GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Note: stay tuned tomorrow as we bring you live coverage from The Washington Briefing.
OK. For those of you keeping score on Mitt’s Evangelical problem here we go again:
Wayne Grudem gives a strong endorsement of Romney.
Some key excerpts:
As an evangelical professor of Bible and theology, I have decided to support Mitt Romney for President (even though he is a Mormon) for two old-fashioned reasons: First, he is the best-qualified candidate, and second, he holds moral and political values consistent with those in the Bible.
…
Conservative positions: Romney’s positions on social, economic, and international issues are all soundly conservative. On major issues such as protection of the unborn, a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, strong national defense and victory against radical Islamic terrorists, securing our border, a signed pledge of no tax increases, promoting school choice, and appointment of Supreme Court justices who will interpret law, not make new law, Romney holds solidly conservative positions. His positions are the ones the majority of evangelicals have supported in the past.
Some people object that Romney has “flip-flopped” on some of these positions. I think that accusation is exaggerated. He hasn’t flip-flopped back and forth, he has simply become more consistently conservative. I think that’s a good thing in a political and media climate that is more and more liberal. (In fact, Ronald Reagan also changed from signing a liberal abortion law as governor of California to being a consistently pro-life president.) Evangelicals have worked for decades to persuade people of the pro-life position, and Romney has been persuaded, and he is strongly on our side on this issue.
What about his religion? Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible, and those teachings support Romney’s conservative political values.
Can evangelicals support a candidate who is politically conservative but not an evangelical Christian? Yes, certainly. In fact, it would demonstrate the falsehood of the liberal accusation that evangelicals are just trying to make this a “Christian nation” and only want evangelical Christians in office. For evangelicals to support a Mormon candidate would be similar to supporting a conservative Jewish candidate-someone we don’t consider a Christian but who comes from a religious tradition that believes in absolute moral values very similar to those that Christians learn from the Bible.
….
Or have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes.
Update: New poll shows that Mormonism is not an issue:
Nearly 77 percent of those questioned in a new CNN–Opinion Research Corporation poll say the fact that a candidate is a Mormon would not be a factor in the way they vote for president. 19 percent of those surveyed say they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who’s a Mormon, and 3 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a Mormon.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Hmm. Wonder how long before Joseph Alois Ratzinger comes out for Mitt?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I believe it is Wayne GRUDEM, unless there are two guys of much influence with similar names.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
This weekends family research council should prove interesting.
Wonder what, if anything, will come out of it.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
[...] post by Justin Hart and software by Elliott [...]
October 18th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Thanks Brian - brain burp in the copy over.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I don’t see HH becoming involved, but I do believe that the Evangelical base, finally presented with all of its options, is starting to rally around Romney. This will be critical in IA and SC in a couple months.
I tell you this though: If Romney wins, even if he just becomes the nominee, this is going to go into the books as one of the biggest political underdog stories of modern times. People who have followed the Romney campaign from the beginning know where he started, and how far he has had to come.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Now you Romneyites just need Ron Rhodes and Ravi Zacharias.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I just don’t get why these evangelicals are focusing on Romney’s Mormonism, when there are much more important issues to focus on. Aren’t they looking at Romney’s past record and his past statements? And I believe he did “flip flop back and forth” on abortion!
October 18th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I guess there won’t be a “Mormon” speech.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Looks like sampo needs to work a little harder.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I can’t find the Dr. Mohler link, I get an interview with Dean Taylor instead?
October 18th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Justin, Is endorement from Grudem for Romney new? You were mentioning the old endorerements, then we have one from Wayne. I am not sure if it was the continuaity or not.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Wiseguy,
I have seen Romney’s record long and hard, I don’t believe Romney has flip flop back and forth.
-Dave.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
# WiseGuy Says:
I just don’t get why these evangelicals are focusing on Romney’s Mormonism, when there are much more important issues to focus on. Aren’t they looking at Romney’s past record and his past statements? And I believe he did “flip flop back and forth� on abortion!
Actually, WiseGuy, when they mention Mormonism the only thing they are doing is getting that imaginary speed bump out of the way. The fact that they endorse him indicates (hard as it is for you to accept) that they have looked at his past record and past statements and found him not only believable but the best qualified of those candidates who have any chance of taking down Hillary. All the MittHaters who attempt to parse his statements are just going to have to accept the concept that the folks who live and die with these issues (sometimes to the exclusion of all other issues) don’t find Mitt’s positions wanting.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Yes… the endorsement just came out today.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
13: This is from a Townhall article I read recently:
(He was pro-life before he ran against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) in Massachusetts, at which point he discovered a relative who died after an illegal abortion, which, conveniently, induced a change of heart. He remained pro-choice as a governor of the most liberal state in America until, as he contemplated entering the GOP primary for president, he realized that abortion had cultivated a contempt for life and so decided to become pro-life — equally conveniently.)
Is this statement correct or incorrect?
October 18th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
No, WiseGuy. The statement is not correct. What it is, is the worse possible spin that can be placed on his actions.
First of all, it was not a relative that died from an illegal abortion. It was a close family friend.
Second, he stated to all and sundery when running as Governor that he was pro-life. He ran as a pro-life candidate. He did absolutely nothing to hint otherwise. What he did do was promise that he would do nothing to advance or roll back abortion rights while Governor. He kept that promise, sometimes at great political cost.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
WiseGuy,
It’s factually incorrect. Mitt was always opposed to abortion in his heart, and said so, and never stopped saying so. His position on it until 2004 was that the choice as to whether or not to have an abortion should be made by the woman actually carrying the child, and not by the government. When he flipped, it was because he decided a culture of life had to be restored in this country.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
He did absolutely nothing to hint otherwise.
Yea, he did. He might very well have always been pro life, but he hinted otherwise. If that’s the case, then Thompson has always been pro life too. Because you’re making his case as well.
I’ve studied Romney’s record and past statements long and hard, and soon, I’m going to give you guys a chance to change my opinion of him. Not that I’d be a Romney champion, but that I’d be comfortable with him as a candidate. There are some major inconsistencies, and you guys will have a chance to convince me otherwise.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Wise,
That is Dick Morris carrying Mike Huckabee’s water. Dick Morris is hoping to create a narrative ab out Romney that is not based in fact but based in his fantasy.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
The march of the Evangelicals into the Romney horizon continues unabated. Also, the Mormon issue is clearly receding. The above data from our good buddies at CNN is highly encouraging. If it recedes enough, it might take it off the table for good. This is all good news.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
tommy,
After that can you do a piece on all of thompson inconsistancies?
There are ton, some convenient losses of memory and some out right lies.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Thanks to all for the clarification.
What he did do was promise that he would do nothing to advance or roll back abortion rights while Governor
The big problem I have with that position is that it maintains the status quo and actually makes Romney “effectively pro-choice” (despite what he may believe in his heart).
October 18th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
IN other words, all the people who voted for Bush and are not embarrassed about it are lining up with Mitt?
October 18th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Tommy,
Fair enough. Of course, if you had studied his record and past statements longer and harder, you’d already be onboard.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
WiseGuy,
In Massachusetts, which has been moving Left for a long time, fighting for the status quo is tantamount to being very much pro-life.
Cliff,
I voted for Bush, and considering the alternatives available at the time, I would do it again in a heartbeat. One of Romney’s biggest applause lines is when he reminds the audience that Bush has kept us safe for the last 7 years. Bush will go down in history not as a great president, but as a better president than he is currently being given credit for.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Dave - with the possible exception of Andrew Johnson Bush is the worst President in the history of the country.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
WiseGuy,
Ditto what Dave said. How many anti-abortion bills do you think Romney saw cross his desk. None.
How many pro-abortion bills do you think he saw. Three that I can think of immediately. He vetoed them all.
This makes him “effectively pro-choice” in your mind?
October 18th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Mormonism not an issue????
19% say it is. Given the fact that interviewees are prone to giving politically correct answers, the real number is higher.
But even if 19% is accurate (which we know it’s not), that’s HUGE considering all of these 50-49 elections we’ve been having lately.
The headline should read, “Mormonism may have a decisive impact in any election that is remotely close.”
October 18th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Andrew Johnson wasn’t THAT bad, Cliff. Most historians put Buchanan and Polk near the bottom of the list.
Bush II at least got a second term, so obviously not everyone shares your assessment.
You think Bush was worse than Jimmy Carter? Do you even remember the administration of Carter?
October 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Jason,
Leave it to you to get in a shot. I’m actually thinking about reaching out the olive branch here. I’ve mellowed a little bit on Romney and my negativity, but your bordering on outright hatred.
You guys got your posts in about “convince me Thompson can be a candidate.” Well, I get mine as well. Opposed to you, however, I’m keeping an open mind.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
marK - I’d agree that Carter was in the top tier of the Worst, yes.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I think that a Mitt win could signal the beginning of great reconcilliation between the Evangelical movement and the LDS. Just as I believe over time the Evangelical movement will become more tolerant and accepting of Gays and Lesbians, I believe that they will come to accept the teachings of the LDS as part of the traditional Christian fold. A win by Gov. Romney might hasten this acceptance and spur increased ecumenical dialogue.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Let’s face it- Romney is our best candidate.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
MWS, more than 19% say an evangelical president would be a negative impact on their vote. So what are you TRYING to get at??? ANY religion would…
October 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I agree, Micah. However, I suspect a few people here won’t.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
where has wiseguy been? yes, mitt was ‘effectively pro-choice”, that is no secret.
He converted from effectively pro choice to pro life.
Tommy, us Romney supporters appreciate your candid remarks about possibly supporting romney.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Cliff,
I’m sure you didn’t intend your remark to be serious. Bush lowered taxes significantly and we’ve had a massive economic expansion over the course of the last 4 years. We’re at a level of employment that economists consider to be functionally full employment. Inflation has never even hit 3% during his tenure. Not only are the number of homes owned in America at an all-time high, but the percentage of Americans owning their own homes is at an all-time high. Speaking of all-time highs, The Dow is over 14,000 and the NASDAQ is approaching 3,000. Net household worth has been skyrocketing, and in the last 10 years has more than doubled to more than $55 trillion. Do you have ANY concept of how much money that is? The capital surplus is enormous. I could go on. All of this, and much more, has occurred while the administration has broken up more than 100 plots to blow up pieces of our country, and we have killed or imprisoned more than 100,000 terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and freed more than 50 million people from evil governments in the process. All of this plus excellent court appointments! As for past presidents, I’ll give you a history lesson some other time.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
“Let’s face it- Romney is our best candidate.”
I suppose if one LIKES spineless politicians who will pander to any group to get elected……
Does ANYONE seriously think that if Romney were running for governor of Massachusetts today, he would have had his pro-life conversion?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
October 18th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
tommy
Maybe I miss interpreted your statement. If you were giving that as your olive branch than I apologize.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
How come all of Romney’s flip-flops put him more in line with national Republican primary voters?
Chance?
Hmmmmmmmm….
But hey, he talks like sales exec and like Ken’s dad, so what they hey, I guess we could just ASSUME the guy has convictions.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
How come all of Romney’s flip-flops put him more in line with national Republican primary voters?
Chance?
Hmmmmmmmm….
But hey, he talks like a sales exec and looks like Ken’s dad, so what they hey, I guess we could just ASSUME the guy has convictions.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
#39
I, for one.
You see, I’ve actually studied him, not just read what his opponents say about him.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
What flops, MWS?
October 18th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/politics/main3382009.shtml
from the sounds of this, perkins thinks that the evangelicals are going to finally rally around someone and that this conference will be a big stepping stone to the beginning of the group coalescing around a candidate.
Have the leaders decided they are going to put their weight behind Mitt?
I always thought they would remain somewhat divided this time around. I would be surised, but happy asa a mitt supporter becuase I think it would help him in south carolina and iowa.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Jacob,
“MWS, more than 19% say an evangelical president would be a negative impact on their vote. So what are you TRYING to get at??? ANY religion would…”
If that’s true (and those 19% weren’t canceled out by those who saw this as a positive) then yes, that has an impact.
What I’m getting at is the headline is totally wrong. A 16% net negative (19% negative plus 3% positive but the 3% positive are all Republican voting Mormons anyway) is HUGE in an era of close elections.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
marK,
“What flops, MWS?”
Are you serious?
October 18th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
MWS,
Mitt’s conversion was totally sincere, and everybody who knows him is convinced of it. I used to be pro-choice. I wrestled with the morality of my position for years before firmly deciding one day that the slaughter had to be stopped. I’ve never wavered from that decision since, and I’ve never looked back. Millions of Americans have made the switch that Mitt has. If you ever really gain an understanding of the man, you’ll learn that he keeps his promises and promise anything in the first place unless he knows he can keep it. Everybody who has worked closely with him has later praised his character and integrity. It’s obvious that you simply don’t know enough about him yet.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
marK,
Let me ask you this. If Romney were running for governor today, do you think he would be brandashing his pro-life ‘credentials?’ Do you think he would be talking to the Massachusetts electorate about the sanctity of life?
If you do, I’ve got some can’t-miss business deals for you. All it takes is a small investment….
October 18th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
tim:
So Romney is claiming that he has moved from being effectively pro-choice to effectively pro-life. It is still a flop.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Dave,
It is great that you have changed your mind. I wish and pray that more people would have this same transformation as you did. There’s nothing wrong with changing one’s mind.
But you must realize that many people would view Romney’s change very suspiciously (especially during the general election). It’s not just that he flipped, but he flipped at exactly the right time. And it has become a pattern too. It’s not just abortion.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Wiseguy,
“But you must realize that many people would view Romney’s change very suspiciously (especially during the general election). It’s not just that he flipped, but he flipped at exactly the right time. And it has become a pattern too. It’s not just abortion.”
Wait a second, this will NOT be a general election issue. What are they going to say? Romney is really pro-choice? That would help him get liberals and moderates??? Attacks from the left as a flip flopper HAS NEVER worked! And it will never will! The left and moderates love things to be squishy and fluid! It is the right where it counts and if Romney wins the nomination then it will be hardly talked about!
October 18th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I actually do not believe that Governor Romney “flip flopped.” His personal private view of an issue (abortion) was re-emphasized in line with his public or policy position. He was always Pro-Life, it just wasn’t emphasized in his public political positioning — mainly due to the office in which he was holding. It was primarily an issue of Federalism. As a Governor certain issues are lower on his hierarchy of policy decision-making. As a President, his personal views are able to flourish and guide his judgement.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
tim,
Although I’m obviously a partisan for Thompson, I want to be comfortable with whoever the GOP nominates. I’m not going to switch from Thompson to Romney in the primary, but I’d like to be able to jump on the bandwagon if he were to win the nomination, and feel that it is the right thing to do. I am still skeptical, but I want to be comfortable with every candidate, and am willing for you guys to convince that he would be a good choice, even if he is not personally my first or second choice.
jason,
apology accepted. You just have to realize I’m not always thinking with my Thompson glasses on. A lot of what may come across as just negativity is sometimes meant to be critique of a candidate.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Tip for the bloggers:
New CBS Poll is out.
CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007. N=372 Republican primary voters nationwide.
Rudy Giuliani 29%
Fred Thompson 21%
John McCain 18%
Mitt Romney 12%
Mike Huckabee 4%
Other/None 9%
Unsure 7%
October 18th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Evangelicals have one less candidate to back with Brownback gone.
If Huckabee can’t convince fiscal conservatives then the socons are going to back whoever they belive is most likely to beat Rudy. The choice betweeen Mitt & FDT is starting to head decisively in Mitt’s direction…
October 18th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
are those likely voters?
October 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
372 voters. is that big enough? Whats the MoE?
October 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Dr. Richard Land says pro-lifers aren’t concerned that Romney had a previous pro-choice position, that a lot of pro-lifers were once pro-choice who have changed their minds. They’re not concerned.
I don’t think anyone relevant is going to push this issue, just dems who wouldn’t vote for him anyway.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Word is there will be plenty more endorsements like this coming down very soon.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.
-Acts 13:50
October 18th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Dave,
I too am glad you saw the light on abortion as well. I sincerely hope that Romney did too. But my vote is a responsibility, and I cannot simply trust Romney’s marvelously timed conversion just because he says so. When the guy has lots of speeches establishing his pro-abortion bona fides, and zero record of pro-life action (other than his professed conversion), I hope that he is sincere, but that is not enough to trust the guy with the presidency. Maybe he could go back to Massachusetts preaching the gospel of life for awhile, and THEN I’ll accept the sincerity of his conversion.
I’ve got the solution! When Romney runs for office again in Massachusetts as a forceful voice for life, then I’ll donate $1000 to his next presidential campaign.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
The video where Romney emotionally bad mouths Reagan-Bush and promotes abortion really undermine anything he’ll say today.
I’ll vote for Romney over Giuliani but I don’t imagine Romney is able to win. He’d mostly be a placeholder for our 2012 nominee.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Wiseguy, you may want to read this article by James Bopp Jr, the leading lawyer for many pro-life organizations, among others, from last Feburary. He was not a man you can swap easily, since he pretty much is an one-issue man. If you are not sinerce about being pro-lifer, you won’t have him endoring you, let alone serving on your campaign team. In this article, Bopp went into depth on Mitt’s history, including his 1994 senate race and 2002 governor race. Of an interest note to you is that even though he declared himself as a pro-choicer in 1994, he received the endorement frome the state pro-life organization, Massahuesetts Citizens for Life, because he recognized the needs for some restrictions, like parent notification and more. here it is.. I want to apologize in advance that the article is long, but it is worth your time, especially if the lives of fetus (feti?) is one of your top issues.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
WiseGuy (#50), no, Romney is not claiming that he has moved from being effectively pro-choice to effectively pro-life. He has all of the reasons to sign a few bills into law, but he fought them as if he was a real pro-lifer. His conversion is genuine. You should read Bopp’s article at link I provided in #64 above. It goes into depth on Mitt’s pro-choice/pro-life history and why he changed. Straight from the mouth of an pro-life expert who talked with Mitt for at least a couple of hours about this single issue.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
EGS (#63), are you talking about “I am independent, I am not like Reagen” comment?
October 18th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
MWS (#39), if we do have the time to make comments here on this site, do not you think we would have the time to study the candidates, and perhaps try to understand all of the accusations against them before making those comments? In fact, that is why I come here again and again, so that I may give the supporters of other candidates opportunity to tell me what those accusations really are about. I have been here for many months, and there have already been many discussions about the flip-flop charges against Mitt. None of them sticks on him, except for the flipping (no flop) on his abortion position, which he confessed. Gay rights? Gay marriage was no where on the radar in 1994. He still is for gay rights as it was defined in 1994 — job discrimination, right to serve in military (other flip, as he once believe gays should be able to serve openly). In fact many of those rights have been passed or compromised and yet, nowsdays, GLBT community are demanding more and more rights, even beyond what is extended to the heterosexual community). Oh yes, there is another flip, as Romney once was for the abolition of Department of Education, but since then, saw how it helps to have the national testing and the state standards (oh, by the way, no flop here either). It sounds like to me that he is learning, and he is willing to keep what works well (even if he is against it initially), and discard the rest. Is this like Brownback’s vote on immigration bill, where he “changed” his mind 5 minutes after voting aye, or rather, saved his face? That is pandering! So, if you want to know if any flip-flop charge against Mitt, then ask about them specifically, rather than just to throw muds against him.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
This post is about the snowball of endorsements growing……
Shared values is what is truly important. The many different Christian faiths differ on theology, but their shared values hold them together. Mormon values do unit them with the conservative base and I am glad to see these endorsments for Mitt.
Rudy does not share the values of the conservative base and I am glad to see the movement away from Rudy. He is too similiar to Hillary for my taste!
I believe that Mitt Romney will be a very strong candidate and be able to win in a race against Hillary!!!
October 19th, 2007 at 7:28 am
SGS,
Bottom line, SGS, I don’t trust anyone with last minute conversions regarding the protection of life (THE number 1 issue) with the presidency. I hope it’s sincere, but the issue and the office are too damn important to simply rely on a great big grin and “TRUST ME!!!”
I’ve got nothing to go on but Romney’s word, and all the whole litany of people you can cite who believe him have nothing to go on but his word. That’s not good enough for me. Sorry, you can’t convince me otherwise.
The issue and the office are too important.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:39 am
,,,,to clarify, I will take someone who is verbally committed to life (Romney) over someone who is verbally committed to death (Rudy and the Democrats), but I will take someone with an actual track record for life (Huckabee) over someone who has recently made just a verbal committment.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:25 am
MWS,
When did Reagan flip on abortion? Answer: 1 year before he 1st ran for president in 1976. There were people like you who said that his conversion was too convenient to be believable, so they stayed with Ford. Had they known Reagan, they would have known his character, they would have believed him, and we probably would have won the ‘76 election, saving the nation years of extremely high inflation, unemployment, and all-around recession. Reagan won in ‘80 and governed 100% pro-life. How can you trust Mitt? The last 2 years of his tenure in Massachusetts, he governed 100% pro-life. OR, you could do a little research on the man, learn his character, and then you would know. He kept every promise he made in 2002 during his term in office. This was not out of character.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:28 am
And lots of people who think like MWS live in IA. That’s why Romney better worry about Huck.