity.
If the Southern Baptists respond to the LDS PR campaign with their own… wow.
About the 2nd-tier candidates Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee, Land had some positive statements:
“They don’t have to convince other social conservatives they’re one of them,” Land said. “They just have to convince other social conservatives they can win.”
He was slightly more effusive in support of Huckabee, but they have been allies in Southern Baptist denominational politics in the past, so that must be taken with a grain of salt.
Tags: Brownback, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Social conservatives
Jonah Goldberg has a great article at NRO about how Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are two different strategies for handling coming from a liberal, northeastern state. Romney’s strategy is basically to change his position on every issue in sight to come in line with the conservative base. Goldberg doesn’t totally buy it, and regularly readers can see that I don’t either. Rudy Giuliani’s strategy is based on another strategy. His campaign is based on the proposition:
Taken together, terrorism, Iraq and Islam have become the No. 1 social issue for conservative base of the party.
Conservatives will decide that winning the war on terrorism is so important that the rest doesn’t matter or is secondary. Furthermore, Romney’s campaign is based on the idea that domestic issues will dominate the election, and Rudy that security and terrorism will. (although Republicans seem to think that he would do fine running the government)
Which will it be? Time will tell. And what if McCain wins? I think that his campaign is a hybrid. He can credibly claim to be a conservative whose strength is foreign policy. In other words, he could credibly claim to be the best conservative at fighting the war on terror. But, Goldberg would probably argue that a McCain win tells us more about McCain than the Republican Party. I think that’s probably right.
All of these candidates have different theories for where the party is. We will see.
Tags: Giuliani, National Security, Romney, Social conservatives
Wait. Last week Romney said he was "always for life". At the same time, his staff was saying that he was pro-choice until he was elected (what will be be after he is elected this time?) Check out the letter after the jump.
I’m confused about where he stands. So is his staff. So is Romney.
Read More »
Tags: Life, Michigan, Romney, Social conservatives
I think that this press release just about says it all. No need to comment. Apparently this was triggered by the Romney campaign circulating statements comparing Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney’s record on abortion:
Mitt Romney’s Campaign Misleads Voters about Senator Brownback’s Position on Abortion"Mitt Romney’s flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush."Alexandria, VA – Documentation surfaced over the weekend that the Romney for President Exploratory Committee is misleading voters.
In an e-mail circulated to right-to-life leaders on February 8, 2007, a key Romney staffer wrote: "Just like Sam Brownback, Mitt was once pro-choice but changed his views upon being elected to office… When Brownback was elected to office, that is when he also had a conversion and voted with the pro-life movement."
Brownback for President National Campaign Committee Member Dr. Jack Willke, who was President of National Right to Life for ten years, responded: "Senator Brownback has always been pro-life, and has never made a statement or cast any vote to the contrary."
This false allegation by the Romney campaign comes in light of recent evidence that Romney has switched positions on abortion at least three times. Below are direct quotes from Mitt Romney on the issue of abortion:
CHRONOLOGY OF MITT ROMNEY’S ABORTION POSITIONS (IN HIS OWN WORDS):
1994: Mitt Romney was pro-choice
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." (Joan Vennochi, "Romney’s Revolving World," The Boston Globe, 3/2/06)
2001: Mitt Romney was not pro-choice"I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
2002: Mitt Romney was again pro-choice
"I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney’s Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
2007: Mitt Romney acknowledges he was "effectively pro-choice," but says he "was always for life."
January 2007: "Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)
February 2007: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
"Mitt Romney’s flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush," Brownback for President Campaign Manager Rob Wasinger said. "It is absurd of Mitt Romney to compare himself to Senator Brownback on the right to life issue."
Tags: Brownback, Life, Mitt Flop, Romney, Social conservatives
My 2008 Ticker
