Posted on 12/17/2007 4:02:56 AM PST by Kaslin
As we have said since the earliest days of this campaign cycle, the 2008 election is for president, not pastor. Conservative evangelicals need a president who shares our political and moral values and priorities, can win in 2008, and can govern effectively thereafter by articulating and implementing a values-based governing strategy. This is just what Mitt Romney did as governor and will do as president — and that's why the six co-bloggers at Evangelicals for Mitt support him. With the first primary votes less than a month away, it's time you joined us.
Governor Romney Shares Our Political & Moral Values
Political and moral values are informed by — but not the same as — one's religion. That's why we shouldn't casti our votes based on whose theology we like most. History shows that to be a poor approach.
For example, in 1980 voters had two choices: a divorced movie actor who did not regularly attend church and was not on good terms with all of his children, and a once-married Southern Baptist whose evangelicalism was at the core of his national identity. Voting on the basis of whose doctrine was better would have meant electing the second guy — Jimmy Carter — over the first, Ronald Reagan. Excluding those who don't hold to orthodox Christianity would also have meant excluding such great Americans as Thomas Jefferson — who denied the divinity of Christ — from positions of authority. Is anybody going to argue someone else should've written the Declaration of Independence?
Today, America needs a president who embraces a comprehensive and positive values agenda: standing for the sanctity of life, protecting traditional marriage, defending religious liberty and basic human rights at home and abroad, combating poverty and disease within the world's poorest communities, fighting for better quality of life for our citizens, and winning the War on Terror.
That's not to say doctrine doesn't matter — it does, very much, in our churches and in our individual relationships with God. But this is a presidential election, and those are about values. Governor Romney is the only candidate with all the right ones. One of his opponents (Mayor Giuliani) is simply not with conservative evangelicals on our bread-and-butter issues — life and marriage — and perhaps even more disturbingly, another opponent (Governor Huckabee) has virtually nothing to say about winning the War on Terror. That's probably the ultimate values issue, since the people we are fighting hate our values and want to destroy our civilization.
Governor Romney Can Win in 2008
The Supreme Court is one vote short of overturning Roe v. Wade, and the next president will likely nominate two or three justices. But he can't do that if he loses to President Hillary Rodham Clinton. Governor Romney can beat her — and the rest of the Democratic field. As a fiscal and social conservative, he's the only candidate who can hold the Reagan coalition together. Plus, he has already put together a strong, well-organized campaign with the firepower to win. Every single other GOP candidate either alienates a key part of the coalition or has weak a operation incapable of defeating a well-funded, ruthless, counter-to-our-values opponent in the general election.
Governor Romney Can Govern Effectively Thereafter
It's worth reprising: The Republican nominee must be both a fiscal and social conservative. That's the Reagan formula for success. When it breaks down, Republicans lose. And it will break down if Republicans nominate a candidate who says public funding for abortions is a constitutional right (Mayor Giuliani) or one who's known nationally for hiking taxes and spending money (Governor Huckabee).
But there's more than that. Above all else, the president has to lead — he has to be a good executive. And as much as we love President Bush, we've seen far too many examples in recent years of poor performance in this regard. Not only that, Washington is a tough town — and that will be true whether the Democrats continue to control Congress after 2008 or not. In that environment, leadership — especially conservative leadership — isn't easy.
Fortunately, Governor Romney has been a leader longer than he has been a politician. Prior to his political career, Governor Romney helped to launch the very successful Bain Capital — which helped launch such successful franchises as Staples and the Sports Authority — and then led a turnaround at Bain Consulting. He also saved the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City which, prior to his leadership, were mired in debt and corruption but subsequently became one of the most successfully-run Games in memory.
And he's governed in a difficult political environment, too. Massachusetts is the most left-wing state in the union. If you think Bay State Democrats aren't any different from their Arkansan counterparts, try defending traditional marriage or vetoing stem-cell funding up in Boston, as Governor Romney did, and see what they do. (As for New York City Democrats, I don't even know how they would react to such values-based governing, because I can't think of anyone who's tried it.) But Governor Romney did — in addition to helping turn the economy around, opposing driver's licenses and in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants, and defending Catholic Charities' right to restrict adoptions to man-woman couples. No other candidate has a record of such successful, across-the-board conservative leadership — especially on such hostile terrain.
Summing It All Up
Mitt Romney has been a standout conservative governor of a very leftist state. He believes in the traditional family, and he has fought for it — just ask Massachusetts' pro-family leaders. He's admitted he was wrong on abortion, and is now solidly pro-life — as his record in Massachusetts testifies. He also opposes embryonic stem cell research's speculative and open-ended carelessness with human life. He's shown courage under fire in several challenging situations, and has lived out his values (both publicly and privately) during a time when other Republicans, sadly, have not.
Conservative evangelicals do not have to compromise on our values this election: Gov. Romney embodies all the principles for which we've long fought. Plus, he has the organizational strength, executive experience, and moral rectitude to remind us what being a conservative is all about.
In other words, he's not just a candidate evangelicals can support — he's the best choice for people of faith. It's not even close. He's the only Republican candidate who can unite our party and win in November.
And the reality is: It's time to choose. If we refuse to support Governor Romney, the next president will definitely be a pro-choicer, probably one named Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Come on, brothers and sisters — let's get serious.
In the interests of full disclosure, EFM co-founder Nancy French has served as a consultant to Romney for President, Inc. The other members of the EFM team do not work for the Romney campaign, and the campaign has no editorial influence on or control over the site.
That's it, you're right, I'm going to vote for Mitt now!
/not
When they do it with something to lose ill buy it, when they do it because they are running to a different constituency its a whole other ball game..
But we can if we want to. What if a Satanist were running? Article VI applies to the government, not to the voter. In fact it exists to protect the voter, to protect his right to vote however he darn pleases.
Good point.
But he still cries too much.
Actually, no one ever votes for anyone.
A voter votes against candidates. No candidate ever shares all of a voter’s preferences so a voter has to compromise his principles every time he walks in a booth. Every time. No exceptions.
Hillary vs Romney. It is the only race in which Hillary can be stopped. The GOP has no money this year. The Dems have a fundraising machine running full blast. No other candidate can stop her, and he is rightward of her.
That’s pretty much it. Nothing more to examine or convolute. It is Hillary, or Obama vs the only Republican who can fund a campaign that can beat them. Get focused on the money realities because they decide the winner.
You have enough and compete, or you don’t and lose. In the case of the GOP this year, the situation is even worse than that. The Senate and House races where we have to fight a delaying action to limit seat losses (in a year where there are far far more GOP retirements than Dems) the GOP donor base has closed its pocketbooks. Any other candidate than Romney will have to draw down the GOP coffers to try to make payroll for the campaign. Romney can offset those demands with his checkbook.
These are the subtle realities of victory. You either let the Democrats achieve a veto override majority in Congress, rendering ANY GOP President irrelevant, or you fight tactically. Romney is the one with the brains. He can fight that tactical fight.
If you mean, those who vote based on religion alone, then I can agree. But as an evangelical, I'm supporting Fred.
Huck might be an ordained minister, but he missed some stuff when he read the bible.
***the GOP donor base has closed its pocketbooks***
The question why? Iraqi, corruption, border security, or trying to kiss up to the new Rodent majority?
As regards the pursuit of victory, it does not matter why. You go to war with the Army you have. We don’t have the power to freeze the election year calendar while attempts are made to change GOP policies to restart donations.
The calendar moves. Inexorably. The fund raising has collapsed. The coffers have to be spent on winnable races and only winnable races, and if the presidential candidate shows up at the door with his hand out, filling that hand translates to a tsunami of Dem seat pickups.
Only Romney can prevent this.
You just keep repeating this as if you can somehow make it true. It's no more true of Slick Willard as it is of Rudy, the last one to make the claim.
...the only Republican who can fund a campaign that can beat them...
L.Ron Paul? He's the one raising the big money. All Willard is doing is writing himself checks.
Speaking of tactical... If this is true, then he his a Gun Grabbing RINO that would trample on certain freedoms. Freep a Poll! (Mitt would sign assault weapons ban. Do you agree?)
* Gov. Romney Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office Of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney Announces Award Of Abstinence Education Contract,” Press Release, 4/20/06)
* Gov. Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Gov. Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
* Gov. Romney Supports Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
* Gov. Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo-Destructive Research In Massachusetts. (Theo Emery, The Associated Press, 5/27/05)
* Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: “Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review, 1/10/07)
* Gov. Romney Called For A Massachusetts Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman. “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear.” (Office Of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Statement By Governor Mitt Romney On SJC Decision On Same Sex Marriage,” Press Release, 11/18/03)
* When The Legislature Would Not Vote On The Amendment, Gov. Romney Filed Suit To Force A Vote. “Governor Mitt Romney and a group of Massachusetts residents asked the state’s highest court yesterday to override the Legislature and let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage, accusing legislative leaders of violating the state constitution by refusing to act on the proposal.” (Jonathan Saltzman, The Boston Globe, 11/25/06) Button
* Gov. Romney Enforced A 1913 Law Preventing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Couples From Marrying In Massachusetts. “Same-sex couples who live outside Massachusetts will not be able to marry in Massachusetts when gay marriage becomes legal here next month, Gov. Mitt Romney said.” Button
* Massachusetts Family Institute Kris Mineau: “He’s been rock solid on the issue of marriage.” (Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, 1/12/07)
The Boston Globe: “Some of Romney’s nominees do have stellar Republican or conservative bona fides. For example, Romney’s pick for Peabody clerk magistrate, Kevin L. Finnegan, is a former two-term Republican state representative. Another choice was Bruce R. Henry, the son-in-law of former SJC Justice Joseph Nolan whom Romney wanted to represent his administration in seeking a stay of the court’s gay marriage ruling.” (Raphael Lewis, The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)
1) A GOP pro-abortion group attacking him with negative TV ads in Iowa (and New Hampshire)
2) A GOP gay agenda group (the Log Cabin Republican) attacking him with negative TV and radio ads in Iowa? (Also, this candidate is front-page issue #1 on their website where they are soliciting donations to help take him down.)
Republicans want to put a face on Mount Rushmore, but Republicans today are demanding such ideological purity that they might not even nominate Ronald Reagan for president if he were to run now.
Abortion? Reagan was for abortion rights before he was against them.
Taxes? Reagan raised them as governor, and raised them several times as president after his big 1981 tax cuts. Immigration? He signed the law that Republicans now call amnesty for illegals.
My final comment is, there is no perfect candidate. Romney is a Conservative. He was Governor of one of the most liberal states in the country and fought tooth and nail against an 89% Democrat controlled legislature. My only regret is that he didn't run for a second term.
**a little suspect.**
I agree.
I’d prefer the title Christian.
I’m voting based upon my convictions. I’ll be casting my vote for Thompson.
Huckabee may be a good Christian. That does not mean he’ll make a good president.
Excellent article....thanks!
Like hell.
But, you have a lot of gall implying that someone so rabidly pro-abortion was actually on the side of pro-lifers in Massachusetts.
During the 2002 governor's race, Romney's platform stated, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's." - Romney's 2002 campaign website
In 2002, Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League's candidate survey: ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." Notably, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. - Boston Globe, 7/3/2005
"Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures." - National Review Online 2/11/2005
"When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered 'yes' to the question, 'Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency con-traception?' " - Boston Globe 7/7/2005
In March, 2005, Romney signed an annual proclamation establishing a ''Right to Privacy Day" to mark the anniversary of Baird v. Eisenstadt, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for unmarried people. Interestingly, Romney's staff deleted references to Roe v. Wade from the previous year's proclamation. - Boston Globe, 3/25/2005
"Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.' " (NOTE: Romney has supported abortion since before the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling!) - Boston Globe, 3/2/2006
And, so rabidly in favor of the homosexual agenda:
"During his 2002 gubernatorial run his campaign distributed bright pink flyers during Pride that declared 'Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.' Romney also argued that he would not only support gay friendly policies but would fight on behalf of the gay community to secure benefits such as domestic partner benefits and hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples." - Bay Windows 3/3/2005
"The state LCR [Log Cabin Republican Club] worked with Romney's unsuccessful campaign to unseat U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1994. Romney won the LCR endorsement primarily based on his support for the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a pro-gay piece of legislation that at the time had little Republican support." - Bay Windows, 10/24/2002
"There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions." On another occasion, his spokesman "declined to state Romney's position on whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, and declined to say whether the governor opposes gay adoptions." - State House press conference, 6/15/2005 - Boston Globe, 3/2/2006
Despite the over 2,500 pedophilia cases now on record involving homosexual scout leaders, Romney stated, "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." In the same article, a BSA official criticized Romney for opposing Scout policy. - Boston Globe, 10/27/1994
* The 2002 Olympics - run by Mitt Romney - was the only Olympics that restricted the Boy Scouts from participating. According to news reports, this was apparently because of pressure from homosexual activists. (But also, according to reports, homosexual groups participated fairly prominently.) Romney would not respond to reporters' questions about that action. The largest Boy Scout council in the country responded to the call for volunteers issued by the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, but the welcome mat was rolled up and the door slammed in its face. Olympic spokesmen for the 2002 winter games say the exclusion has nothing to do with recent protests by gay activists. While the organizing committee for the Olympic event is prominently displaying a call for local volunteers, they have explicitly let it be known that the Boy Scouts need not apply. "For us not to be involved is discouraging, considering the Atlanta games. The Scouting council there was extremely involved," said Kay Godfrey, professional Scout executive for the Great Salt Lake Council of Boy Scouts. - NewsMax.com, Dec. 18, 2000
"Romney also continues [former Governor] Weld's tradition of appointing openly gay people to key positions in his administration. One of his first cabinet appointments was Daniel Grabauskas, who Romney chose to serve in his cabinet as Secretary of the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction. The new governor's transition team also included several openly gay people, including Grabauskas, former lieutenant governor candidate and current president of the National Log Cabin Republicans Patrick Guerriero and former Mass. Log Cabin president Mark Goshko. Other gay Romney appointees include John Wagner, commissioner of the state welfare department, Mitchell Adams, executive director of the Massachusetts Technology collaborative and Jonathan Spampinato, a member of Romney's Diversity and Equality Opportunity Council." - Bay Windows, 3/3/2005
"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found. Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats." - Boston Globe 7/25/2005
* Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the "real threat to the States is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . ." Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court. Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which, in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated." Press release from governor's office 5/4/2005
- U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004 * Stephen Abany testified at the State House in 1999 advocating a bill to repeal the sodomy laws in Massachusetts. This type of activism obviously did not bother Romney. - Lawyers' Weekly 2/14/2000
SIX “Evangelical” Bloggers for Mitt!
The momentum is building!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let’s see. This week, six.
Next week, um, 9.
Next month, let’s say 50.
I could get excited about this kind of
evangelical fervor.
I’d rather have an honest Mormon* as president than a weaselly Evangelical.
*And I am not calling the current Mormon honest or dishonest.
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.