Posted on 03/13/2007 2:53:17 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Put it this way: if you are about to have major surgery and your only choice was a church-going doctor with a high mortality rate, or an agnostic with a high success record, which would it be?
Conservative Evangelical Christian voters have come a long way in a short time. From their nearly unanimous condemnation of Bill Clinton for his extramarital affairs, a growing number of these “pro-family” voters appear ready to accept several Republican presidential candidates who do not share their ideal of marriage and faith.
Among those seriously under consideration by these church-going folks is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has been married three times and who had an affair with the woman now his wife when he was married to wife number two.
The second wife, Donna Hanover, once recorded a political commercial for Giuliani, touting his virtues as a husband. She called him “honest and very kind” and “this is the kind of man I wanted to be the father of my children” and “Rudy is such a great Dad.” It’s on YouTube. In recent days we’ve learned from his son Andrew that he and his father are estranged, but that they’re working on it. Andrew says he got his values from his mother.
Another of the thrice-married is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who, last week, trod the Damascus Road to Colorado Springs. On the syndicated radio program of psychologist James Dobson, Gingrich confessed that he had an extramarital affair with the woman to whom he is now married while he was married to his second wife. Gingrich acknowledged not living up to his own standards, or God’s.
A third Republican presidential candidate is Sen. John McCain, who has been married twice. He is disliked by many social conservatives more for his support of “campaign finance reform,” which they regard as an attempt to limit their speech, his work on immigration with Ted Kennedy and past remarks that some evangelical leaders are “agents of intolerance.”
Mitt Romney has the right social conservative views, fairly recently bringing them into conformity with their own, but to some conservative evangelicals he has the “wrong” religion.
Romney, a Mormon, is the poster boy for family values: one wife, handsome children, and no apparent personal skeletons in his closet, but some, not all, evangelicals can’t get over the Mormon belief that Jesus once visited America. They also reject the “Book of Mormon,” which they believe tells “another gospel.”
That substantial numbers of conservative evangelical voters are even considering these candidates as presidential prospects is a sign of their political maturation and of their more pragmatic view of what can be expected from politics and politicians.
It is also evidence that many of them are awakening to at least two other realities — (1) they are not electing a church deacon; and (2) government has limited power to rebuild a crumbling social construct.
The Census Bureau recently noted that only 23.7 percent of the U.S. population fit the ‘50s stereotype of heterosexual married couples with children. Even in the “golden age” of the ‘50s, the figure was just under 50 percent.
Until this election cycle, most social conservatives supported candidates and policies based on the married with children “ideal” family model. It may be the ideal, but it is no longer widely practiced, including by many conservative evangelicals.
Researchers have found many conservative Christians live in states where divorce rates are highest. These states overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage. Too bad they don’t do a better job supporting opposite-sex marriage in which they claim to believe.
No politician can “fix” broken heterosexual marriages. If they could, some of those mentioned above would have fixed their own. The crumbling “traditional” family is the result of many social and cultural factors. The solution, like the fault, lies neither with government, nor with politicians.
While “character issues” can overlap with other concerns when considering for whom to vote, conservative evangelicals are beginning to see them as less important than who can meet the multiple challenges faced by the nation.
Put it this way: if you are about to have major surgery and your only choice was a church-going doctor with a high mortality rate, or an agnostic with a high success record, which would it be?
I’d choose the agnostic.
Conservative evangelicals have grown up. But they still can’t stand Hillary Clinton, though she’s only been married once and is a Methodist. Jimmy Carter, also once married, only lusted in his heart. It makes one nostalgic for the “good old days.”
[Email Cal Thomas at CalThomas@tribune.com.]
Death of the corporeal body means nothing to the true believer! Just a fast-track ticket to salvation! Halleluia!!!
I'm shocked your post went into a black hole.
I've linked it and reposted under editorial.
That's misleading. First of all, are children counted in the overall population? Since they aren't usually married and usually don't have children, that skews the figure for "heterosexual married couples with children" downward. Secondly, are couples whose children have grown up and widows and widowers not counted in the "heterosexual married couples with children" figure?
I would probably take the unbelieving doctor who as well if they other was likely to kill me. Who wouldn't?
re: From their nearly unanimous condemnation of Bill Clinton for his extramarital affairs
I would beg to pick a nit with Cal here. The condemnation of Bill Clinton by the conservative Right was a lot more inclusive than simply his extramarital affairs. Everything about him was cause for alarm for this member of the conservative Right.
"I would beg to pick a nit with Cal here."
The tone is patronizing.
And he doesn't mention Reagan's marriages - that would undermine his thesis, and self-appointed sense of superiority.
Cal hasn't been reading FR recently.
I don't think he disregards everything else, but Thomas is addressing marriage.
I don't see supporting Guiliani as having anything to do with the maturation process. Quite the opposite.
I have avoided posting anything on FR for the last month given the high level of vitriol on most threads. I am encouraged whenever I read Cal.
This analogy would work if it was the only difference between Rudy Giuliani/John McCain/Mitt Romney and other conservatives. But it's more than just religious preferences.
That said, Mitt's the safest bet of the trio. McCain and Giuliani?
Agree with HitmanLV - death of the earthly body to the true believer means nothing! Give me someone who is at least pro-life!
Wake up people! The media wants Rudy, because he will be beaten. Romney scares them because he totally breaks the Daddy Warbucks (Dole, Fred Thompson, McCain, Cheyney and yes Giuliani)image of republicans they are trying to brainwash the young into having. I am no booster of Romney, his flip flops arrouse deep suspicion. But he can look into a camera and come right back at you looking incredibly good (both in physical appearance and speech content).
It is also evidence that many of them are awakening to at least two other realities — (1) they are not electing a church deacon; and (2) government has limited power to rebuild a crumbling social construct.
The Census Bureau recently noted that only 23.7 percent of the U.S. population fit the ‘50s stereotype of heterosexual married couples with children. Even in the “golden age” of the ‘50s, the figure was just under 50 percent.
Until this election cycle, most social conservatives supported candidates and policies based on the married with children “ideal” family model. It may be the ideal, but it is no longer widely practiced, including by many conservative evangelicals.
Points to remember.
Cal going to bat for Rudy. Dunce.
I know that one day you'll read the entire article before posting a comment.
If I suspend credulity and hypothetically accept Cal's premise...What does it profit a man to mature emotionally yet let his intellect become a babbling brook?
I did. That is what he is doing.
What exactly is this "high success rate" that the "agnostic" Rudy Guiliani has?
I know. He does not need to say anyone by name. And you would not have posted this article if it did not come across as doing exactly as I stated it was doing. Supporting Rudy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.