Did the “religious right’s” mistakes make McCain inevitable? Update: Tammy Bruce audio added
posted at 11:03 am on February 18, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
USA Today’s Daniel Gilgoff and Captain Ed both think so, and they posit the “Mormon issue” as an underlying driver. I think they’re both oversimplifying. The “Mormon issue” played a role, but I don’t think it was the most important role in why most evangelicals never really warmed to Mitt. I also think that they overstate the influence of evangelical leaders like Dr. James Dobson. Those leaders are influential, but not as influential as they or outsiders think they are.
I’ll use myself as an example of why. I’m an evangelical and I only came around to supporting Romney as the best alternative to McCain late in the game, after the Florida primary. The “Mormon issue” had nothing to do with it, though. The flipflop issue and the Fred issue had everything to do with it. For most other evangelicals, the Huckaboom also played a decisive role. Anyone who disagrees isn’t to be trusted as an analyst. I keed.
First, the flipflop issue. This was huge for me. As candidates for the presidency go, on paper Romney stood out for his broad experience with the Olympics, as a businessman and as a governor. He was easily the most qualified for the job. But the Mitt Romney of 1994 and 2002 didn’t sound much like the Mitt Romney of 2006-2007. Romney explained his changes of heart here and there, but they all added up to not knowing what he really believes. If he doesn’t know what he believes, how is a voter supposed to know what he believes? And if I can’t figure out what he really believes, I’ll have a hard time voting for him. I eventually came around to supporting Romney once I became convinced that Mitt 2.0 is where he’ll stay. Most evangelicals probably never got that far, though. They had Huckabee as a “Christian leader” in the race, and on social issues Huck was with them, so they went with him. They never heard about his record on immigration or his weaknesses on national security.
I’ll get to the Huckaboom in a minute, but before that happened there was the Fred factor. Fred’s emergence as a possibility in the race in early 2007 gave conservatives a place to put our hopes. Fred said and wrote all the right things. Fred took attention and time away from three things: The McCain collapse, Romney’s attempts to convince conservatives that he is one of us, and examination of Huckabee’s conservative bona fides. Those of us who didn’t yet trust Romney, didn’t want McCain, were worried about Giuliani and discounted Huckabee looked to Fred as the one real conservative in the race who could unite the conservative movement. But Fred fizzled. His campaign never really got off the ground. He ended up wasting time and sucking up space that Romney could have used to cast himself as Fred with a deeper resume.
Then came the Huckaboom. Evangelicals didn’t yet trust Romney, didn’t like Giuliani (who also ended up wasting the time of security conservatives), and didn’t want McCain, and along comes the witty Southern preacher/governor. Huckabee became the vessel for most evangelical enthusiasm just by being there. He didn’t have a record of flipflopping on core social issues. He didn’t have a record like Giuliani’s of opposing the GOP platform or of serial marriage. He didn’t have McCain’s record of maverick irascibility and calling social con leaders “agents of intolerance.” As long as Huckabee’s record didn’t get scrutinized too closely on national security, border security and economics, he was a viable candidate. The problem for Huck was that his appeal never broke out beyond the evangelicals and was never likely to.
By the time the Huckaboom was over, Fred was done and McCain was on the rise, having rebuilt and retooled after his campaign had fallen apart. McCain’s rise coincided with the time some conservatives started to take their third or fourth look at the alternatives and some began to settle on Romney as the Not McCain.
That was my trajectory. The “Mormon issue” played no role in my thinking at all. Dobson et al played no role for me. I’m sure all of that played a role in the thinking of some evangelicals, but it wasn’t as decisive as either Gilgoff or Capt Ed think. Fundamentally, all of the candidates have brought serious problems to the table. The “religious right” certainly isn’t to blame for that.
There is one thing left hanging that I think is worth noting, and that’s that McCain isn’t the worst candidate we could be stuck with at this point. He’s probably the third worst in terms of dividing the party against itself, but he’s not the worst. Giuliani and Huckabee both would have been worse, for reasons unique to them. Giuliani has just as much of a record of going against the party as McCain, plus he has immense personal baggage. Huckabee would have divided the social cons sharply against the economic cons and showed himself to be a lightweight on national security. So no matter how bad we think things are right now, I’m at least taking some solace in the fact that it could’ve been worse.
McCain still needs to fire Juan Hernandez, though.
Update: I’ll be on the Tammy Bruce Show this afternoon to talk about this post. It should be fun.
Update: Here’s the audio from my guest appearance on Tammy’s show today. Am I an “icon” now? I just might be.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »
Good read. And I think you speak for a good chunk of voters.
And that last line is just Item No. 1 on a pretty long list of what McCain needs to do I think.
Voidseeker on February 18, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Great post Bryan. As a Mav fan, I won’t be dillusional enough to sugguest that Mav won the primary as much as he “survived” it.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM
No way!
RUDY, was the MOST Qualified!
Chakra Hammer on February 18, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Things McCain MUST do to get my vote:
1 GET RID OF JUAN HERNANDEZ - Now and forever… and any likeness of him.
2. Come out against the Mirida Initiative
3. Come out against the current “behind closed doors” rewriting of the amnesty plan.
4. Appoint a conserative VP.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I don’t think Giuliani would have been more divisive for the party than McCain. He never seemed to enjoy poking the eye of the base as much as McCain does. The infuriating thing (for me) is not so much that McCain has some differing opinions — it’s that he loves wallowing in his morally superior maverickness.
Anton on February 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Bryan, is dividing the website by embedding Redlasso videos!
>:}
Chakra Hammer on February 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
4. Appoint a conserative VP.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Could you live with Lindsey Graham even though he and Mav both were down with the original immigration reform bill?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree. He can’t even control his personal life - he’s a wreck - how could he possibly run a country.
There was so much coming out about using police to transport Judy and you just know there was so much more. It wasn’t going to be pretty… I think that’s why he gave up without any fight.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 11:14 AM
In a thread a week ago about whether Bush was to blame for the Republicans fatal primary results I wrote about how Mike Huckabee was more to blame than anybody else. It’s not the religious right that’s at fault but rather those who claim to represent it in the media.
Evangelical Christians are good people, no doubt, but their desire to elect one of their own as president cost us more than they realized. McCain is a disaster already. And it’s mostly Huckabee’s fault.
HebrewToYou on February 18, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Broken record. Rudy was the most qualified to be Attorney General, not President of the USA. Adultery is hard to overcome.
HebrewToYou on February 18, 2008 at 11:16 AM
NOPE ! He’ll give Lindsey the Att. Gen’l.
I think we have to figure John McCain might not even live through his 1st term so we’re holding out hope that he’ll put in a REAL conservative VP.
I don’t think McCain has a snowball’s chance in Heell to win in November. The age thing is going to kill his chances.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Forgot to add…
I agree with your overall analyis of the Evangelical question. The “Fred distraction” was a huge issue in my local swath of very Christian-conservative Florida. The Mormon issue was also a surprisingly big deal to a few of my neighbors, but was by no means the majority opinion. The dominant mood was “With Fred tanking, where do we go?”
But the “Dobson et al overplayed his hand!” meme will be too delightful for the MSM to pass up.
Anton on February 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Lindsay Graham is a non-starter with me. Putting him on the ticket after his La Raza “bigots” comment makes it doubly hard and nearly impossible to vote for McCain.
Bryan on February 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Letter From a Banana Republican - The McCain Heresy
Read that
Register if you would like to leave a comment.
Chakra Hammer on February 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Amen, amen, amen.
It’s just another illustration of McCain sticking his finger in the eyes of the conservatives.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Johnny Mac was five down my ‘list’. Just above the ‘never will vote for’ fellas. I’m not a conspiracy type. The ’stalking horse’, I believe, is a strawman. We just shot ourselves in the foot. The early campaign season caught the bulk of the party looking the other way. Doesn’t matter. We are stuck with McCain. Howard Dean must be thrilled.
Limerick on February 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM
As an evangelical, I would say it had nothing to with Mitt’s religion. I think people didn’t know him and what they did see wasn’t very warming.
terryannonline on February 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Bryan on February 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I know it’s difficult to strike the immigration stance, but for debate’s sake, how does his conservative record stack up without the immigration platform? From what I’ve seen, he walks and talks like one.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Thanks Bryan. I would echo many of the things you say here, as an evangelical myself. The “Mormon issue”, and people like Dobson et. al. never had much sway for me at all. It was, like you say, Romney’s flip flopping, and hoping that Fred would be a better candidate than he ended up being. Huckabee never had any appeal to me either.
Plus, Romney always came across as somewhat plastic to me. No real emotion. This changed when I watched his speech at CPAC, where he was full of conviction and emotion about the welfare of the party, and the nation. I ended up with much more respect for him after that.
I broke for Romney about a week before my ballot was due to be sent in. It was either McCain, or Romney. And, McCain has that pesky Juan Hernandez/Amnesty problem. So, Romney it was.
I also think you’re right - it could have been worse…in fact, it still could get worse (Huck as VP?).
nailinmyeye on February 18, 2008 at 11:23 AM
You nailed it Bryan. I am a Conservative Christian that works at a Christian radio network. We were continually having discussions around the office how we wanted to take the best traits of two or three of the candidates and combine them into one. For the reasons you outline above, we just didn’t have a strong,
conservative to choose from!
By the time I got to vote here in Arizona, I too had come around to Romney after struggling with his flip-floppiness. My vote here wasn’t enough :-)
I will NOT sit out the general. As flawed as McCain is, he is better than Obama or Clinton. Of course, McCain will carry Arizona with or without me (again).
Ordinary1 on February 18, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Should used preview :-) Here it is again:
You nailed it Bryan. I am a Conservative Christian that works at a Christian radio network. We were continually having discussions around the office how we wanted to take the best traits of two or three of the candidates and combine them into one. For the reasons you outline above, we just didn’t have a strong, consistent, all-around conservative to choose from!
By the time I got to vote here in Arizona, I too had come around to Romney after struggling with his flip-floppiness. My vote here wasn’t enough :-)
I will NOT sit out the general. As flawed as McCain is, he is better than Obama or Clinton. Of course, McCain will carry Arizona with or without me (again).
Ordinary1 on February 18, 2008 at 11:24 AM
McCain’s record on immigration is atrocious. He neither walks nor talks like a conservative on that issue, and hasn’t yet given conservatives any reason to trust him. Juan Hernandez, who chose dual citizenship and is an agent of influence for the Mexican government (that’s not a smear, just a fact) is still hovering around the McCain campaign, and McCain said after South Carolina that he hadn’t changed his position. That position had him sponsoring McCain-Kennedy, which was awful legislation hatched and pushed in back room deals against the stated wishes of the majority of the country.
McCain walks and talks like a conservative on Iraq and on fiscal restraint, but not at all on immigration. Not. At. All.
Bryan on February 18, 2008 at 11:26 AM
“The best is the enemy of the good.”- Voltaire.
Romney looked presidential, had the energy, the results, and the resources.
Playing pattycake with Hail Mary Rudy and sleepytime Fred distracted too many until it was too late.
Rudy’s one state gambit seemed simplistically stupid. (Yup.)
And I gave up on Fred! at around June, when his “maybe yes” routine got to be annoying.
And was confirmed when he wouldn’t give his all for the effort.
(Or, if that was his all, then we’re all better off.)
Mitt as VP would make a McCain run semi-tolerable.
But the Mav will probably pick some unknown, useless, broke sycophant.
Anchors aweigh…?
profitsbeard on February 18, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Bryan on February 18, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Me bad. I was referring to Graham.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I don’t think Giuliani ever played a factor, to be honest. Ron Paul was bigger than he.
Regardless, this is why I come here. Thanks for the analysis, Bryan.
amkun on February 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Before his loss in the 2000 Primary or after when he went anti-GOP nuts?
Voidseeker on February 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Voidseeker on February 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Me bad part II. I was referring to Lindsey Graham for VP.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Graham’s record on immigration is right on line with McCain, with the added bonus that Graham explicitly cast pro-enforcement types as “bigots” to a La Raza audience. If anyone in this discussion is a bigot, it’s people who fly a banner that literally means “The Race,” not people who just want existing law enforced.
McCain is bad on immigration, and Graham is at least as as bad as he is.
Bryan on February 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Great analysis Brian…my own political journey this election season strongly resembles your own.
Tim on February 18, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Bryan, you absolutely nailed the path I followed to my vote for Romney on Super Thursday, out here in Cali. I’m still not sorry my vote was “wasted.” Reagan lost to Ford in ‘76. After seeing Mitt at CPAC, I’m looking forward to 2012. After four years of Obama or the Clantons, maybe America will be ready for a real conservative.
sondiehl on February 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM
You sum up my thoughts at this point too, Bryan.
I think in a way we started too late. Too bad we hadn’t searched and generally agreed on at least one movement candidate before the primaries started.
And if none exist for the next round, now seems a good time to start working on it.
petefrt on February 18, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I know about immigration when it comes to Mav and Graham. My question is about Graham conservative record without the immigration platform. I know that is hard to put on the back burner. I used to live in Charleston, SC and when I lived there Graham walked on water. After visiting a couple of times after amnesty(debatable) his name was mudd with a lot of locals. My question: How is Lindsey Graham’s overall conservative record minus immigration reform? Seems to me he walks and talks like one. Sorry for the confusion.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Mormons are probably the most politically conservative voting bloc in the nation, so any Pub who *did* count that against Romney needs to start rethinking how they evaluate candidates.
locke on February 18, 2008 at 11:37 AM
If McCain can win the general, then we the people are gonna have to stay on top of the immigration issue. If we have to shut down Washington, D.C.s entire phone grid every week, so be it.
Come to think of it, same applies no matter who is in the White House next year.
Ordinary1 on February 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I just can’t see this sudden ‘ok I’ll hold my nose and pull the lever’ crowd sticking together. After the nomination McCain will move back left of center. The party elite just do not understand how important the immigation issue is for us ‘bigots’. Graham, or Huck as VP would only reinforce that. Pretending Graham isn’t going to be a cheap-labor-at-any-cost VP is ridiculous.
Limerick on February 18, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Graham afaik is good on the war in Iraq. He’s a total non-starter as VP though. He won’t bring conservatives to McCain because they’re both terrible on a signature issue and Graham has gone farther than McCain in insulting security-minded voters. McCain just shouldn’t go there if he wants the base to have any enthusiasm for him. There are better choices out there. That’s my opinion.
Bryan on February 18, 2008 at 11:42 AM
We’ll never know how much of a role anti-Mormonism played; no one seems very eager to admit it affected their vote. I have a hard time believing it didn’t play a significant, if not decisive, role. It’s not just the evangelicals, either. Non-Christians and and Christians of other denominations can be just as antagonistic towards the Mormon faith.
This isn’t the last time Mitt will run, so we haven’t seen the last of the Mormon issue.
RightOFLeft on February 18, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I’m getting a bit sick of obsessing over the illegal alien problem. Yes, it’s a problem. Yes, it’s irritating. No, I don’t like the idea of amnesty. However, we’re still at war in two different countries. Winning those wars should be the highest priority of every voter in this country, particularly conservatives. Failure in either theater will do more to weaken this nation against the Islamist threat than ten thousand extra miles of porous border.
Those who are willing to sacrifice victory overseas in favor of, at best, a second-rate issue like illegal immigration (particularly considering the Democrat alternatives are clearly no better, and probably worse, than McCain) need to get their priorities straight. It’s the war, stupid.
Blacklake on February 18, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Can you really separate the two, though? Hypothetically, I guess, but even were he a saint or Jesus Christ reborn, with Graham on the ticket (and thus the presumptive nominee in 2012/16), McCain would be very hard to swallow.
amkun on February 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM
We just had a crappy crop of candidates. It’s as simple as that. Every one of them had a fatal flaw. Not just a “he’s human” flaw–a big, icky, almost-impossible-to-overcome flaw. Some had more than one.
We need to be careful not to run the same batch of losers in 2012.
aero on February 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Mav has said he got the message loud and clear. Close the border first. Can’t we all give a guy a break if he comes clean and says he made a mistake? If he were unrepintant(sp?) that would be one thing, however when he seeks forgiveness on a policy matter and has a track record of being firm once he adopts a platform, shouldn’t we give the guy a little wiggle room?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 11:49 AM
And today there are reports of LEPROSY outbreaks from illegals swarming in from the south. How much worse will this get before there is a revolution to take back OUR COUNTRY ???
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I agree with you completely. If Huckabee had never taken off, then Fred or Mitt would be our candidate. I am a conservative Christian myself, but I am so disgusted with the Huckabee supporters who blindly followed the man without ever looking into his record or his past in Arkansas. They assumed he was a conservative because he talked about God all the time. He is not a conservative, but he took a big chunk of the conservative vote away from the other more conservative candidates. It saddens me greatly that all someone has to do to earn their votes is to quote Bible verses. Didn’t anyone learn from Jimmy Carter’s presidency? Huckabee and Carter are in the same league.
I am not happy that John McCain is our guy, but I will vote for him because the dems are so much worse. It still breaks me heart though that we had a chance at a President Fred, and we got stuck with the mess that we have now. Romney was my second choice, after Fred. Huckabee was last on my list, excluding Paul.
I really resent how Huckabee used churches for political gain. And I also resent that the pastors and church members did not do their homework at all. While I do think Huckabees supporters are good people, I do not think Huckabee is a good man at all. He has never admitted his changes of heart. He still says that he has always been a conservative, even though he governed as a liberal in Arkansas. (At least Romney could admit that he was wrong in the past). Huckabee played dirty tricks with his campaign (negative push polls and flyers with outright lies in them). He said ugly things about flagpoles and letting air out of people’s tires, that I find very un-Christian. I think he is a shyster who cares only about his political ambition. And he used a lot of nice people who just didn’t bother to do the research.
squeek71 on February 18, 2008 at 11:50 AM
a second-rate issue
Blacklake on February 18, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Careful, bro. Your behind enemy lines here with that one. They’ll skewer you for sure.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Two words: JUAN HERNANDEZ.
He is lying that “he got the message” and then consults with Juan Hernandez.
Sorry, ain’t buying it. I truly would rather have Obama or Hillary in the WH than have McCain there constantly “sticking it to us conservatives” time after time after time. He MUST get rid of Hernandez before I will vote for him.
And a TRUE CONSERVATIVE must be on the ticket. (NO, NOT LINDSEY NO, NOT RUDY, NO, NOT JOE LIEBERMAN, NO, NOT HICKAPEE)
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Call me crazy, but since Graham and Mav are tied at the hip, if it is a Mav/Graham ticket I can see Mav only running one term and handing over the reigns to his protege’.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Unfair though it might be, I think that there’s no question that the “Mormon issue” hurt Romney- however we’ll never really know to what extent.
Don’t confuse political junkies like bloggers and their readers with the common voter. Most of us have paid far more attention to the race and know a lot more about each of the candidates than the average voter who hasn’t watched the debates, hasn’t consulted the Internet and blogs and bases their vote on TV ads and MSM accounts more than anything else.
Hollowpoint on February 18, 2008 at 11:54 AM
There’s what you say and then there’s what you do, and McCain still has Juan Hernandez on his campaign staff. McCain has also said different things to different people, on the one hand saying he gets the message but on the other hand saying that he hasn’t changed his position. We’ve had posts about all of that here, as you well know because you’re here shilling for McCain every day. The bottom line is he hasn’t earned any credibility yet. People can say anything. McCain needs to demonstrate that he gets it with concrete action and knock off the double-talk.
Bryan on February 18, 2008 at 11:55 AM
And a TRUE CONSERVATIVE must be on the ticket. (NO, NOT LINDSEY NO, NOT RUDY, NO, NOT JOE LIEBERMAN, NO, NOT HICKAPEE)
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Are you talking like Orin Hatch conservative?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 11:55 AM
You’re basing your reasoning on the thinking that social conservatives are actually conservative. I’m not so sure - I’m willing to say that many of them are just new age liberals who don’t like abortion.
Like Mike.
amkun on February 18, 2008 at 11:55 AM
You can’t separate the two that neatly. The illegal immigration issue is directly tied to the WOT. McCain is inconsistent in his position because pandering to illegals involves a large bloc of identity voters. He doesn’t mind putting us all at risk, for his election ambitions.
a capella on February 18, 2008 at 11:56 AM
IF McCAIN MEANS TO CLOSE THE BORDER- why not have a news conference NOW and OPENLY request that Pres. Bush enforce the current laws, spend the money, and BUILD THE DAMN FENCE NOW!!!
Ex-tex on February 18, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Bryan on February 18, 2008 at 11:55 AM
It’s a shame that you and I probably agree on more issues than not, however amnesty(debatable) divides us like oil and water. I only shill for Mav cause Romeny is a fraud, Fred doesn’t care, Huck’s working from the pulpit, Paul is literally crazy, and Rudy was a paper tiger. I want to win, so in the end we all don’t have the values we hold dear thrown in the garbage by the dems. If I have offended anyone with my support of a non retreat moderate, sorry.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Yes, the religious right made mistakes that led to McCain. Once the Huckaboom began, the evangelicals’ leverage with Rudy, and mormon Mitt, was particularly strong. But it was never used. Why? The silly belief that Huckabee was something he isn’t. A Republican messiah is no more attractive than a democrat one.
JiangxiDad on February 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM
This is how I see it. HOW STUPID ARE WE to be wasting billions and billions and billions of dollars and untold cost of our brightest and best lives in Iraq when we are allowing terrorist to pour into our country through Mexico and YES - THEY ARE COMING IN.
It is insane. To me, the Mexican border is the most important issue. The aliens are wrecking -COMPLETELY WRECKING - our hospitals, our schools, our health.
So, you may think it is obsessing but to me it is the most important issue to this country since REagan granted amnesty. When you no longer have an emergency room withing 100 miles of your home… tell me how unimportant it is.
I know first hand what this is doing to our healthcare system… it ain’t pretty. And just wait until the Democrats give them all full Social Security rights and take them from anyone who has a 401K. Think it won’t happen? Think again.
As far as the war. I sure hope we win it but even Bush admitted that he “made mistakes” for the first 6 years of the war. Ooops, sorry about that. Tell that to the families of the 3000 precious lives that were taken. I’m about over it with Mr. Bush and the war. I truly hope it works out but I’m also fearful that we’ll turn over a somewhat calm Iraq to a totally screwed up government over there. Then what are we going to do? Go back in?
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 12:04 PM
It is more than “irritating”, that is the problem. No offense, but the uninformed think that it is irritating. And the informed tie it to; security, budget, education, health care, commerce, about every sector of our life and government (notice I put security first). There is nothing more important, long term, than immigration.
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Yeah, it was a big deal to the Christians I spoke with, and will remain so, I expect.
It’s not a “little” wiggle room we’re talking about. It’s more like taking your marriage partner back after the fifth affair, on the basis of “I got the message loud and clear” this time.
TexasDan on February 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM
California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Texas. The states most at risk of a ‘Kosovo’ event. And of those Texas, my state is the MOST at risk…
Texas is the ONLY state in the Union that was admitted by treaty and not by annexation. As part of that treaty between the Republic of Texas and the United States of America is a provision that Texas may, at it’s discretion, and without the ratification of the other States, split into three states anytime it feels like it. As the demographics change, as the illegal population continues across that open border, someone is going make a run at that provision in the treaty. Alarmist? Fine…..call me paranoid. I’ll be dead before it happens, but without controlling immigration and the border, it IS gonna happen.
Limerick on February 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I disagree the mormon thing did have legs. If you check where mitt did well and did poorly it was in states where Mormons were prevant vs states where mormons are not well received.
I know lots of evangelicals dont mind Mitt’s mormonism. But for some it was important. Just like the 15% rule people tend to say they would vote for someone even though they never would.
Just because SOME evangelicals dont mind mormonism doesnt mean others will let it slide.
William Amos on February 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM
McCain’s early collapse was his secret to success. Conservative talk and blogs focused their ire on Guillani, and virtually ignored McCain. It takes a while for memes from talk radio and blogs to work their way to the general electorate, and endorsing someone 3 days before an election means nothing.
Clark1 on February 18, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Will add some thoughts. Does anyone think Huck’s religeous veiws would have played as well if there wasnt a Mormon on the stage ? Just as we watched Hillary push women into being for her and Obama push men Huck made the religeous push. Against McCain or Fred isnt that big a deal as against Guiliani or Mitt. If you create a one side of a polarization (Ie identy politics based on a single issue) it identifies the “enemy” on the other side.
For example if you want women to back you its because women feel alienated by the threat of a white or black male being president. If you want to be the evangelical candidate it stands to reason that a non evangelical would be your primary foe to get evangelicals fired up.
Again render everything down to a simple single Identity.
McCain = Warhero
Rudy = 911 Mayor
Fred = Actor
Huck = Preacher
Mitt = Mormon
As proof of this was an AP News poll that asked everyone to discribe the candidates.
They said “McCain it a warhero and good guy but old”
They said “Obama is black and inexperienced”
And about Mitt “He’s a mormon”
That is all many Americans knew about Mitt.
William Amos on February 18, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Hatch strikes me as a pure conservative… haven’t given it much thought recently.
I can see it now
McCain/Hatch the BUCKET TICKET.
McCain’s age is going to be a major factor in this campaign and the advantage will go to Obama. If you can’t see that, you are blind.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 12:31 PM
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Good plan, but I’m not holding my breath.
oldleprechaun on February 18, 2008 at 12:35 PM
The elder Bush said even former President Ronald Reagan, an icon of the conservative movement, faced attacks from the right wing of the party, citing several quotations from diaries written by Reagan in his early years in office.
One lambasted Reagan for “betrayal of the conservative cause” and another, in the “Conservative Digest,” accused Reagan of being a “kind of turncoat conservative.”
Snippits from Bush I endorsiing McCain. Read if you dare.
Don’t forget now RR signed a huge amnesty bill and appointed two moderates to the court. Where ya at?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 12:35 PM
I was joking.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 12:36 PM
You are correct in that some of his support probably did come from the so-called “Christian left.” But, here in the south anyway, most Christians are conservative on more than one issue. I come from a Christian family, and I don’t know of even one friend or relative who supported Huckabee. But, my family is also very politically active, in the sense of truly doing some research on the candidates. Huckabee probably does attract those who are only republican because of the life issue and liberal on everything else. But, I don’t believe that the majority of his supporters fall into that category. I think most of them just didn’t know any better. I had one aunt who considered supporting him, and when my uncle told her all about his past positions, she was aghast. I really do believe that many supported him for no other reason than their pastor told them to. Yes, some of those might love his positions across the board, but many, IMO, would not support someone who was pro-amnesty, soft on crime, etc., if they knew the facts. Unfortunately, a lot of those folks just listen to Christian talk radio instead of more potical shows that would give them a broader perspective on the candidates besides how they feel about abortion.
squeek71 on February 18, 2008 at 12:36 PM
He also thought the borders would be enforced, as was part of the plan. They were not.
I remember when this happened. People were VERY upset but he assured us that this would be a one-time amnesty. There would be no need of another because the borders would be secured and employers would not be allowed to hire illegals (remember the I-9 forms?).
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Ditto here. I’m also a Christian evangelical, and hearing audio flip flops on abortion really convinced me to distrust Mitt. I never knew where Mitt really stood and believed on the fundamentals. But I later supported Mitt out of my dislike for both Huckabee and McCain.
Ditto here. I disagree with Mormon theology, but I was interested in looking at Mitt as president, not as my local pastor.
Agreed. That is why I am sitting home in November.
The fact that McCain still has “Open Borders” Juan Hernandez on his staff speaks volumes of McCain’s very poor record on border security, etc. I would not be surprised if this guy was later discovered to be on McCain’s staff.
ColtsFan on February 18, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Ditto that. My father is a Baptist minister - he thinks Huck is a complete phoney. My family supported Mitt. (after Fred).
My Dad said “as long as his religion doesn’t want to destroy our country or Christians, I don’t care what his religion is.”
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Nice try, but no.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Look, it’s not exactly theoretical physics.
With McCain, you:
A) Don’t get the border security you want, but
B) Continue to fight the battles overseas, keeping the jihadis tied up there.
With either of the Dems, you:
A) Don’t get the border security you want, and
B) Lose the battles overseas, emboldening the Jihadis and freeing them up to exploit (amongst other things) the lack of border security.
Either way, no matter what you think or feel, you are not going to get the border security you want. Considering that, no matter what, you are not going to get the border security you want, why is throwing tantrums at the expense of losing the wars preferable to voting in a way that minimizes the odds of the most disastrous possible outcomes?
Those on the right who refuse to help McCain take the White House, no matter how bitter a pill, are essentially proclaiming that they will accept a repeat of 9/11/01, or worse, and possibly more than one of them. Are there people who honestly consider that an acceptable price to pay for the self-indulgence of proclaiming one’s “principles”? Worse, if your “principles” are such that thousands of Americans murdered in our streets in the name of Allah is acceptable to you, what kind of principles are they in the first place?
Blacklake on February 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM
I’m with Bryan, many are overstating the “Mormon Issue.” I fully believe if Romney had been governor of Utah rather than Taxachusetts he would be our nominee because he would have started the presidential campaign with a real record of conservatism. Sure some evangelicals were suspicious of his Mormonism, but it was his long history of heterodox rhetoric that made him an anathema.
flyfisher on February 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Ditto again. My family is full of Southern Baptist pastors, deacons, and Sunday School teachers. Not one supported Huckabee. Most supported Fred, then Romney.
flyfisher on February 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Ain’t biting. Throw all that 9/11 crap out the window. 9/11 occurred while the borders were open and enforcement was nill. Fighting the terrorists is wonderful. I agree with it 100%, here, there, everywhere. Those who are for leaving the border open and the laws unenforced, are just a responsible for the ‘next 9/11′.
Limerick on February 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Unfortunately, I think it might take something serious like this to wake people up.
McCain isn’t as tough on terror as you think. He wants to close GITMO and also use Fisher-Price interrogation tactics on terrorists. That doesn’t make me feel much safer.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Right on!
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I agree. The 9/11 terrorists were illegals. And the
Fort Dix terrorists were also here illegally.
ColtsFan on February 18, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Yes it’s the war — how many terrorists have entered the country via our super-secure southern border?
Spitfire9 on February 18, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Daniel Gilgoff hits the nail on the head.
Sorry Bryan but a blind man could see that the only reason that the evangelicals werent warming up to Mitt Romney was because of their insecurities and their religious tolerance.
You could tell about 1 - 2 weeks after Fred Thompson announced that he wasnt into it and he was a bust.
Anybody who can read or listen to any knolwedgable pundits pointed out months and months ago Huckabee’s liberal positions on every single policital issue that is not a social issue.
Most of you evangelicals started supporting Mitt when you saw there was NOWHERE else to go but by then you guys had made the devil (that would be Huckabee) stronger and you sold your soul.
I supported G W Bush twice and it never ever ever ever ever bothered me that he is an evangelical….I guess I am secure in my religious beliefs. I am sorry you all cant say the same about your evangelicalism.
Roger Waters on February 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM
As a Conservative Baptist, I can agree with Bryan. Romney’s religion didn’t affect my opinion of him at all. Fred with the big determining factor. However I have talked to a lot of evangelicals who apparently didn’t know anything about Huckabuck who thought he was the Messiah because he had once been a preacher. They didn’t bother to investigate what type of Baptist preacher he was (liberal) or his record as Governor or any of his platform. I’m afraid there are a lot of evangelicals in this country that are morons who don’t ask any question deeper than whether or not he opposes abortion. We have to somehow get the religious right to use their brains once in a while. I don’t care if a candidate is a Christian Science,Jehovah Witness,Mormon,7th Day Adventist, as long as he is a conservative on all the issues. That’s what will get my vote.
flytier on February 18, 2008 at 1:06 PM
It can’t really add much to any religious influence in selecting the nominee, perhaps it was there or not, I live in CA and there is only one thought process echoing throughout the state. Like the Borg, we adhere to the gods of liberalism. There is little room for any other opinion. I’m glad blogs are text base so I can escape the Borg, at least for a little while.
Weebork on February 18, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Bryan’s comments just prove the thesis correct. Bryan state that Rudy would have been worse because of “serial marriage” and “he has immense personal baggage.”
The real reason that people like Bryan and Laura Ingraham and even Rush would not come out in support of Rudy is abortion; and you would think that at this stage of the game, they would be honest about it. There are some folks, Bryan obviously being one, that believe there is a litmus test on abortion for any Repub candidate. This, by the way was never something that was envisioned 1n 1980 when Pres Reagan was nominated; in fact the party made it very clear that there was never to be a litmus test on this.
Rudy’s positions on immigration, on taxes, on water-boarding etc, certainly on the Islamist threat and on free market economics are all at least as good and most are better that McCain’s. And if Rudy would have lied like Mitt did and then did an about face on abortion like Mitt did, then my guess is the story would have been different.
Those folks that want a dogmatic position on abortion just would not accept Rudy. And it is ironic that the real issue on abortion, that is reducing them, is on Rudy’s side. There would have been fewer abortions witha Rudy presidency because he would be focusing on it. So frankly, if you are opposed to abortion and would not accept Rudy because of his position, the moral argument is against you: Your views get us more abortions.
georgealbert on February 18, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Rudy would have been far better than McCain, even WITH his baggage. More conservatives would rally around Guiliani than will rally around McCain (although more of you will be doing the latter once you’re faced with the possibility of a leftist-socialist paradise under Obama), and Rudy would be a tougher opponent for Hillary or Obama.
Vyce on February 18, 2008 at 1:11 PM
But seriously, perhaps we are just living in one of those times when a mediocre nominee is selected. The primary process is very dynamic and spontaneous, not pre-determined. Every once in awhile a Reagan is bound to show up, but that also means that every so often we’re going to get someone who is not so desirable (and I’m not even talking about the Democratic primaries). Such is life.
This doesn’t mean that I’ve thrown in the towel and despite my objections to Sen McCain I’m just going to give my support to him. Sen McCain needs to demonstrate the qualities that I think would show he is qualified for the Oval Office.
Weebork on February 18, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Agreed. I think a main reason why many Christian evangelicals like us and Bryan could easily support a Mormon like Mitt Romney for President is because we all know the Bible teaches the “2 Kingdom view.”
Concerning GOP candidates, we want a president to govern and lead our nation. We are not looking for a pastor, but a president.
If Mitt was running for president of a Bible College or a local pastor, then I would respectfully disagree with him, and cast my “nay” ballot. But he wasn’t.
Agreed.
Ditto.
But I know a lot of evangelicals who work 2 jobs. They simply don’t have the time to do all the research necessary to uncover the Huckabee liberal train wreck.
Just my .02.
ColtsFan on February 18, 2008 at 1:21 PM
I put the blame on the Republican establishment class. Apparently McCain’s name dropping did more for him than anything else. McCain won Florida due to McCain’s lies and the governor throwing his support at the last minute.
We need to get a hold of the process if there is any hope for a conservative President. A couple of ideas I have:
1. Let the red states vote first, the more red the more in the front of the line.
2. A fee to register to vote in the primaries…the general is a right, but the primaries is solely a process vote for the parties.
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I forgot to add, the fees goes to the winner to use in the general election.
Conservative Voice on February 18, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Everybody loves to trash the “evangelicals” the bottom line is that it is the GOP’s fault for fielding such a weak, divisive roster of potential POTUS. Frankly the GOP has become indistinguishable from it’s opposition. Both will do anything to get/keep a seat at the table of power.
The real question that must be asked now is whether there is a difference between McVain or Obambi due to both being subsidized by SOROS.
America1st on February 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Another good article about the 2 Kingdom view taught in the Bible.
The above attempts to lay a well-reasoned theological foundation that I find is compelling enough to vote against a Mike Huckabee, and to vote in favor of a Mitt, assuming he was still in the race.
My fellow evangelicals: we are electing a president, not a pastor.
ColtsFan on February 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I’m hardly the typical person here, but I’ll admit that Mitt’s Mormonism was an obstacle to my voting for him. And in my conversations with my fundamentalist Baptists relatives in North Carolina, I learned that they too were reluctant to vote for Mormon and though I’m an atheist our reasons weren’t all that different. We consider Mormonism to be a lunatic cult. Furthermore, moonbat leftists also consider Mitt’s Mormonism to be beyond the pale while someway Harry Reid’s isn’t. Apparently, their “logic” goes that Harry isn’t serious about his Mormonism since he’s a Democrat; and their “logic” resists all efforts of mine to explain how Harry Reid is a serious Mormon. I strongly suspect that the moonbats would have successfully played the anti-Mormon card in the general election and would have ignored any pleas by Reid to stop.
This does bring up the issue whether it is ok to discriminate on the basis in voting. I hold that the answer is YES! I certainly hope no one here would turn a blind eye towards a muslim presidential candidate’s religion. The only reason I could possible imagine voting for a muslim is if the muslim is extremely strong on separation of church and state and mosque and state. Such a muslim would wake up in the morning with fantasies of being Ataturk and would be willing to attack muslim countries if we are attacked. Otherwise, no dice. And no Scientologist would ever get my vote.
thuja on February 18, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I would like to know what power you possess to know the heart of every evangelical. As a Christian, I did not support Romney initially because of the mandatory health care he passed in Mass. I never supported the Huckster. When it came down to the three, I was moving to Romney because of two liberals that were left (Huck and Mccain). However, my state (WV) GOP did not allow the voters to vote.
I find it interesting that Libertarians are so critical of pro-life people (Christians and non-Christians), yet want us to fall in line when the time comes. Let’s see, I don’t complain when the current President appoints more gay and lesbian people to positions than any other President in history. I could not care less what people want to do in their bedrooms, but because I believe that an unborn child is a person and should be protected, my opinion doesn’t count. The GWOT is important, but if we leave the back door open, we really aren’t protecting the country. Rudy’s failed marriages don’t put me off because of what I believe as a Christian, it puts me off because he makes bad decisions and has trouble keeping commitments. I won’t vote for Mccain. If the Libertarians want the Republican party, they can have it.
jeffNWV on February 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM
The difference, as I see it, is that Muslims outwardly proclaim that “non-believers (Christians, most Americans) must be destroyed.” I think they mean it.
To my knowledge, Mormans have no jihad against Christians or Americans.
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I enjoyed listening to the audio.
The philosophical foundation for many of Tammy’s and Bryan’s excellent points regarding “goverment ensnarement” and “government charity” contributing to the eventual decline of private sector efforts are found at this conservative website.
ColtsFan on February 18, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Another comment about Mormonism. Mitt Romney has governed and as far as I know, his religion has never interfered with his governing. Does anyone know of any instance of anyone complaining that because he was Mormoan he did this or that?
stenwin77 on February 18, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Obviously, Mitt’s membership in the Mormon Church was an issue for some and not for others, as is Huckabee’s Baptist membership.
Mormons tend, as noted above, to vote conservatively, but have a history of supporting clear separation of Church and State, and in voting for the man rather than the religion or even the party. Utah’s fourth governor after obtaining statehood, Simon Bamberger, was Jewish, and of the 16 governors since statehood, 6 have been Democrats.
EyeSurgeon on February 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Huh? JeffNWV, are you trying to claim that most — heck, ANY! — libertarians support John McCain?
HebrewToYou on February 18, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Bryan stated that Mav kicks conservatives in the teeth. It’s similar to sticking his thumb in the eyes of conservatives statement that has made its way into the mainstream media. Why can’t “true conservatives” understand that when someone disagrees with you that they are not inciting anyone. It simply is a different opinion. I guess if you don’t go lock and step with the party platform that you are simply mean and rotten.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 18, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Bryan,
I agree with 99% of what you are saying, but in Huckabee’s case, I believe his support for the Fair Tax was a boost for him, at least here in Georgia.
Many of my fellow Fair Tax supporters voted for Huckabee, even though they had some issues with the man.
Dave R. on February 18, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Entertaining audio, but is it just me or does Tammy always sound like she’s about to cry or something?
Good points, all, except for the Mormonism thing. I don’t understand how people can think it’s a cult. Even people who hate Christianity somehow find it offensive that Mormons believe Jesus was born in the US, but does it really matter?
amkun on February 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM
It wasn’t Huckabee’s Baptist Membership that was the issue. It was that he wasn’t a conservative and he was barely a Republican. His popularity was maintained solely through the promotion of his faith and the constant reminders of his piety.
The anti-Mormon rhetoric that spewed forth from Huckabee and his supporters was directed entirely at the details of the religion, not at Romney’s use of his religion in the campaign. That’s the difference. Anti-Romney forces attacked the religion and not the man. Anti-Huckabee forces attacked the man and not the religion.
HebrewToYou on February 18, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »