Mitt's Evangelical Breakthrough

The American Spectator ^ | 8/25/06 | W. James Antle III

[Valin]

Things are looking up for Mitt Romney. Not only has the outgoing Massachusetts governor been getting reasonably favorable press from usually hostile places but, courtesy of George Allen's Macaca moment, his position in the 2008 Republican presidential field suddenly looks more secure -- the most viable candidate to the right of front-runners John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Romney appears to sense the opportunity. For social conservatives, he has swung pro-life on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. To burnish his supply-side credentials, he has pressed the Democratic legislature to lower tax rates and signed into law the nation's largest sales-tax holiday. And when Sen. John Kerry argued that Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror, Romney -- who traveled to Baghdad in May -- countered by saying the 2004 Democratic nominee "shows a complete lack of understanding of the kind of enemy we're facing."

Despite daunting early poll results, Romney might have a chance if he can win over small-government conservatives who have unhappily resigned themselves to McCain and religious rightists who aren't aware of Giuliani's pro-choice stance. That means the Mormon from Massachusetts will need to appeal to evangelical voters. Can he?

The people behind Evangelicals for Mitt hope so. They make the case that evangelicals are politically sophisticated enough to support a candidate who shares their values even if he doesn't share their theology. The website's mission statement calls for a president who not only "shares our political and moral values and priorities" but "can win in 2008, and can govern effectively thereafter."

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

I understand where you're coming from, but combine a MA governor with adoring MSM coverage, and some of us in flyover get a little suspicious. Except for McInsane, I think all the prospective GOP candidates are far better than any RAT, but still, this sudden love affair with Romney does cause me concern. That said, I still think it will be Allen or a Southern/Midwest governor to be named later.

[posterchild]

They guy's got people and business fleeing his state.
I recently fled 'his' state. Economically speaking, Mitt is not the problem but a relative spark of goodness in an otherwise productivity hostile govt. Note to the nation: Vote for a candidate with the letters MA (or NY) after his/her name and get what MA (and NY) have.
During his last campaign, he had to go through a bit of gyration and prostration to convince people that his MA ties were strong and that he wasn't some carpetbagger from UT.

[Valin]

Thanks.

[Maneesh]

The MSM fawning maybe due to his movie star looks. As far as Allen goes, no Senator has been elected president since JFK. The American people do not trust someone that has not had not had executive experience and Senators are essentially debators and policy wonks, unsuited to actually making decisions. Mitt is a governor and also a very successful business executive which is a a huge plus in my opinion over people that have never had a real job or business and lived off the public troth.

His toughest obstacle is the "MA" tag and all I can say is that he has retained his conservative credentials in this socialist cess pool. He also has experience in dealing with liberals in the MA house and senate which will come in useful as President. Still the best choice IMO.

[Valin]

If John McCain gets the nomination I will be very very VERY suprised.

[MassachusettsGOP]

The Legislature was going to pass a Health Care mandate whether he supported it or not. By supporting it, it allowed him and the Republicans to elimanate some new taxes they tried to create out of it. (In MA the only thing Republicans do is play defense)

Not really something I would brag about when running for President.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Allen does have executive experience. He was governor of VA before winning his current seat. You're right that single biggest obstacle for Romney will be the (MA) behind his name. After being subjected to years of Dukakis, Ketchup Boy, Barney Frank and of course, the U-Boat Commander's antics, we Red State folks are a bit weary about any pol from that state.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Personally, I don't think McCain or Guiliani will make it past South Carolina. Rudy will be done in by his liberal social stances and One Note Johnny will have a Dean moment.

[maryz]

No, but he got into a lot of trouble recently for using the expression "tar baby" (I think about the Big Dig), in spite of the fact that lots of other people, including a Boston Globe editorialist, had used it in the past few months. From Mitt's mouth, of course, it means he's racist.

[Maneesh]

No argument that. Massachusetts has produced some of the worst politicians of the last 30 years and in red state nation we are the land of Kerry / Kennedy. I am hoping that conservatives (because we think) will make a logical decision on Romney and not write him off purely because he is from MA. Even in this socialist mess there are bona fide conservatives so I would appeal to my red state brethren: don't judge a book by its cover, actually read it and you may like most of what Romney is about. For one his fantastic communication skills will be a huge plus in winning the media wars that are crucial to defeating the enemy within.

[July 4th]

But, I look for McCain to have a Deaniac moment during the primaries and that will 'cook' his chances

I fully expect that to happen. I think he's a good and decent man, but he is a bit unstable, and the other candidates know this - both Republican and Democrat - and they will try to get a rise out of him.

Romney is doing better than I'd expected, and I don't think anyone can count out Rudy just because of his liberal social positions. If these terror threats continue at the same pace, most people will vote for leadership above all else, and they know that Rudy can lead.

[RexBeach]

Well, that's "The Boston Globe" for you. It is the Jerry Mahoney to "The New York Times'" Paul Winchell. Ugh.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

I won't write off Mitt yet, because I know what he did with the Salt Lake Olympics and in private business. Still, color me skeptical. ;^)

[NeoCaveman]

I agree with your analysis.

[JHBowden]

Romney's not my first choice, but may be prove to be a viable consensus candidate everyone can rally around.

[TomGuy]

One Note Johnny will have a Dean moment.

[evil snicker] I am so looking forward to that video.

[maryz]

The guy's got people and business fleeing his state.

Primarily the doing of the legislature. Like others, I think he's a good and decent man, but he's not nearly enough of a street fighter (too much of a gentleman?) to even make a strong, consistent stand against the two-bit crooks that make up the MA legislature. Reid/Pelosi would stomp him to a grease spot.

[MHGinTN]

"For social conservatives, he has swung pro-life on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research." Don't believe this porpaganda. Romney, like other prominent Republicnas (like Orrin Hatchling) don't believe an embryo is a human until implanted, so conceiving embryos in petri dishes makes these youngest humans fair game for cannibalizing in Mormon calculus.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

He had three in 2000: 1. South Carolina, 2. His attacks on Christian Conservatives, 3. California. His worshippers in the MSM managed to coverup the first two(except for the GOP base, who watched, and remember how unbalanced he was in those moments) which were buried. The final one, in California, even they couldn't cover up, especially when he got ugly with Maria Shriver(she was still a reporter for NBC back then). That exchange sealed his fate, because even the MSM knew he was finished.

BTW: McCain's exchange with Shriver led to one of Rush's funniest spoofs ever with McCain and Ahnold on the phone.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

After viewing the website for "Evangelicals for Mitt", one can only conclude that there are FIVE evangelicals for Mitt -

Charles Mitchell
David French
Dawn Meling
Matt Gabler
Nancy French

- who write the blog. Nowhere on the site do they say a word about themselves as to what kind of "evangelicals" they are. Nada.

One can only conclude that these five whatevers recognize that evangelicals will have a hard time voting for someone who is a mormon and believes in a different Christ and a different way of salvation than they do themselves. Because of this - and I suspect in coordination with mitt - they are trying to head this off at they pass.

I for one, will go fishing that day if the republican leadership puts mitt forward as our candidate.

ampu