Prominent evangelical conservatives are making Mitt Romney noises.
Mark DeMoss has circulated a letter urging support for Romney. Robert Taylor, Dean of Arts and Sciences at Bob Jones, has endorsed Romney. So has Chancellor Bob Jones. Without endorsing Romney, James Dobson has explained that he believes Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson are unacceptable candidates (and Brownback is dropping out this weekend). The upshot is that evangelical conservatives are getting pretty worried about Giuliani and there’s a real chance they’ll settle on Mitt Romney as their alternative.
This weekend every Presidential candidate will be speaking at some kind of big Evangelical conference in D.C., the Family America Values Conference or something like that. The conference holds a straw poll. You can vote in it for a $1.00 donation. The press will be watching the poll closely to see if evangelical conservatives are settling around an alternative to Giuliani. If you’re a Mitthead–or an anti-Mitthead–or if you want pro-lifers to coalesce around an alternative to pro-choice Giuliani, here is your chance to shape events.
P.S. This isn’t about overcoming Mitt Romney’s evangelical problem, which I’m not sure is totally possible. Its about overcoming the winning-the-primaries problem.
P.P.S. I apologize for this post on raw horse race politics. We mostly try to be better than that here. Still, I know that the Romney candidacy is of interest to many of our readers. To others of our readers, like me, the pro-life movement is of interest and a successful Giuliani candidacy threatens it. (Fair and balanced counter-narrative: some stripes of social conservatives support Giuliani because they believe he’s the most electable Republican and will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade or at least allow citizens to take meaningful action to curtail abortion).
But, Romney is still trading at 24 on Intrade…
Adam Greenwood. I think you are correct. It does appear the evangelical bandwagon is coalescing around Romney, some more willing than others. Assuming Mitt won the primaries and then the White House in Nov. 08, and that he appoints more pro-life Justices patterned after the mold you prefer on Roe, i.e., Scalia and Thomas: Isn’t all that does for the pro-life movement is to change the dialogue from the national arena back to the individual states? And, if so, is that a good thing? As an aside, though this is probably not important to the “pro-life” movement, Mitt’s stand on the war, interrogation techniques and the like, is really inconsistent with being “pro-life.”
[Editor: please do not use this post as a forum to argue about the war and so on. I have a deletion hammer and I'll hammer in the morning, I'll hammer in the evening, I'll hammer all day long. General abortion yack can go here]
But, Romney is still trading at 24 on Intrade…
The political markets are either waiting to see if something comes out of this nascent shift to Romney; the political markets don’t think it will happen in a big way; the political markets don’t think the shift, if it happens, will increase Romney’s chances; the political markets think Huckabee’s recent rise in the Iowa polls will draw prominent evangelicals to him instead; or the political markets are ignorant of evangelical/social conservative affairs or underestimate their effect; or the political markets aren’t very good predictors of actual success.
Any other possibilities?
The fact that a serious evangelical like James Dobson could consider Mike Huckabee, a rock-solid pro-life ordained Southern Baptist minister and former governor who pushed through a state constitutional resolution against gay marriage, to be an “unacceptable” candidate, simply because of his views on education, taxes, or immigration, only goes to show how ridiculously rigid “social conservatism” has become within the current Republican primary electorate. Sad.
Heh, he still considers us a cult. What does it mean when you try to portray yourself as a “Christian” only to get an endorsement from a man who will never consider you a “Christian” like himself?
Nate: On a side note, Thompson has tanked over the last month.
RAF,
Since when has James Dobson become the bellwether of social conservatism? Certainly he is allowed to have political preferences (however unrealistic) that do not represent all social conservatives everywhere?
RAF, I think thats partly a political calculation that the Huck’s views on taxes and immigration make him a bad horse to back in the GOP and the general election. But certainly many social conservatives, like me, are conservative across the board.
FYI, I tried to add my Political Bull-Bear Indicator here, but our software apparently doesn’t allow table formatting in the comments, so I had to put it in a post. It is here.
Adam, what was up with all those conservatives who were unhappy with Giuliani getting together last month…in Salt Lake City? Mostly I’m interested in a pass-the-popcorn kind of way, but I wish someone who understood that dynamic could explain it to me.
One of the big arguments I keep seeing why more of the Christian Right (i.e. Chuch Baldwin) won’t support Romney is that when he ran for Governor of Mass. he actually supported abortion. This was a key issue to getting support in a very liberal state. He is getting a lot of criticism for flip-flopping on this issue.
According to one well-researched account, “Mitt Romney has a long history of supporting pro-abortion candidates and causes, and aggressively sought the support and endorsement of groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Indeed, Romney is still listed today as a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a group supported by Billionaire leftist George Soros dedicated to shifting the GOP leftward on social issues such as abortion rights and stem cell research.
“Romney also has a history of assisting the careers of other prominent pro-abortion politicians. In the 1992 presidential race, Romney endorsed and voted for pro-abortion liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary and just three years ago endorsed and made a television ad for Democrat Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson, a former Planned Parenthood attorney.
“As Governor, he issued state proclamations honoring ‘Right to Privacy Day’ which until 2005, specifically referenced the Roe vs. Wade case.
– Just how much of this true?
But WHY support Mitt? Because he’s Mormon? Because he’s been successful in business?
Instead, look at his platform — he wants to continue Bush’s policies — and in some cases multiply them. Seventy percent of the country is opposed to the Iraq war, and yet Romney’s running commercials talking about wiping out “jihadism.” And at the GOP debates he talks about “doubling Guantanamo” (!) and “consulting your attorneys” before attacking Iran.
We need a return to Constitutional government (remember — the stuff conservatives USED to believe in?). Romney’s not going to give that to us. He’s keeping his campaign afloat by dumping his own money into it, running up huge debts — and we expect him to balance the federal budget?
Ron Paul is a limited government Constitutionalist who will give real conservatives everything they used to ask for. With his fundraising taking off and his exposure increasing, I think it’s time LDS Republicans got behind Paul for President.
The way I heard Romney put it was that when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts, he acknowledged that the state is distinctly pro-choice, and he said he would respect that, would not try to change it. My read is that he presented himself as a public servant and agreed to uphold the will of the people of Mass. on this point. This is something that someone with a very strong personal conviction that abortion is terrible would not be likely to do. However, it is different from supporting abortion. People trying to make Romney look like a flip-flopper might conveniently leave out the fact that he presented this as a promise to the people of Massachusetts, defering to them, but if they leave that out, the story is deceptive.
An interesting stat to note is how it appears questionable whether the Bob Jones’ endorsement is actually helping Romney… a recent poll actually seemed to indicate that it hurt him him among Evangelicals.
Ben H #13: It sounds like Romney is willing to tailor his political convictions depending on who will be voting for him, instead of supporting and sustaining Constitutional law. Exactly the kind of President we don’t need.
I’m sick of politicians who tell people what they want to hear to obtain and remain in office.
And may I say that the dark, evil opposite of previous comment are those politicians who stake out bad positions and then doggedly cling to them regardless of people think or what common sense demonstrates.
I think we all know who I’m referring to. (cough)
Adam, what was up with all those conservatives who were unhappy with Giuliani getting together last month…in Salt Lake City? Mostly I’m interested in a pass-the-popcorn kind of way, but I wish someone who understood that dynamic could explain it to me.
There was a regular conservative bigwig conference which happened to be meeting that year in SLC so the anti-Giuliani crowd took the opportunity to powwow in the evenings.
Arrrghhh… Apparently I’m having trouble with links today. [I fixed it--BH] Once more, here’s an article that dishes a little on the group:
“Vice President Dick Cheney will speak to a super-secret,conservative policy group in Utah on Friday during his second trip to the state this year. Cheney will address the fall meeting of the Council for National Policy, a group whose self-described mission is to promote “a free-enterprise system, a strong national defense and support for traditional Western values.”
The organization — made up of few hundred powerful conservative activists — holds confidential meetings and members are advised not to use the name of the group in communications, according to a New York Times profile of the group. “The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before [or] after a meeting,” a list of rules obtained by The Times showed. The group did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.”
Adam, bring that hammer down! Some commenters can never keep on-topic.
Evangelical leaders are indeed coalescing around Mitt. It will be very interesting to see what happens this weekend. I’ve heard one estimate that among active political evangelicals, one-fourth support Mitt, one-fourth Thompson and the rest a combination of Huckabee-McCain-Giuliani-Hunter and undecided.
My prediction is that by December at least half will openly support Mitt.
What’s the difference between a secret and a super-secret group, I wonder?
Sounds more… mischievous?
PS – Thanks for the techno-help Adam.
Geoff B #19:
I’m still struggling to understand the attraction to Romney. Since I know you’ve been a Mittster since day one, perhaps you can explain it to me.
When I look at him, I see a man who wants to continue — nay, accentuate — the disastrous neoconservative policies of the Bush administration, but who holds to those policies only because they are politically expedient.
The American disgust with the current administration is so high that I don’t see how he can win. If Romney is the GOP candidate, put all your money on President H. Clinton come January 2009.
Mike P., I don’t see what is so bad about doing what your constituency wants you to do. Isn’t that what democracy is for? Sure, there should be limits, but within reason, what the electorate wants should matter to a politician. Especially if you’re up-front about it. If Mitt now thinks it is not within reason to uphold the status quo on abortion, that seems like a legitimate development of his thinking. Anyway, he upheld his commitment to the state of Massachusetts on abortion policy, made in connection with that election, and I would expect him to uphold commitments he makes in connection with this one.
Additional to my #23:
Here are a few articles for LDS supporters of Romney to consider:
“Mitt Romney: It’s Not Religion, It’s His Politics” (Gary Wood)
“One Latter-day Saint’s Perspective on Romney vs. Paul” (Marnie L. Pehrson)
“Why I’m for Ron Paul and Against Mitt Romney” (Connor Boyack)
Ben H #23: Because doing that makes him appear as a man with no core principles around which he develops his policies. It’s the “stick your finger up to check the wind” approach to campaigning.
Need evangelical Christians to take the White House? “Well, then I guess I was anti-abortion all along.”
Mike, the subject of this post is “Mitt Romney and evangelicals,” not “how can anybody possible support Mitt?” So unless you are declaring yourself an evangelical, you’re thread-jacking.
[Ed.: Thanks, Geoff B., but we can carry our own water]
No, Geoff, the subject of this post (if you’ll check at the top) is “Sordid Political Post for Mittheads and Anti-Mittheads.”
I want to understand the Mormon attraction to Romney. I’d like not to think that it’s just because he’s a Mormon. (Of course, the 80% he pulled in the Utah GOP straw poll makes me lean that way.)
Considering that everything he’s campaigning on has been a disaster for Bush and opposed by a veto-proof majority of Americans, why support him?
Considering that the U.S. owes $9 trillion, and Mitt is running his own campaign financing on huge debts, why think that he would be the President to pay down the national debt?
Barry Goldwater, the father of the modern conservative movement and mentor to Ronald Reagan stated that “being a conservative in America traditionally meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects.” He went on to say “I have little interest in streamlining government in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that will impose an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.”
I don’t see anything of this spirit in Mitt. (I do see a lot of it in Paul, though.)
[Ed.: That's enough Ron Paul touting and Mitt Romney bashing for this thread. Thanks and put a sock in it]
Evangelicals for Mittseem to think that Mitt will win the nomination. I think that, for the lay non-political junkie, there is some reservation on the part of some evangelicals in supporting Mitt Romney. Those who are best positioned to galvanize the grassroots, however, understand that there is a whole lot more that a president can do in addition to appointing ‘strict constructivist’ judges. Rudy promises those judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, but will he appoint a Michael Leavitt (a Pro-life Mormon) as the head of Health and Human Services. Will Rudy prevent RU-486 from being dispensed in middle schools without parental consent, or defend the right of pharmacist to conscienciously object by not dispensing that medication.
The politically active evangelicals know that Roe v. Wade is only one small, (even though symbolic and significant) part of the Family Values Culture War. Also, more often than not, they have seen the work the Church has done on their side of the Culture War (e.g. ERA, Prop 22, etc.). Once the leaders choose to support Romney, the flocks (for the most part–I think) will follow notwithstanding the bias and bigotry that has been engendered against our ‘sheep stealing’ Church.
Perhaps the fact that some are even supporting Romney openly (e.g. Bob Jones) despite deep personal reservations about the ‘lie’ of Mormonism just goes to show how high the stakes have been raised for this presidential election.
The pastor the Dallas First Baptist Church spoke out against Romney recently, to applause. A snippet from the article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-romney_18nat.ART.State.Edition1.429fe4e.html):
—– Start —–
A prominent Dallas minister told his congregation that if they wanted to elect a Christian to the White House, Republican Mitt Romney wasn’t qualified.
Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, encouraged his congregation to elect a Christian. ‘Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise,’ he said.
Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, said that Mormonism is a false religion and that Mr. Romney was not a Christian.
“Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise,” Dr. Jeffress said in a sermon Sept. 30. “Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.”
Some in the large crowd began to applaud as Dr. Jeffress continued with his remarks.
“What really distresses me is some of my ministerial friends and even leaders in our convention are saying, ‘Oh, well, he talks about Jesus, we talk about Jesus. What’s the big deal?’ ” he said. “It is a big deal if anybody names another way to be saved except through Jesus Christ.”
—– Stop —–
While I’m not sold on Romney by any stretch, the confusing priorities by this pastor (and others like him) is amazing. I wonder if the good pastor considers Hillary (a Christian) to be more qualified to be president than Romney?
The speech was given on 9/30, but reported yesterday. Did they save it to counter the Jones story?
27 – (Of course, the 80% he pulled in the Utah GOP straw poll makes me lean that way.)
Or maybe due to his high profile during the Salt Lake Olympics
Considering that the U.S. owes $9 trillion, and Mitt is running his own campaign financing on huge debts, why think that he would be the President to pay down the national debt?
See also comment on Salt Lake Olympics, to which he was given a lot of credit for turning it around financially.
I must add here that I am not a supporter of Romney. I’m idealogically inclined with Ron Paul. However, when you consider the other options that have a real chance at the nomination – McCain, slasher of first amendment rights; Guiliani, slasher of most of the Bill of Rights as mayor of New York; Thompson, good actor (maybe) but kinda lazy and has seemed to be dithering – Romney isn’t nearly as bad.
“Evangelicals for Mitt seem to think that Mitt will win the nomination.”
Wow. There’s a shocker.
I’m still a little uncomfortable with the notion of “Venture Capitalist in Chief” persona. I don’t think that the VC business necessarily prepares one for government, his Massachusetts experience notwithstanding.
Mike Parker,
I think Romney’s appeal is that he has a track record of being an able executive at Bain the consulting firm, Bain the venture capital firm, and the Winter Olympics. He’s an alpha-male that can get things done, which really is a stark contrast to Ron Paul, an old man with nice ideologies but little if any executive experience. The President is the “Chief Executive” after all. Being President is all about not being afraid of breaking a few eggs to make an omelette, and I think Romney would do that.
queno (32),
Why not? We live in a market economy. He would be better than career politicians who have made a living off of the state apparatus.
#27 I don’t think we need somebody who acts on ideology rather than on principle.
I have enough of a problem letting 9 Justices determine what is and isn’t authorized by the Constitution. I would be very hesitant voting for somebody who claims the omnisceant knowledge to do so in every choice he makes as President–in full control of one third of Government. That is a recipie for disaster–IMHO.
This is something that NO president has done (strictly speaking). . .from George Washington to George W.; They have all done things which were not specifically authorized by the constitution (e.g. Jay’s Treaty of 1794, Lincoln’s suspension of the Writ of Habeus Corpus, Theodore Roosevelt’s conservation efforts designating National Parks, and Monuments, the use of Presidential Signing Statements, etc.).
And that is why Evangelicals will support Mitt rather than the “they wouldn’t have attacked us on 9/11 if we were Strict Construction Constitutionalist†Ron Paul. I’m sorry, but it is our Christianity and material prosperity they hate, not the fact that we cleaned up Kosovo.
How many times has the Bloggernacle had this same Mitt Romney-Ron Paul argument with same cast of commenters? Put a sock in it.
Last year my Con Law professor pointed out that ALL of those who hold office under the Constitution take an oath to uphold the constitution. So the president should only sign the bills that he (or she) believes to be constitutional. To do otherwise would be to break the oath. Likewise, representatives and senators should only vote for bills that they believe are constitutional. To do otherwise would be to just throw laws against the constitutional wall and see what sticks. This is not to say that officers may not act where the constitution is silent, on the good-faith belief that their actions are constitutional, and sometimes be right and sometimes wrong. BUT this is a far cry from acting where one knows the constitution prohibits an action just because the Supreme Court hasn’t slapped you down recently.
Ugly Mahana (37),
So is abortion constitutional in a post-Roe v. Wade era?
Condor, because sometimes there are principles that don’t appear on a balance sheet that are (or should be) more important than the “market economy”. I’m not anti-markets. I just don’t think that you can run some institutions on the same principles as a business. School districts and government are two of those.
Would Romney impose order and discipline? Well, he’d attempt it. Would he succeed? Maybe; it depends on how pragmatic he is and how much he’s able to give and take. Would he sacrifice some important constitutional principle because it interfered with his order and discipline? I’m not sure, and that’s what frightens me.
Here is how Mitt explains his position on life issues:
http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values
Watch the video (about 4 minutes) and see whether he seems like an opportunist. If there is other evidence to consider, bring it up. He sounds like a principled guy to me, and it sounds like there is good evidence for it, including the award from the Massachusetts pro-life group.
Ron Paul’s isolationism is neither realistic nor idealistically attractive in my book. The world will come looking for us if we don’t go looking for it. We can’t afford to check out for four years. More, we need to be an active force for good. That means restraint, sure, but also well-chosen action.
I don’t know if Romney is the best candidate, but he isn’t just a clever guy with gusto. He has set out detailed proposals for dealing with a whole range of pressing issues, including his stand on life issues, foreign policy, etc. here. It doesn’t sound like more Bush to me.
Regarding queuno’s #29, I predict many individual evangelical pastors to speak out against Mitt in the next few months. Google Bill Keller and Romney for some real dooseys. If I remember correctly, he said a vote for Mitt was a vote for Satan. What a wack-job.
I think members of the Church should be very clear that there will always be a core group of evangelicals who will never vote for a Mormon, just as there will always be a core group of secular leftists who will never vote for a Mormon. I tend to think both groups are in the single digits, but that could potentially be a large percentage of the population, so I’m not a pollyanna about the situation. It’s a serious threat to Mitt’s campaign.
I tend to think most people, however, are open to Mitt’s candidacy regardless of his religion. This week I flew from Miami to New York, and I sat next to a very friendly woman who saw I was reading a Mormon-themed book, and we started talking. She said she was a Republican who lives in Manhattan (she and about three other people make up all Republicans in Manhattan, but I digress). She said she is Catholic but loves Mitt’s message and couldn’t care less about him being a Mormon. She’s definitely voting for him in the primaries.
She’s just one person. Most people I talk to on my travels are not Republicans and all they want to talk about (when it comes to politics) is how much they hate Bush. But I tend to think there is a core of people who will coalesce around a smart, articulate candidate like Mitt. I hope I’m right.
Oh, sorry, Adam (#36). What is this thread about? I think the question whether Romney is believable in his position on life issues is relevant, but tell me if it’s not.
Ron Paul’s name keeps coming up in a lot of LDS circles. However he is so far behind in the polls that it is very hard to consider him to be a serious choice candidate even though his stand on the issues is quite interesting.
One of the foremost requirements for candidacy is the ability to garner public support for your position. Ron Paul seems to be sorely lacking here.
queuno,
I think that risk-takers are the lifeblood of our society. They lay their necks on the line to create goods and services that enhance our lives. Venture capitalists pony up millions of dollars to allow risk-takers to hang a shingle outside their window and try selling their ideas. Ever heard of a little company called Apple Computer? You know, i-Pods? Well, they started with some nice venture capital money back in the 1970s. I think we could count on Mitt Romney not to tax risk-takers to death, which would encourage innovation and improve the quality of our lives. That’s what we need.
What do you think Romney would do to education that would be so detrimental?
If Giulianni weren’t such a foreign policy nutjob, I’d actually be happy to see him win the nomination on the slim chance that it might put a sock in this silly national threadjack that abortion has become.
I think the question whether Romney is believable in his position on life issues is relevant,
Sure.
I would hope that neither Romney nor Giuliani would do anything about education, since it’s none of the federal guvmint’s #%@^ business.
Joseph D. Walch #35: I have enough of a problem letting 9 Justices determine what is and isn’t authorized by the Constitution. I would be very hesitant voting for somebody who claims the omnisceant knowledge to do so in every choice he makes as President–in full control of one third of Government. That is a recipie for disaster–IMHO.
I would take a President who only supports Constitutional proposals any day over a President who believes the Constitution is “just a g**d*mned piece of paper.”
California Condor #38: So is abortion constitutional in a post-Roe v. Wade era?
It is by interpretation, unless and until a future Supreme Court reverses that ruling.
Ben H #40: Ron Paul’s isolationism is neither realistic nor idealistically attractive in my book. The world will come looking for us if we don’t go looking for it. We can’t afford to check out for four years. More, we need to be an active force for good. That means restraint, sure, but also well-chosen action.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. He believes in free and open commerce with all nations, and that we should be an active force in the world to promote freedom and democracy … just not at the point of a gun. Isolationists want to shut off trade and establish tariffs — think Duncan Hunter.
roland #43: Ron Paul’s name keeps coming up in a lot of LDS circles. However he is so far behind in the polls that it is very hard to consider him to be a serious choice candidate even though his stand on the issues is quite interesting. One of the foremost requirements for candidacy is the ability to garner public support for your position. Ron Paul seems to be sorely lacking here.
Public awareness precedes public support, and until recently Ron Paul has been largely ignored by the mainstream media. With his recent fundraising success, expect more exposure. There’s still time for him to make a dent in the polls, particularly if he wins some of the early primaries (he looks to do well in New Hampshire and Nevada).
Question: Should Mormons support torture?
Answer: No.
Imperative: Do not support Mitt Romney.
Sometimes I wish I could cast my vote based on a single issue – then I wake up. *sigh*
Here\’s a link to see who has donated to the candidates so far. I think everything $200 and over has to be reported.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0707014obamacontributionsg3-htmlpage,0,5077760.htmlpage
Or tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/yruadt
I checked it out and found some local LDS names that I know.
Cracka Hat:
It’s slanderous to say that Mitt Romney supports “torture.” If waterboarding will make some terrorists will divulge information that would save multiple lives, then it’s okay for Mormons to condone the waterboarding.
Ray:
What issue do you want to base your voting on?
Sarcasm doesn’t translate well sometimes. *bigger sigh*
The passion behind Ron Paul here reminds me of some of the fervor behind Bo Gritz(sp?) and possibly Ross Perot. I think the practicality Mitt Romney approaches issues of economics and governmenance makes him a strong candidate. Neither Bo nor Ross posses and I think Ron Paul posses such practicality.
I think torture is ok under extreme circumstances. Is the Bybee law brief that gave Bush legal muscle to use torture on terrorism prepared by a Mormon?
Marcia
It seems that “they” are onto Adam.
Ray,
I’m not sure if you understand what sarcasm is…
*SIGH* Good night, everyone else.
The torture memo named for Jay Bybee (somehow, now a member of the 9th circuit court) was apparently mostly the work of John Yoo. I can’t see how Mormon participation in its crafting has anything to do with how it ought to be judged, by Mormons, or others.
The Bybee arguments were repudiated only three days ago as “worse than a sin – a mistake” and “unnecessary” by none other than Michael Mukasey, one of the three Republicans from New York (Geoff B.’s tally in post 41). Since he will soon move to Washington as Attorney General, that leaves two others (now that Bloomberg is officially an independent): Giuliani, and his most ardent backer, Paul Singer, looter of the third world.
Interesting Bill. I know Ted Kennedy kicks around the Bybee a la Cheney/Haliburton style . I guess Mukasey felt obliged at least politically to repudiate the opinion. Marcia
Question of the Day….
Did this post by Adam single-handedly put Romney over the top?
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
61: C. Hat,
I think we have officially reached the point of Reductio ad absurdum.
60: I had already voted before this post, so for me, it didn’t.
Condor, I love venture capitalism, as a market tool. I worked for a startup in Utah for awhile, and we had a very generous and patient VC. I have family members who have worked in that field. VCs are fine people, but I wouldn’t want them generally deciding whether or not to allocate funds to anything that can’t show an ROI. I wouldn’t want a VC deciding how much money to allocate to a library. I’m not sure I’d want a VC deciding on the freedom of expression, or the right to privacy in a post-9/11 world.
I believe that there are occasions where principle must trump “outcome”. I don’t know how a VC-as-president would subscribe to that idea. I think that Bush (or more specifically, Cheney) is an example of how “outcome” trumps “principle”.
My comment about education wasn’t a fear that Romney will do anything *specifically* to education; I’m just citing education and government as two examples where a strict to “bottom lines” and outcomes over principles don’t necessarily work.
You can’t run everything as a market, and Romney hasn’t shown me that he would appreciate the difference.
This thread is not the place to debate all of the myriad samples, but contact me offline and we can discuss it.
queuno, over at gmail
The press hardly pays attention to Huckabee–until there are these events where Huckabee vastly excedes their expectations.
If it’s true that just-the-right-amount of anticipatory buzz tends to help build momentum, through “self-fulfilling prophecy” or whatever, while ultimately unwarranted hype sets candidates up for the hit of unmet expectations–then maybe it’s also true that the media is neither overplaying nor underplaying whatever is Romney’s momemtum with “values voters”?
(Then there is this interesting “manually cast votes” distinction. Indeed, Romney supporters did more often cast their votes online rather than manually even if they were there at the event/i>–since apparently a higher percentage of Mitt supporters are computer savvy?–or, for some other reasons. Yet get this interesting factoid: not even a solitary person voted for Romney after the speeches at the event started; whereas, analogous to an altar call, a whole crowd of Huckabee supporters waited patiently in line to vote for H right after H’s speech, which happened to have ended just before the straw poll was to close. Then Romney gave his speech, which had been scheduled for after their straw poll had already been closed….. )
OK, the last paragraph’s factoid actually had to do with the September 18, 2007 values voters debate poll–sorry. ( http://okforhuckabee.blogspot.com/2007/09/huckabee-wins-big-at-values-voter.html )
(Note: the factoid “Not a solitary person voted for Mitt after the speeches” is misattributed, but that Mitt’s manual straw poll voters were no doubt swamped by Mike Huckabee’s after Mike’s advantageously scheduled speech at the recent meeting is true.)
64: No, you were mostly right. Huckabee spoke at around 4:00, and Romney spoke around 7:30. The polls closed at 6:00 p.m. so there wasn’t an opportunity to vote for Romney on-site after his speech except through internet.
Additionally, everybody who registered online for the event was sent an email that said they could vote online. I am sure most Romney supporters simply clicked over to vote once they received that email.
I nearly passed out in my pancakes when I heard that Bob Jones endorsed Romney. BJU curriculum is probably the most anti-Mormon out there and one of the reasons that LDS homeschoolers have been excluded from support groups, etc., so often. Seriously stunning.
My guess is that Romney will win over a very significant share of the evangelicals.
Some indications that he is making real headway:
(1) He, topped a straw poll among thousands of Christian conservatives gathered at the summit on Saturday and who could be an important element in gaining the party’s nomination for 2008.
(2) Dr. Wayne Grudem endorses Romney. He is a professor of theology at Phoenix Seminary, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, and a hugely influential thinker in Christian academia. I personally find his endorsement very powerful. Check it out at this link: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WayneGrudem/2007/10/18/why_evangelicals_should_support_mitt_romney
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Dr. Grudem. Hugh’s opening statement in the interview is as follows:
HH: It’s been an incredible week for Mitt Romney. He’s achieved a breakthrough of sorts in the Evangelical community, even among the very conservative fundamentalist community, people who were not thought to be favoring him because of his Mormon religion. And today, in an op-ed that will be widely circulated among the senior Evangelical leadership in the United States, Professor Wayne Grudem, who’s a professor at Phoenix Seminary, endorses Mitt Romney’s candidacy. To let you know why this is significant, Dr. Grudem is perhaps one of the best well-known theologians in the United States. He’s a former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, and I think probably his textbook is more widely used in seminaries across the United States than any other.
Check out the entire interview here:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=03b34756-2d53-403a-8fd3-d82faf5fd042
wgg – Guess it’s all about perspective. I’ve heard a lot of commentators comment on this weekend actually having turned sour a little for Romney (see, e.g., Chuck Todd).
First up, Huckabee seemingly scored a coup at the VVS with those actually in attendance (though Romney’s camp has been trying to downplay this storyline by claiming some of its attendees voted online, that’s still how the story is getting spun even among the Christian media). Next, last night’s debate. Romney was on defensive most of the night while Thompson and Giuliani’s performances (and maybe McCain’s) have been getting the positive reviews. Romney did make some headway by garnering some good Evangelical endorsements, but Huckabee’s is creeping close in Iowa. If both Iowa and New Hampshire are in play these next few months, it takes some of the gusto out of Romney’s plan to use an early tour de force to thunder into tsunami Tuesday on February 5th.
Marc, the polling ended before Romney even gave his speech (6:00 vs. 7:30). Most, if not all of the Romney supporters knew they could vote on-line, so they waited until after his speech to vote. When you are fighting a stacked deck even before the event begins, even a mediocre performance is commendable. Winning it is solid organization. I don’t support Romney at this point, but when commentators spin it as anything but impressive it shows either an existing bias that runs wide and deep or simple ignorance. For regular individuals like us, it’s one thing; for commentators, it’s inexcusable.
So what’s the buzz here? That Mike Huckabee might be able to buck the political scientists’ conventional wisdom that his campaign’s “camp revival” organizational strengths won’t be enough to propel him to the finish line in a primary election environments requiring a proven ability to drum up big time funding for advertising? So, if well moneyed people or blogs reading techies have just now pushed Romney South Carolina primary “futures” on Intrade UP all the way up to 16 1/2; folks who buy into the buzz about this other likeable charmer from Hope, Arkansas (Huckabee) have still left Mike’s comparable Intrade numbers–buyable only as Field (Any Other Individual))”–at a fraction less than 5.
So, yeah, a few did “short sells” of Thompson (although nothing like what happened back in June to McCain’s New Hampshire primary “futures”, when its price precipitiously dropped from 27 to 10. Senator Thompson’s “futures” for the South Carolina primary, although it’s down just now 8 points, still trade at an impressive 40)–and the price of his honor the former New York City mayor’s Palmetto State primary “futures” is volitilely bouncing around the identical price.
Ray – Perhaps they did. But perhaps Huckabee had a lot of on-site supporters vote online as well. There is no way to tell. Regardless, the straw poll is being spun in both the new and old media as a bigger win for Huckabee than Romney.
K L H – Huckabee doesn’t have to win in order to be Romney’s Achilles heel. If he continues to garner support like he has been, it’ll end up giving the nomination to Giuliani.
From my perspective as an anti-Giuliani guy, the results of the conference were bad. No on emerged as the obvious alternative, which Romney could have were it not for Huckabee’s stellar performance. Instead Romney and Thompson are both still strong possibilities while Huckabee is now getting close to that oo. Hopefully one or two of those three self-destruct or one of them really starts to stand out.
How about a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket. That may reconcile the problem of a potential break from the “religious right” of the republican party.
Veeps don’t get a vote in our system of government. Its Giuliani I’m concerned about.
Realistically, Mike Huckabee would have to place first or second in the first several primaries to win, and with New Hampshire as one of them, Huckabee will be out early. Who do you think Huckabee will throw his weight behind- Romney or Giuliani?
1) I don’t think Huckabee would be VP to Giuliani
2) Huckabee doesn’t have the money to run. He won’t win Iowa (according to recent polls), and he won’t be able to mobilize any state other than, perhaps SC (Homeschooled Christian Kids). Huckabee doesn’t even have a national finance chair. I like some aspects of a Huckabee nomination, but he simply can’t do the job. He has bet the house on the fact that Evangelicals would back him, but he has suffered numberous blows with all the evangelical leaders throwing their weight behind Romney
3) People can spin the VVS straw poll any way they would like it, but there is a secret to winning elections: get votes. Also, Tony Perkins–the president of the Family Research Council (the principle organizer of the VVS) has backed Romney not Huckabee. People may claim that Romney stuffed the ballot box, but you can’t ‘buy’ endorsements like those he has had from Evanvelicals recently. Those are earned on merit.
Romney v. Huckabee is in some ways a conflict of the evangelical elite with the evangelical mass (among the latter are found those who are most preoccupied with Mormonism). The primaries–but, if Romney makes it, especially the generals–will be the scene of conflict between the current evangelical political establishment and those who wish to supplant them using anti-Mormonism as a weapon. Romney needs the current elites to win.
“Veeps don’t get a vote in our system of government. Its Giuliani I’m concerned about.”
I don’t know Adam. I’d sure like a takeback on Cheney…
you conservatives should face it, your candidates are of poor quality. Rudy “9/11, 9/11, 9/11″ Giuliani is the worst possible candidate for president in quite a long time. He is a complete tyrannical fake. He would be a complete and utter disaster for our country. John McCain is old and is not credible. Fred Thompson is a fake, lazy actor who sucks at flip-flopping. He needs to look to Romney to see proper flip-flopping. Mitt Romney was more liberal than Edward Kennedy in 1994. Now he is supposedly more conservative than them ALL in 2007. Huh. Now THAT’S proper flip-flopping. Puts to shame the mischaracterization that John Kerry was a flip-flopper. Ron Paul is too extreme to ever be considered the nominee. Mike Huckabee is the only Republican candidate who is anywhere close to reality, but even he knows that he has to pander to the fantasy-based political views of the religious right wing, so he says stupid things too.
It’s such a shame.
I think the GOP candidates this year are about the same quality as the Dem. candidates this year. I don’t think social/religious conservative politics are particularly fantasy-based.
I don’t know, expanding government while simultaneously refusing to pay for it seems a bit of magical thinking to me.
I’d happily vote for any of the Republican candidates if I thought they’d drive a final stake through the heart of this silly little neoconservative experiment we’ve been having for the past few years.
Unfortunately, I’m not seeing a resurgence in political realism among either crop of candidates.
I don’t know, expanding government while simultaneously refusing to pay for it seems a bit of magical thinking to me.
Any evidence whatsoever that this is a tenet of social/religious conservative politics? You act as if (1) the GOP isn’t made up of a coalition with sometimes divergent goals and (2) the GOP doesn’t act through elected politicians who are sometimes willing to sacrifice coalition goals if it helps their individual reelection.
(Note also that the deficit has nearly reached zero).
I said Neoconservative Adam, not GOP. The Neos are just one faction of the conservative coalition.
So… after years of the largest deficits in our nations history and adding a whopping $3.5 billion to the national debt… we’re back to where we started on the budget? Except not quite… when Bush came into office there was a surplus, remember?
(that should have said “trillion”)
By the way… I wouldn’t call $162.8 billion a year “almost zero”
Seth R.,
how are comments about ‘neoconservatives’ responsive to an argument about whether social conservative political ideas are fantasy-based or not?
1.2% seems awefully close to zero to me!
Happens to be in the same article.
These budget debates are pretty boring. I’ll just briefly mention the effect of the Silicon valley crash and 9-11 on the economy, the effects of popular bipartisan programs on spending (e.g., the prescription drug benefit), and acknowledge that the Bush tax cuts, while in my view they made the economy as a whole better off, have probably reduced the increase in tax receipts below what might have happened otherwise, and that though a lot of our increased defense spending after 9-11 needed to happen any way, some of it would not have happened were it not for Iraq.
Adam,
#82,
Generally speaking they are not. But the things that conservatives and the religious right have chosen as their talking points this time round are most definitely fantasy based. Take the coming war with Iran. Take torture. When conservatives cheer for “doubling Guantanamo” they (conservatives) look ridiculous and ignorant. These are the policies that are ruining you guys. Remove them from your philosophies if you wish to survive.
Adam,
#91,
But the expenses of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT part of the normal budget. In fact they never appear on the regular budget. They are placed on credit cards for our children to pay. Shame on our generation!
Dan,
Those views may be fantasy based, but they are not the exclusive property of social conservatives, or conservatives at all.
Hillary is on record threatening Iran with force if it disrupts the oil supply(blood for oil, anyone?), and just a year ago she spoke on the record in favor of the president having the power to pursue “aggressive interrogation techinques” in some circumstances, more or less endorsing the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld position. And if you look up extraordinary rendition on Wikipedia, Al Gore is the first example.
As an evangelical Christian conservative who has talked politics a lot with a lot of other evangelical Christian conservatives, I can say with confidence that a lot of us would choose a Mormon serious about his faith over a secular mock-conservative like Guliani. We just have more in common with someone that sees faith as more than a voting metric.
That being said, I think Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are the only candidates from either party that have spoken more than two words of sense yet, even accounting for all the crazy-talk that comes out of Mr. Paul\’s mouth.
Thanks, Jeremy. Love your blog ( http://www.theonlyorthodoxy.com/ )
Jacob – Framing the statistics in that way is deceptive for two reasons. (1) As a percentage of the gross domestic product, the deficit could always be portrayed as a paltry percentage. The largest deficit ever was only around $400 billion (makes the $162 billion still seem like a lot more than “close to zero”). Still, it adds up. 9.2 trillion and counting. (2) One could argue that the way we calculate these deficit statistics is deceptive because, as I understand it, they’re ADDING the social security surplus when they calculate it (which we should technically be putting away to fund future payments). If you don’t include the social security surplus, I think that number would be a few hundred billion higher. As exemplified by Adam’s comment, however, ultimately there are so many variables that go into the deficit and the budget that this debate can go in circles forever. Even still, I think $162 billion is pretty far from zero however you characterize it.
Adam – I thought of you when I saw this. Something tells me there have been times when you’ve been tempted to pull a Redstate and ban Ron Paul shilling here too.