Presidential Favorite Will Emerge from 'Values' Summit, Conservative Predicts

Christian conservatives have thus far failed to rally behind a single candidate, but a prominent conservative leader predicts at least one candidate will emerge from the upcoming Values Voter Summit with major support from social conservatives.

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, recently said he was “very optimistic” with the field of candidates that will attend this week’s Washington Briefing 2007: Values Voter Summit. He believes there will be one to two contenders that will be revealed as the favorite among social conservatives during the three-day gathering.

But even if none of the candidates appeal to values voters, it is not a good idea to sit out an election, Perkins said.

“As citizens of this country we have the ability and the right to participate and I believe as Christian citizens we have an obligation to be involved in our community and our country,” the FRC president expressed during a news conference Thursday.

Over 2,000 social conservatives are expected to attend the Oct. 19-21 values voter summit in Washington, where eight Republican presidential hopefuls will address the largest gathering of pro-family activists.

The summit’s Republican guests include contenders Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and others. All Democratic candidates except for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson have declined the invitation to speak.

Those at the values voter summit will look for a candidate who shares similar values, which for most include pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-family principles.

Although Giuliani is pro-choice, the former New York mayor will also address the crowd of anti-abortion activists. Perkins said Giuliani’s presence as the only pro-choice Republican candidate will bring a kind of civility to the event at which he will be cordially treated and given the same amount of times as others to speak.

Furthermore, Giuliani will benefit from attending the socially conservative event because it will be harder for attendees to “demonize” him after they spend time with him, according to Perkins, who said he used the same tactic while running for a position in the U.S. Senate.

Also addressed during the news conference last Thursday was the controversy over a possible third party candidate.

During a meeting in Salt Lake City late last month, about 50 pro-family leaders had reportedly decided they would consider backing a third-party candidate if the Republican Party chose a pro-choice nominee, such as Giuliani.

Perkins contends that the media “misconstrued a little bit” the intention of social conservatives to “create a third party.” What the coalition intended to proclaim was not a decision to support a third party candidate but to proclaim their refusal to compromise certain core principles.

“There is no desire to create a third party,” Perkins explained. “There is no action underway to create a third party. There is simply a statement that ‘Yes, if the [Republican] party breaks faith with social conservatives then there will be a number of social conservatives that will break rank with the party.’”

Gary Schneeberger, Focus on the Family Action’s vice president of media relations, has similarly had to sort through some of the controversy that has swirled around his organization’s founder, Dr. James Dobson, who attended the meeting in Salt Lake City.

“Dr. Dobson never has said he will personally start a third party or even support efforts to create a new party,” Schneeberger clarified in a statement Friday.

“It (Dobson’s recent editorial in The New York Times) merely is saying, ‘I’ll look for a candidate who is consistent with my values, who is already running in the primary, and I’ll cast my vote for him.’”

Last week, Dobson also noted that the elections are still far away and are “very dynamic” and “volatile.”

“There’s still a possibility that one of those other candidates, a dark horse, could come from nowhere,” Dobson said on Fox’s Hannity & Colmes show Monday.

According to organizers of this week’s values voter summit, the briefing in Washington is important because it provides the largest platform for presidential candidates to address social conservatives. It is also provides a straw poll that will be announced late Saturday of who social conservatives are currently leaning towards.

FWIW .....

Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, 107th Mayor

Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. “Champions of Choice” Lunch

The Yale Club, Thursday, April 5th, 2001

As Delivered

Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.

As a Republican who supports a woman’s right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.

So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person’s conscience and that person’s way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn’t dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.

I think that’s actually a much more consistent position. Many Republicans support that position, but you don’t hear that as often. For example, in a recent poll by American Viewpoint, 65 percent of Republicans supported changing the plank in the Republican platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. That’s 6.5 out of every 10 Republicans. And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government.

[Applause]

In any case, I just wanted you to know that many of my fellow Republicans stand with you on this issue. So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.

Curious...why do you prefer mitt over fred?

The first reason that Mr. Romney is my first choice of the two is executive experience. Mr. Romney has a history of success when he's been in a position to lead. He was successful in business. He was successful with the Olympic Games. He was generally successful as governor of Massachusetts. Fred Thompson's most prominent leadership position was as head of the committee investigating illegal Chinese campaign contributions in the 1996 elections. I understand that the nature of a Senate committee is such that a senior senator can cause a great deal of damage, but the fact remains that Fred Thompson failed to show what we all knew to be true. Instead of keeping the committee focused on the important issues of bribery and influence-peddling that is close to treason, he changed direction to the general topic of campaign finance reform which allowed the liberals and Democrats to put forth all of their proposals to muzzle conservative organizations without inconveniencing the liberal media or unions. The presidency is an executive office, and this big difference in performance as an executive weighs heavily in Mr. Romney's favor.

The second reason is that even though Mr. Romney has taken more liberal positions than I prefer, I can somewhat understand his needing to take those positions in Massachusetts. When he had power as governor, his performance was more conservative than his rhetoric would have led us to believe. Mr. Thompson comes from a more conservative state and was elected as part of an attempt to bring about conservative change in government. He had political cover to be an excellent champion for the conservative cause, but he spent most of his career in the senate flirting with the middle. He supported the Lautenberg gun ban. He supported campaign finance reform. He voted "no" on one article of impeachment.

I lived in Tennessee in the late 90's, and I remember driving for about an hour on the afternoon of the vote. A radio talk show host was going to have Mr. Thompson as a guest to explain his vote, and his office called to say that he was having a hard time getting through because the lines were all busy. I remember the host telling the story and saying, "Well son, there's a reason for that." One of the comments made at that time was that Fred Thompson is a very masculine individual, and people assume that masculine means conservative. The reality is that they are not always the same. Fred Thompson is not a bad guy, but he's not strong conservative.

When I look at Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, I see two guys who are decent people but not great conservatives. Mitt Romney has said that he supports the assault weapons ban. If he didn't hold that position, he'd likely be my favorite candidate. Fred Thompson was elected in part because of voter anger over the assault weapons ban, but I don't believe that he'd oppose the ban as president. I disagree with some things that Mitt Romney says that seem to be pandering too much to unrealistic religious conservatives, but I like the fact that his ideological momentum is swinging to the right. I can't say the same thing for Fred Thompson.

Some of Fred Thompson's people on Free Republic seem too prone to lead with an insult, and to some extend, I've projected this tendency onto their candidate. He may be a great guy compared to some of his supporters. Through family friends, I know a little more about Fred Thompson, and I've never heard of him being that way in his own behavior. Except for the impression created by some folks here, I like Fred Thompson.

If Mitt Romney doesn't do very well in Florida and Michigan, his campaign will have lost by the time I get to vote. In that case, I may vote for Mr. Thompson to keep Rudy Giuliani from getting the nomination. If Giuliani gets the nomination, the defection of core supporters will give the Democrats another 20 to 30 seats in Congress. I don't know whether Fred Thompson will have any coattails, but he won't have the negative coattails that Rudy Giuliani will have. I think there's a chance that Fred Thompson could be a pretty good president, but I think there's a better chance that Mitt Romney would be a good president.

Bill

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.