The Candidates
Featured Archives
(h/t reader Dskinner)
The Romney campaign tonight announced they had picked up the endorsement of Jack Willke, one of the original founders of National Right to Life Committee who is known as the “father of the pro-life movement” according to the Romney campaign.
Willke had previously endorsed Brownback and switched his endorsement to Romney after the Senator dropped out of the race today.
According to Willke:
“Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life. Every decision he made as Governor was on the side of life. I know he will be the strong pro-life President we need in the White House,” said Dr. Willke. “Governor Romney is the only candidate who can lead our pro-life and pro-family conservative movement to victory in 2008.”
According to K-Lo over at the Corner:
Not a bad close to Romney’s Friday night in Washington. There may have been some murmuring during his speech, but Willke – a man who has devoted his life to protecting the defenseless – certainly buys Romney’s conversion story. That’s a substantive vote of confidence for Romney.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Does (well, did) Brownback have any other endorsements which can now switch to another candidate that we should be watching for?
October 19th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
[...] post by Matt C and software by Elliott [...]
October 19th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Romney’s picking up great endorsements it seems every couple hours.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Does anyone get the sense that Giuliani and Romney have become sort of the top tier, or a Tier 1A; while Thompson, McCain, and perhaps Huckabee to a degree are Tier 2 or Tier 1B?
October 19th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
This race has really been a Romney/Giuliani race for months now. While McCain and Fred have a lot of supporters, neither has the organization (McCain’s was actually stronger 5 months ago) or the funds to go the distance. More importantly, neither has a credible path to the nomination. Romney clearly does, and that recognition is spreading throughout the pro-life, Christian right world. They are coming to the realization that Romney is the only credible means of stopping Rudy, and they are getting on board. This is a great case in point.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Let’s remember though, that Rudy is a Republican, he’s one of us. We’re not trying to stop him, we’re trying to get the candidate that has the best chance of winning elected so that Republicans retain the White House.
October 19th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Rudy is sort of one of us…… but I much prefer Romney!!!!! I can hardly wait for the polls to catch up with the endorsements. What a weekend !Go Mitt !!!!
October 20th, 2007 at 12:05 am
[...] Wilke, one of the founders of National Right to Life Committee, has joined the growing list of Romney supporters. He had been a Brownback supporter until the Senator’s [...]
October 20th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I’m just wondering what basis are you judging whether Rudy is one of us or not?
October 20th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Ben,
Rudy’s my second choice, but to a lot of ardent pro-life people he might as well be the anti-Christ. I share MJN’s enthusiam. Looking back at the number of exclamation marks in MJN’s post, let me revise that. I share some of MJN’s enthusiasm.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Willke didn’t waste any time.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Rudy is my first choice, and Romney my second; but that means nothing when I am examining who is a Republican or not. The Log Cabin Republicans are just as important as the Christian Coalition. As for the pro-lifers, as mayor of NYC Rudy reduced the amount of abortions. I don’t know how much it helps to have someone who will only agree in principle to something. Personally, I’d rather have someone who may disagree, but gets the desired results. On the surface, it appears people are less worried about saving unborn children and more worried about retaining power in the GOP (i.e. James Dobson.)
October 20th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Let me clarify, not just as important seeing as how the Coalition reaches more individuals than the LCR, but their justification for being members of the party is the same.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Ben,
Use your head. The number of abortions declined during Rudy’s tenure, but not because of anything he did. Abortion rates all over America have been dropping for more than 15 years now. Talking points are fine, as long as they don’t circumvent thought. And, while I agree with you that on a per capita basis, the Log Cabin Republicans are just as important as the Christian Coalition, taken as a whole, The Christian Coalition is something like 1000 times larger, and about 1000 times as important. What most of us pro-lifers are really worried about is saving children. There’s reason to believe that Romney, who shares our concerns, will do a better job of that than Rudy, who doesn’t.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:46 am
“What most of us pro-lifers are really worried about is saving children.”
That is quite a loaded statement.
1) You think Rudy is lying about wanting to appoint justices like Thomas and Scalia
2) You think Romney can actually get elected against Hillary
3) You would condemn those who would vote 3rd Party — after all, they’d help Hillary
4) You think that overturning Roe v. Wade is first and foremost in “saving children,” not good economic policies that help people prosper, even though you acknowledged that that’s what did it across the country in #14?
Hmm…
October 20th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Ben,
In light of #13, the GOP is the proverbial big tent, which can accommodate anybody who wants to be a part of it. Nobody is trying to read anybody out of the party, but by the same token, every hierarchical position in the party, and every nominee, has to go through the same intra-party political process, and whoever wins, wins. If your guy wins, I promise to work for him. Just not with the same verve, elan, and enthusiasm that I will devote to Mitt.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:50 am
What if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Would it not just create a precedent that laws are dependent only on what court was in session and not sound Constitutional judgment? That would mean a liberal court would reverse more than just Roe v. Wade.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Dave, #16 is why Hilary Clinton will most likely be our next president. As much as I hate to admit it, the GOP just doesn’t seem to want to win in 2008.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Ben,
Roe v Wade would be reversed because it was a piece of judicial activism that lacked “sound Constitutional judgement” in it’s argument. Scores of non-Christian and non-conservative constructionist legal minds see it this way.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:58 am
As much as I hate to admit it, the GOP just doesn’t seem to want to win in 2008.
Ever hear of a “pyrrhic victory?” That is what many would feel if Rudy won.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:13 am
#15
1. Yes. Or at least his definition of a justice like Scalia and Thomas is different than mine.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Both are critical.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:18 am
And if Hilary wins you don’t think it would be pyrrhic? I’m just saying, that potentially 8 years of Hilary along with 8 years of a Democratic Congress would be devastating not only to the GOP, but America.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:25 am
#22
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean you run scared. That never works.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:30 am
This is a good endorsement for Romney. Romney will need similar endorsements in the future to cover his record.
I believe there was an implicit agreement among the major so-con leaders to refrain from endorsements until after the event. Romney should have waited until after the event to roll out this endorsement.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Ben,
Hillary winning would absolutely be worse than Rudy for our country (at least in the short term). But that would not be a victory for the GOP . . . thus there would be no “Pyrrhic Victory” for the GOP (a literary technicality, I know).
The idea of many is that with a Rudy win “even if we win, we lose” . . . hence, a Pyrrhic Victory . . . winning an election while sacrificing core values as some would put it. Some argue that this would greatly damage the “value voters” movements and causes.
Plus, even if elected, Rudy’s sure to offend social conservatives as his stances turn into policy and he fails to veto pro-choice legislation, or doesn’t quite meet his “Scalia or Roberts” promise. Actually, based on his record, Rudy’s pretty sure to offend all kinds of folks with his brash leadership style . . . Therefore, unless he drastically and noticibly makes our nation a better place in his first 3 years, he will lose some independant support and/or gaurantee a viable 3rd party movement making him unlikely to win a second term and granting that election to the Dems.
Just thinking long term.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:45 am
From WaPo: Huckabee may get a group endorsement:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/19/at_the_value_voters_summit.html
October 20th, 2007 at 1:50 am
So, I’m guessing you’d prefer someone who sacrifices leadership for someone who fears offending anyone panders to public opinion polls and interest groups. Sounds like you would have liked one William Jefferson Clinton.
October 20th, 2007 at 1:58 am
#27
I’d prefer someone who didn’t get into unnecessary pissing contests. There’s a difference between refusing to pander, and starting unnecessary fights.
October 20th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Hey stupid… I mean Wiseguy. The reason they are endorsing Romney is because of his record. In eery circumstance in which life was on the line- Romney was pro-life
October 20th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Before you call someone stupid, you might try running a spell-checker over your post.
October 20th, 2007 at 3:51 am
And spell check makes someone smart?
October 20th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Sarah,
I am making no judgment on the amount of intelligence of anyone. However, I am suggesting it is unwise to call someone stupid in a post that contains an obvious spelling error.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:46 am
I’ll be interested to see where some of the other former Brownback folks go.
One person to look for is Thomas Monaghan, who has alot of connections in the catholtic business community goes to. This guy has $$$ if used correctly.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:08 am
In his speech Romney mentioned Bill Cosby and his attempt to draws attention to the plethora of bad statistics related to out-of-wedlock births. Admirable cause, but it was strange to bring it up in front of a crowd that was distinctly not very diverse. Yet, when the best opportunity to discuss those issues arose, in the two minority issues debates, Romney passed. Seemed therefore disingenuous.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Remember Romney said “Slow and steady wins the race” and he is manifesting that strategy right before our eyes.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Pablo,
Your bias is obvious, because your skipping over some obvious facts. The last minority debate was scheduled during the last week of the quarter and all the major candidates were over-booked with fund raising events, necessary fuel to keep the campaign going. Holding a debate during that week and not getting ANY takers from the top tier is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most of the other candidates did not show either.
Also, the top tier gets MANY invitations to debates they cannot fit into their schedule. Even Obama has been publicly saying he has as many as he can schedule in and no more invitations please. You want to cast the pall of prejudice by your remarks, yet your comments have belied quite a bit of prejudice on your part. The world is our mirror.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Shawnie,
I am usually pretty straightforward with my prejudices. I did not have any thought about prejudice when I wrote that post. Rather my point is that the minority debates would have been an appropriate forum to voice support for Cosby and to draw attention to those issues. The lack of diversity at the convention was merely to point out that the message was not being heard by the community who needs to hear it.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:02 am
I am a Mitt supporter, but I think some of you are too harsh on Rudy’s record vis a vis the “social” issues. Yes, he is pro-choice on abortion, but he is also a federalist. I have no doubt that his judicial nominations would be infinitely better than those of any of the Dems. Also, I lived in New York during part of Rudy’s mayoralty, and he did what he could to improve the city’s moral climate and stand up for the rights of religious voters. Specifically, he dramatically cut crime, “moved” much of the porn business away from where children were and fought against taxpayer funding of anti-Christian art. I agree that Mitt would be “better” than Rudy on the social issues, but Rudy would be a nominee that virtually all of us should be happy to support were he to get the nomination. I actually think his big problem is his wife, who will be a handful for him.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Pablo,
So you’re saying that there are not many minorities represented at the Value Voters event? Just curious.
“Yet, when the best opportunity to discuss those issues arose, in the two minority issues debates, Romney passed. Seemed therefore disingenuous.”
Then how was Romney disingenuous with those remarks if you were not referring to prejudice. That is how it came across.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Romney has picked up some fantastic endorsements this week. As far as his elctability, I have no doubt whatsoever that once the American people get to know him, and once he and Hillary start the debates, he will be able to beat her quite handily. She is no dummy, but Mitt is amazingly intelligent, articulate, and his family values (Mormon or not) will be an asset.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Ben (#6), I think the first criteria we all should consider is, can this candidate retain the base of his party, which is approximately 1/3 of the voters. Then, we should consider how he could reach out to the remaining 1/3 independents. And this is the order on how we should determine the electability of the candidate, not vice-verse. Can you claim that Rudy will be able to maintain all of the support within the Republican Party, when he is playing with only 2-legged stool? Can you claim that he will be able to gather more than 30% of social conservatives he currently have behind him, since they historically are among the biggest contributors? Without the huge flow of cash, he won’t be able to go up against the Billary machine. He has the at least 3 times national supports than Romney, but he barely received as much doncations as Romney. Then, there are those 1/3 independents, among them are many concerned parents, people wanting to practice their religions in peace, those who are not as hawkish as some within this party, but want sufficient protection from the attacks from outside, and more. He may be able to reach some, but Hillary does have an advantage over Rudy in that she has the powerful spinning machine (MSM, and others). Rudy needs more than his 9/11 image, and I am trying to figure out what else he has that is very obvious to the common voters who do not read blogs like this over the weeks.
October 20th, 2007 at 11:03 am
The thing is, we cannot trust the polls. For example, Harold Ford Jr. and Bob Corker’s Senate race. Many polled that they would vote for Ford and he had a lead going into the election. Pollsters speculate that when voters were polled, they said they would vote for him so they wouldn’t seem racist. But for whatever reason, when the ballots were cast; Ford didn’t gain all the votes that he expected. Those that say they would vote for a third-party candidate are most likely just wanting to make a statement. Third party numbers are always higher at this point in campaigns. So, I’m skeptical that people would stray.
#38 – Don’t forget about how Rudy stood up when faced by the Brooklyn Art Museum.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
[...] straw poll – Final endorsement before the conference ends. This time taken from another campaign. (check – Dr. Willkie founder of a pro-life effort) … etc., [...]