There was an interesting story earlier this week in the Washington Times, detailing the concerns of some prominent Evangelicals with the idea of Mitt Romney on the national ticket. Regardless of the outcome of the VP stakes, this heralds a future battle within the GOP that may be with us for some time.
In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush had a unique appeal to Evangelical Christians, speaking to them even as he concurrently wooed swing voters. Yes, this shouldn't be stunning, but much of the Establishment political class didn't believe both could happen at the same time.
In the 2008 primary season, Mike Huckabee likewise broached a unique level of appeal to Evangelicals, especially the most fervent. He doesn't just speak their language, he is quite clearly one of them. Moreover, his campaign played to a specific and vocal segment of the Evangelical community (see Dobson, James) that has a very clear chip-on-its-shoulder mentality. While this by no means encompasses all self-described Evangelicals, it does constitute a significant portion of that religious affiliation.
For years, this portion of the Evangelical universe has felt unappreciated by the GOP. They believe Republican elected officials in Washington, DC do too little to advance their causes and that Republican candidates often spend too much time on non-social issues when they campaign for office.
Whatever the merits of those feelings - which provoke very strong arguments in many GOP circles - that's how a goodly number of Evangelicals feel. In the wake of Mike Huckabee's recent run, those feelings are as strong as ever.
Even at that, the position of taken by some of the leaders quoted in the Times article above is perplexing:
"McCain and Romney would be like oil and water," said evangelical novelist Tim LaHaye, who supported Mr. Huckabee. "We aren't against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won't understand that."
So, La Haye is either saying "my people are dense" or he's not being entirely truthful. The former is insulting to Evangelicals, the other is, needless to say, not becoming of an influential figure in the Christian community. Ultimately, the judgment lies with the reader.
More importantly, it appears these leaders are projecting their own concerns - or those of some of their own parishioners - onto the Evangelical community as a whole, especially with statements like this:
"It will alienate the entire evangelical community - 62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened," [Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Thousand Oaks, Calif.] added.
Really what they're saying, is that there is a vocal minority of the Evangelical community that has a visceral reaction to the Mormon Romney; the article says as much:
Other well-placed Christian conservatives say that although many evangelical leaders could accept and work for a McCain-Romney ticket, Mr. Huckabee's supporters tend to be "rabid" in their views against Mr. Romney because of his faith: They do not regard Mormonism as a Christian denomination.
It's no secret that some Evangelicals have concerns with Romney over the Mormon issue. Confronted with John McCain, Romney, and Huckabee on the ballot, they enthusiastically defaulted to comfortable choice of Huckabee. In the South they did this in spades, for reasons that are rather obvious.
Yet, let's stipulate that if McCain is in trouble in the South in November, needing a couple extra points of Evangelical turnout, he's already...well...totally screwed. Even accepting the fact that Romney would be a slight drag on McCain in the South, how did he fare in primaries outside that region, which could give us some indication as to whether or not there is evidence to support Rev. McCoy's thesis that Romney is anathema to all Evangelicals?
Let's look at exit polls of "White Evangelicals" in non-Southern primary states, excluding Massachusetts, featuring Huckabee, McCain, and Romney in the race:
- In New Hampshire (where the exit poll did not delineate Evangelicals by race), McCain and Huckabee tied for 1st among Evangelicals at 28%, Romney was right behind with 27%.
- In Michigan (which gets an asterisk given Romney's roots), Romney won with 35% to Huckabee's 29% and McCain's 22%.
- In Florida, Romney and Huckabee tied for the win with 31%, McCain secured 28%.
- In California, Romney won with 37%, McCain was 2nd with 33%, and Huckabee scored 24%.
- In Connecticut, Romney won with 40%, McCain was next with 30%, and Huckabee earned 26%.
- In Illinois, McCain won with 36%, Romney and Huckabee tied for 2nd with 29%.
- In New Jersey, McCain again won with 43%, Romney got 31%, and Huckabee landed 23%.
- In New York, McCain led with 43%, to Romney's 29% and Huckabee's 27%.
Add it all up, and Romney routinely came in first or second among White Evangelicals in primaries outside the South, in the midst of a firmly competitive primary race. That contradicts Rev. McCoy's point of a broad anti-Romney exodus quite clearly. The fact McCain did rather well in most of those states among the same voters is probably worth considering too.
In the end, this whole topic is an irritant to movement conservatives who would just as soon welcome people like Romney into the fold, rather than wave the bloody shirt of lifelong ideological purity. Romney backer Kathryn Lopez recently said as much:
Mitt Romney -- is an example of someone who came to the wisdom of conservatism through practical experience. He saw its reasonableness in the face of liberal overreach. We should want to embrace such conversions. We should want to encourage people to get Right.Or we can fervently close the door to them and their contributions and fresh blood. What a good move for a movement that needs re-energization and recruits.
Wherever one stands on this issue, it seems clear it will be with the GOP for a while. Huckabee and Romney sure aren't going anywhere.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 30, 2008 09:13 PM | Email ThisBut lately I've been wondering if even with his relatively limited experience Bobby Jindal might be moving up more than expected; i.e.:
The comeback to (D) claims of inexperience is so obvious:
Jindal has a WHOLE bunch more practical and executive experience and especially a hugely better and successful track record than Obama; and if Jindal is not qualified to be VP, then Obama is ever so much more NOT qualified to be President. I don't think the (D)s want to try that one.
Also, Sarah Palin as the other ''hot'' (pun intended) pick for VP has perhaps faded a bit, given the ongoing flap over the firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner because he (allegedly) would not get rid of a state trooper who had gone through a bitter divorce with Palin's sister: The now ex-Commissioner claims Palin's husband and others in her administration improperly pressured him; Palin denies it; apparently still not settled (see adn.com).
Right now all I will bet on is that McCain's VP pick will NOT be Huckabee (easy bet); and will most likely NOT be any of Bloomberg, Crist, Lieberman, Ridge, Sanford, or Thune. I guess that leaves Jindal, Pawlenty, Portman, Romney, and (maybe) Palin (if her current troubles manage to heal themselves quickly).
Posted by: Methow Ken on July 30, 2008 10:30 PMActually, it reminds me of Clinton who changed his views with to line up with poll results -- not convincing!
Huckabee's the only one who can sway voters McCain's way. Romney is not someone who connects to "the people".
Posted by: liz on July 31, 2008 05:29 AMSorry, Tim, read your books- got them for about a buck each at Goodwill- and enjoyed them. After a bit, you and your fellow author seemed to be full of yourselves. I admit I did read the full series, but only to get to the ending.
Posted by: swatter on July 31, 2008 07:48 AM1. He tried to buy the election. While Huckabee had a net worth of less than a $1 Million when he started his campaign, Romney funded his by writing loans to himself to the tune of $80 Million (it could be less than that but that's not my point). While Huckabee had to struggle because of McCain's unconstitutional Campaign Finance law, Romney was able to spend his own money. It didn't seem very fair. Granted there is no problem with Romney using his own money but Mike should bave been able to collect as ,uch money from people as they wanted to give. In addition, With his stake in Bain Capitol, Romney bought off the chattering class. Therefore (with the exception of Neal Boortz) Huckabee was unfairly treated with much venom being spewed against him.
2. Mitt Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry. We believe that Mitt has more flip-flops on the important issues than the local pancake house. In other words, trust is not a word that can be used to describe Romney. On the other hand even if you disagree with him Muike Huckabee has stood firm on the issues and has not changed mmuch from 15 years ago and will not budge much 15 years from now.
3. We are sick and tired of the corrupt cronyism of the Republican establishment who have drifted very far away from conservatism and the leadership of Ronald Rwagan. the current establishment is corrupt and doesn't care about the people like Reagan did Romney gives us no reason to believe that heis any different. Until he had to Mitt never showed any compassion towards us and our economic plight during these tough times. When Rommney did transform suddenly (after New Hampshire) we knew it was a big lie. Huckabee on the other hand was the only candidate who understood the economic plight people in this country were facing and that it was only going to get worse (and it has).
4. Mitt Romney refused to even consider the FairTax. Therefore myself and many others refused to consider him for President.
Yes, there is a battle going on. However it has nothing to do with some imagined bias against Mormons by Evangelicals. This has to do about getting the REpublican Party back on track to conservatism and to caring about the American people, not just was is good for the GOP. Mitt Romney represents the establishment who won't do anything to fix this problem. Mike Huckabee represents a breath of fresh air that could turn into the tide back to Ronald Reagan so that the United States can once again be the "Shining light on the hill" However I don't blame the GOP's establishment for getting on the wrong track because they never liked Ronald Reagan to begin with. They were drug kicking and screaming but suddenly liked him when he swpt to victory in 1980. Once they could get rid of him they did and went back to corruption and cronyism.
This is not a battle of Christian sects this is a battle for the Republican party. And we will not back down (even if we face setbacks). the alternative is seeing our nation as we know it destroyed by the MoveON.org Socialists.
Posted by: Brian on July 31, 2008 08:22 AMWhat an excellent suggestion. I had forgotten about JC Watts. That would draw me to McCain because it certainly isn't going to be MCain himself.
Posted by: pbj on July 31, 2008 09:11 AMHuckabee dug his own hole. He didn't need help.
Posted by: swatter on July 31, 2008 10:26 AM
Argument 1. Campaign finance. We all agree that the limits on donations arguably restrict our free speech. But if Mike were allowed to collect without limits, so should all candidates. Romney still would have collected more. Even before he loaned his campaign money, had more contributors, raised more than any other candidate. He is a phenomenal fund raiser, something that is a necessary pain in elections, so if you are not good at it, you can't succeed. Those are the rules of the game. But don't feel bad; even though Huckabee could not gather the contributions that Romney did, he did a good job with the free media market, thereby making his money go further. But there is no need to make a man's wealth and success a bad thing. It just speaks to the man's ability to accomplish things, to succeed at whatever he attempts. By suggesting otherwise seems to be playing the victim card, that we should pity poor Huckabee because he is poor. I don't. And pity never gained a man the presidency.
Argument 2. Romney is no John Kerry. Romney is a rare person who gives so unselfishly of his time and money to good causes, works with those in all walks of life, has served without pay in his church leadership, doing the same job that Huckabee did his church for pay. He is devoted to his family and loves being with his children and grandchildren. I cannot conceive of Kerry sledding with his grandkids, or volunteering on a service project digging out a stump unless the press was watching.
Your guy may be consistent, but that is not necessarily a good thing to cling to issues in the face of new and different data. Romney only changed his view on the government involvement in abortion. Katherine Jean Lopez is right in this regard. Show us how you become more conservative and tell us why and we embrace it. Huckabee’s claims to standing firm just makes him look stubborn and hard headed.
Your guy is not without his own flip-flops. Huck’s most notable flip-flop on the Cuban trade embargo was pathetic in that he said the only difference now was that he was running for president, otherwise he would still be for lifting it. No one buys the flip-flop label on Romney for changing only one policy-- on abortion. There really are no other hard position changes.
Argument 3. What cronyism? If Romney’s administration were in the least corrupt, it would have been page one. Your guy would have made sure to expose any corruption. There wasn’t any. He is squeaky clean as many have called him. But not so much your guy, with all the ethics violations, gifts and 1000 pardons, clemencies, and commutations. I just can’t wrap my head around that number. 1000. It smells of corruption and payola. His explanations make no sense in explaining why a governor would risk the public safety of so many, disregard the jurors, and think that he knows better than all of them. The only explanation that made sense to me was that got more out of it than a simple thank you from a felon.
Argument 4. The FairTax will never pass. There are too many problems with it. It is not a flat tax which would be fairer. Romney was for a flatter, simpler tax, and to reform the system we have because it would be more easily accomplished in quick measure with this congress. He looks at what is practical, doable, and then he gets it done. I have no doubt his tax policy will be good for jobs and the economy.
Romney cares about conservatism and Republican ideals. He wants to strengthen marriage and families, the economy, and the military. He believes all that Huckabee believes about the goodness in our people. Only Romney has a proven record of fixing what is broken. He is competent, and a gifted leader. I have no doubt that he will breath new life into the GOP by governing like a Republican instead the bunch in office now that have not, including our president who was far too lax with the veto pen.
Romney doesn't do it for me. That Eric's a huge supporter makes it even more problematic; since as others have pointed out, McCain needs to get a conservative of the variety Eric routinely hammers around here.
The choice of Romney will do nothing for McCain, and most likely will do much to it, instead of for it... exactly like, IMO, the impact of choosing Huckabee.
Posted by: hinton on July 31, 2008 11:40 AMMan, it sure does take an ego to run for office, though.
Posted by: swatter on July 31, 2008 12:05 PMHear, Hear. I say choose neither of these guys, since it's obvious that both hurt the ticket in one way or the other. I don't think it's good politics to try and alienate any important constituents; we need to find someone everyone will be happy with. Moreover, I think a lot of the frustration comes because he is being "shoved down our throats," when we've clearly rejected him, as Dick Morris said recently.
Mitt ain't it, and choosing him would be a slap in the face to those of us that can't accept him.
Eric, I promise you, we who are skeptical of Romney would love to "welcome him into the fold." The problem is, he ran his campaign as if he was already in the fold; indeed, he treated the others as if he was the only one in the fold. This, after his governing was anything but "solid consertatism." This makes him appear dishonest and not genuine, two qualities that used to be important to Republicans. I think he needs to go back and prove himself a little more, and we can talk again in 2012.
And Swatter, keep dreaming. Romney modest? This is the same guy that personally insulted lifelong Republicans like John McCain and Bob Dole and said nary a word while playing negative attack ads, acting like he was the "True Conservative." This guy may not speak for himself a lot, but that doesn't make him modest.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on July 31, 2008 01:50 PMThe fact McCain has survived the DalaiBama victory lap and closed the gap speaks that there is a lot going on we don't know about and won't till after the election. I suspect the staid McCain has a strategy and will go along with it.
Why do you feel a need to have a handle that says "evangelical" on it? Do you speak for all or do you wish you did?
Posted by: swatter on July 31, 2008 02:30 PMMitt Romney is a Snake! A man who has principles and integrity would not be guilty of the duplicity and flip-flopping of Mitt Romney's ilk. He has danced around and changed repeatably on a number of subjects. He has stroked both sides of the issues of gay marriages, stem cell research, environment and abortion.
Weeks after taking office, the new governor led an army of staffers and activists to Salem, North of Boston, for a news conference outside a coal-fired power plant. He was there to demand that the plant draft a cleanup plan by the next year. The new governor said something that struck even the environmental activists as remarkable. "I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people," Romney said in a heated exchange. "And that plant - that plant kills people." Now, hows that for a responsible comment to support and fulfill our energy needs. He is for shutting down rather, than expanding our energy needs like off-shore Oil drilling and Nuclear power. Romney has also stated, he was terrified about global warming, a phenomenon he described as "quite alarming". Just, what we need for the VP slot to compliment McCain. Another, Easy Believer of Al Gore's tax raising, grow government, more regulations, Freedom stealing Scam. Let's face it.....He is just, another Phony liberal politician trying to play the role of a Conservative. Mitt Romney is a RINO at Best!
Posted by: Daniel on July 31, 2008 02:50 PMAlso, who are "my guys" that you will pick apart? My only guy is McCain. That is, unless he picks a liberal like Mitt Romney.
Disclaimer: I couldn't care less whether Mr. Romney is a Mormon or an atheist or Evangelical, etc. In fact, I'm surprised that so many Mormons are okay with him, since everything he's done and, supposedly, used to believe goes against the values they tend to have. Indeed, it would help the Party a great deal if he would explain to his fellow church members that people don't like him not because of his faith, but because of he himself.
Posted by: Lynnwood Non-Denominational Church Goer Guy on July 31, 2008 03:14 PMAchieve Energy Independence Through Innovation
Provide Presidential Leadership. Because energy
independence is crucial to our economy and our
national security, establish it as a top administration priority, and lead the U.S. to a future with affordable and secure energy.
Invest In Research. Dramatically increase federal spending on research, development, and demonstration projects that hold promise for diversifying our energy supply and increasing our energy efficiency, such as:
Basic research in key technologies like improved
energy storage
Bringing clean energy technology to market through commercialization of large-scale renewables and advanced nuclear technologies
Improved smart-grid technology for power distribution
Clean, efficient uses of existing fossil fuels, e.g.clean coal, coal-to-liquids, carbon sequestration
Increase Focus On Energy Security. Shift federal
priorities to emphasize issues of energy security,
particularly at the Department of Energy.
Promote Nuclear Technology. Accelerate construction of new nuclear power plants in order to ensure that nuclear power continues to be a part of a robust, cleaner, and reliable energy mix.
Increase Domestic Production. Pursue our domestic sources of energy, drawing from our broad and diverse base of options, including opening ANWR to oil and natural gas development.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "I want to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative - an Energy Revolution, if you will. It will be our generation's equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the Moon. This will be a mission to create new, economic sources of energy, clean energy. We will license our technology to other nations and of course we
will employ it here at home. It will be good for our national defense, it will be good for our foreign policy, it will be good for our economy." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The George Bush Presidential Library Center, 4/10/07)
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "This kind of energy independence
will also mean pursuing ample domestic sources of energy: more drilling offshore and in ANWR, nuclear power, renewable sources, ethanol, biodiesel, solar, wind, and full exploitation of coal - both solid and liquid." (Governor Mitt
Romney, Remarks At The George Bush Presidential Library Center, 4/10/07)
You can see that Romney was on the "Drill here. Drill now" bandwagon long before there was a bandwagon. I am satisfied that no other Republican candidate has as robust a plan for our energy security.
Posted by: Lori on August 1, 2008 10:33 AM