GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Here’s the setup.
Lowell Brown, the savvy legal eagle over at the Article VI blog, links to this article by Warren Smith. (Lowell and crew are masters at surveying the current intersection of politics and religion. Its an important post which we will discuss at some later date but Smith’s claim is the issue at hand.)
In his WorldMag article, Smith alleges that Paul Weyrich (noted conservative Christian leader who endorsed Romney last November) now openly regrets his endorsement. Quoting Weyrich: “Friends, before all of you and before almighty God, I want to say I was wrong.” Smith continues:
In a quiet, brief, but passionate speech, Weyrich essentially confessed that he and the other leaders should have backed Huckabee, a candidate who shared their values more fully than any other candidate in a generation. He agreed with Farris that many conservative leaders had blown it. By chasing other candidates with greater visibility, they failed to see what many of their supporters in the trenches saw clearly: Huckabee was their guy.
Lowell thinks Smith is spinning. I’m not convinced. Its difficult for me to claim spin with that direct quote from Weyrich. Still, context is everything.
My sources tell my that Weyrich (like many conservatives) was not a little miffed about Mitt’s endorsement of McCain. I understand his sentiment but disagree with his reasoning.
The gist of the meeting, which Smith says took place in early March, lambastes leaders for not getting behind Huck. Its hard to justify this thinking. I could use the same logic in my corner to berate Iowan Evangelicals for not getting behind Mitt (which is the demographic move that started the whole McCain ball rolling after all).
From my perspective Mitt’s McCain move was calculated but completely logical. McCain has always been the snubbed candidate from most sides of the conservative playground. But today, he’s the only guy left to be picked for the kickball game. The good news is this: with the anti-Bush electorate so vocal, McCain may just be the best guy to put up against the Dems. This is what Mitt sees and what I hope our readers will see as well.
To wit: conservatives who oppose McCain for political reasons are essentially “kicking against the pricks” - a rough venture when the alternatives are President Clinton or Obama.
Still, Weyrich is expressing a certain bewilderment and understandable angst which many conservative Christians are feeling about McCain. Another source who is deeply connected in Evangelical circles expressed his dismay that McCain isn’t reaching out to them.
A third source confirmed this feeling but indicated that its mostly par for the course. “McCain is coming to these conservative events but he does so just to check the box that says he was there. He holds no private meetings, no meet and greets and never lingers to mix with the crowd.”
I hope he’s wrong. Its going to take more than the facade of placation to placate these masses.
Still, context is everything. While Weyrich was miffed at Mitt I’m told he’s also a bit perturbed about Huck’s defense of Reverend Wright. What goes around comes around.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I would not have made the same original decision the Mr. Weyrich made, but he should not regret his decision. We all make an assessment based on what we see. Sometime we make the right move, sometimes not, but Mr. Weyrich remains a great man.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Mr. Weyrich talks about Huck representing his values, all I can assume is he means evangelical beliefs. Because I have no idea how Weyrich can fell Huck better represents Mitt on any conservative value, other than abortion.
There was a reason that most evangelicals didn’t support Huck even after winning Iowa.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Hedge fund James Alpha Management is down 27% inception to date (in a little over a month).
March 31st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
That may be so, but there was also reasons why none of the other candidate received a majority of the Evangelical vote and it is not all related to Abortion or in some case Social issues in general.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I have to agree with Weywrich’s sentiment that they blew it by not going with Huck. As this election continues to play out we are going to see how inadequate McCain is. I like the guy, but listening to him talk about anything other than foreign policy is painful. A couple times he said “leader” instead of “lender” in his econ policy speech and that was because someone wrote it for him and he had no real idea what he was saying and therefore could not mentally correct the mistake.
Huckabee, otoh, is an excellent communicator and knows the economic issues.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Oh come on, Huckabee was the worst candidate over the earth, even worse than McCain.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
What Weyrich (and others) may want to consider is that his brand of theocratic, sectarian politics is losing its appeal even among religious/socially-oriented conservatives, not to mention more secular, limited-government conservatives. The Bush campaigns and the Bush presidency were built on the animation of Weyrich’s core followers to the near exclusion of anything else. The results have been disasterous for the conservative-Republican brand which should serve as a reminder that the GOP is a secular political party, not a church or a religious organization.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Yes, our party is secular in the sence that it does not prefer one religion over another, but it still must have values.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Everyone who didn’t vote for Huckabee made a mistake.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Of course it must have values. Freedom and individual liberty are among the core values inherent in the founding of the United States and in the US Constitution.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
And how did Mr. Bush or Mr. Weyrich infringe on Freedom and Individual liberty?
March 31st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Maybe McCain is holding back because he is going to pick Huck for VP?
Why waste the time and energy reaching out to evangelicals when you are going to lock in their enthusiastic support in one shot?
Why not, say, work over the Mormon vote now, use Romney why he is eager to whore himself for a chance at the VP… so all the Mormons are not so angry when Huck is picked later?
(For all the knee-jerk-bigot-accusing Romneybots, the above is a joke. You may not think so, but I laughed imagining you considering the possibility and forming your angry responses.)
March 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
We must remember that the press will scrutinize McCain’s VP choice and if he goes outside of what the press views as his comfort zone (Romney or a hard conservative) he will get panned. There was real friendship between McCain and Huckabee during the campaign so picking him would be pretty easy.
I personally think he wants to pick Lieberman, but his advisors say no way.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Charles can’t seem to post a comment without some major venom against the LDS church.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
No we should not have all got behind Huckabee.
Yes, Mitt Romney was right to endorse McCain.
Yes, McCain is only marginally acceptable.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Henry,
“No we should not have all got behind Huckabee.”
I’m willing to concede that Cindy McCain and Ann Romney should not have supported Huck, for the sake of domestic tranquility.
But as for the rest of you……….
March 31st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Charles:
I agree with most of your Conservative principles and I know you are joking in part to get a rise out of some people. However, with respect, I do not think it is wise to poke fun at people’s religion even if we don’t agree with everything that religion stands for and even if we fell that they are bigoted against our religions. We are all Republicans and all Americans and even though we come from different faiths, we should share similar values.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“The good news is this: with the anti-Bush electorate so vocal, McCain may just be the best guy to put up against the Dems.”
Probably true, but considering McCain’s positions on several key issues, and his only half-hearted support for others, I’m still not completely comfortable with McCain. Yes, it looks like McCain could very well win, and yes, he is better than the Democrats, and yes, if McCain steps aside in four years and lets Romney or another stong Conservative run on his coattails he might end up being all for the better, but I can’t help worrying about the fact that we are giving up a lot of ground on issues like immigration by having McCain as our nominee.
Would Huck have been better? I don’t know. He is certainly more conservative than McCain on many issues, and he would certainly have been easier to “bully” into following the Conservative line, but there was something about Huck’s personality that made me question his ability to be a strong President.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
OHIO JOE: I think if you look closely that I did not say anything bad about any religion — Evangelical Christian or Mormon — in the post.
But, thank you for the thoughtful response. I had expected one or more like the anonymous “Charles is a hater” post.
I guess I was only trying to prove the point that any Romney hit is turned around as bigotry by some Romney supporters. If I have any “venom against the LDS church” it was certainly not represented above as is accused.
Some Romney supporters sound more like the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. then they realize. And, while I would oppose Romney anyway — because he is not a true conservative — the cultish like frenzies that some Romney supporters work themselves into makes me like him less.
The actual joke was that McCain is using Romney while planning to pick Huckabee. I don’t think anyone really believes that. I don’t.
True, my litmus test for all conservatives is a consistent and committed pro-life record, so I believe Huckabee would be a better choice than Mitt “Planned Parenthood” Romney. But, the only way Huck gets the nod is if Hillary is the nominee and McCain decides that winning Arkansas is important.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I’m willing to concede that Cindy McCain and Ann Romney should not have supported Huck, for the sake of domestic tranquility.
But as for the rest of you……….
Seriously? Not on your life.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Charles is a hater.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Buncha hypocrites. Huckabee too. Huckabee’s a hater. I wasn’t looking forward to his initiating a push to eradicate Mormonism from the White House. I mean, it didn’t seem impossible after all his ANTI-ANYTHING but what I BELIEVE rhetoric and efforts, honestly people. Wright is a hater, birds of a feather. Weyrich just seems flaky. Not much to like this political cycle. No, not likin’ McCain either.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Huckabee is a great communicator therefore we should have voted for him…good one. Huck isn’t our brightest candidate and going up against Obama or Hillary might be embarassing.
Even though I am not enthusiastically behind McCain, I think he has more in the bank than Huck to compensate for any perceived weaknesses.
If Huck is going to be the next flag bearer, he needs to demonstrate something nationally signficant in the next few years. (a good speech with some folky anecdotes does not count)
March 31st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
“True, my litmus test for all conservatives is a consistent and committed pro-life record”
You do realize that even Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have met your requirements?
March 31st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
ACT:
I think Mr. Reagan was Pro-Life. Yes, I know he was a convert, but he was very Pro-Life.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:33 pm
If Huckabee is so great and McCain is so bad, why didn’t Huckabee expose him instead of fronting for him. Now has Huckabee been thrown under the straight talk express or been rewarded?
March 31st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Huckabee endorsed McCain as well. Is Weyrich miffed at Huckabee?
March 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
OHIO JOE:
Reagan expressed deep regret for signing the abortion bill in 1967, months after taking office. And, by 1970, Reagan was successfully opposing the California legislature’s attempt to liberalize abortion laws. By his first run for President in 1976, Reagan said that he had done more soul searching on abortion than any other issue. By 1980 Reagan had a solid pro-life viewpoint and ten years under his belt. His pro-life record and conviction were validated as President by his understanding and opposition to world population control programs (think embryonic stem cell research) as well as abortion on demand.
Reagan felt and expressed deep remorse for the role he played in the murder countless unborn babies. He actively fought to undo the damage he and other had done.
Mitt Romney signed pro-abortion legislation in 2006, right before leaving his single term governorship. He still proclaims his Hillary like healthcare plan. Guess who sits on the advisory board making health policy… that’s right, Planned Parenthood. It seems also that the big, bad Massachusetts courts “made” Romney sign $50 abortions into law. He signed without a fight — while line-item vetoing other provisions that did not involve a woman’s “right to choose” — which Romney vowed to protect. Romney is a Planned Parenthood fundraiser attendee. Romney is a Planned Parenthood donor.
Romney is proud of the role he played in the murder countless unborn babies. He has expressed no remorse and no regret (other than that YouTube has him adamantly stating his pro-choice viewpoint). He has done nothing to undo the damage he caused.
Perhaps if Romney dedicated the next eight years to protecting unborn children and studying conservative ideology, I might consider him safe for 2012. Other than that, he fails the stink test.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Sorry JOE, that was more for “act-blog”.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
#27. I think the issue is that Romney endorsed McCain while Huckabee was still in the race. Of course, had the reverse been true does anyone honestly believe that Huckabee would have endorsed Romney over McCain had the Huckster been first to fall out?
For all the talk about how much McCain and Romney hate one another, I think there’s probably more animus between Romney and Huck.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“Perhaps if Romney dedicated the next eight years to protecting unborn children and studying conservative ideology, I might consider him safe for 2012. Other than that, he fails the stink test.”
Yeah, I’m sure you would. *rolls eyes*
BTW, 2012 is in four years, not eight.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
12,14,19,28 All your posts are so mean…. You seem to be just a hateful person….Romney is out of the race and still the hate…For your information ALL POLITICIANS ARE PHONIES TO SOME DEGREE…………If you can’t get your facts straight and know what you are talking about (Romney’s role in the murder of unborn babies 2006.) just STOP. IT MAKES YOU SOUND REALLY STUPID. Some of these threads get out of hand….if we could just keep to the correct FACTS…McCain is the guy…….We shall see how bad McCain wants to be Pres by who he picks as his VP.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I wonder if Dr. Dobson or any of a number of other influential religious leaders thinks they still have any pull over the “flock.” It seems to me that the Evangelical leaders were endorsing left, right and center, and it didn’t much matter. Folks voted for whom they felt most comfortable, mostly Huckabee and Romney.
Charles, I disagree with your line of reasoning on the abortion issue with Romney. The first time a bill came to his desk which concerned life, he vetoed it. Before that, it had always been a matter of theory for him (What should the role of government be in abortion?). Once it became “real” in essence, he did some soul searching and came down for life.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
After Huckabee got out of the race, Huckabee blamed his loss on some of the conservative leaders who did not support him. (Weyrich) I am sure that Weyrich has been taking some heat especially since Romney lost.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Gov. Romney receives an award: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/03/06/romney-medals-in-religious-freedom.html
April 1st, 2008 at 3:54 am
I backed Huckabee from Early January 2007, when he announced. I’m an evangelical, and I was very upset with Romney’s style of campaigning. Couple that with the fact that he represented not conservative, not moderate, but liberal positions on abortion, gay rights, and gun control for a long time. How can you trust a man like that from out of the gate. Was his conversion sincere? Does it matter? The fact is, Romney shouldn’t have run this time around. He should’ve sat it out, and increased his conservative credentials. I like Mike, but the truth is, it was absolutely necessary that McCain win the nomination. Both Romney and Huckabee alienated all the wrong people. Mitt’s approval ratings have been lower than Hillary Clinton’s. That’s pretty devastating. No, we needed McCain this time around. Just pray he picks a strong VP, with strong conservative credentials, that can poney up for next time around. It used to be “I like Mike”, but for me now it’s “THE MAC IS BACK, BABY”! Romney, maybe next time you won’t go negative, maybe next time, you’ll be ready to take a stand on conservative issues from the beginning, maybe next time I’ll be able to say I trust you. Would I have voted for Mitt if he was nominated? Yes! Any of the republican candidates were better than any of the democrats. Cut spending, cut taxes, win in Iraq and then pull out, no more nation building, back to the Reagan era of politics. That’s the way it should be.