Just assume, for a moment, that lightning strikes and John McCain selects Mitt Romney as his running mate. Would The Question rise up to bite them both?

We’re not seeing much lately among the punditry suggesting a lot of concern about that. Joe Gandelman, at The Moderate Voice, says McCain has been making interesting noises about Romney as a veep nominee:

The Republican party’s Presidential nominee to be, Senator John McCain, is now dropping hints that, yes, he would indeed seriously consider his former nomination rival former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as his running mate. . . . it would make sense. It would be perhaps the first Republican ticket in many years containing two media savvy politicos who know how to talk to the TV camera but also come across well on the TV camera.

Gandelman’s source is this Boston Herald Story, in which McCain is quoted as saying that

the former Bay State governor ran an effective primary campaign and is a rising star in national politics.

“Millions of Republicans voted for him,” McCain said during a swing through New Hampshire. “He’s earned himself a place in the future of the Republican Party.”

Notably, Gandelman lists the “downsides” to such a ticket, and . . . none of them includes Romney’s Mormonism!

Similarly, the CBS News blog (to which Gandelman links) says Romney’s attacks on McCain during the primary races could come back to haunt Romney. I don’t really think so, but again, like Gandelman, CBS does not mention Romney’s faith as a reason he’d be a bad choice.

What is going on here? Several possibilities come to mind.

First, these pundits could simply be clueless. Maybe the elephant in the room suddenly disappeared, but I don’t think so - not after 20 months of the news media talking about him incessantly.

Next, maybe the pundits are right - or a little bit right. Psychologically, maybe it doesn’t bother hard-core Evangelicals as much for the veep nominee to belong to a faith that upsets them so. That’s illogical, but I’m talking about psychology. Even though the vice president really is a heartbeat from the presidency, most of us don’t really believe the unthinkable will happen.

And yet . . . and yet . . . McCain needs to do what he must to win. If he really thinks he needs all the conservative votes he can get, then why would he risk alienating hard-core Evangelicals by choosing Romney?

Then again, those people are already about as alienated as can be. A “M & M” ticket would presumably not make anything worse.

As you may be able to tell, I am frankly undecided as to whether The Question would haunt a McCain-Romney ticket. What do you think?

John Takes A Stab: My off-the-cuff answer is “depends on Huckabee.” I am speaking metaphorically here. Let me break that down a bit. Most Evangelicals would have voted for Romney if there was not something they perceived as a more viable alternative in the race. There is a level of unease concerning Mormonism at the highest levels of government (no logic here, it does not seem to exist at the lower levels - it is a symbolism over substance thing) that can be overcome, relatively easily, unless someone specifically manipulates that unease, in the primaries that someone was Mike Huckabee.

That would be troubling for a Romney veep slot save for one fact - no one on the Democratic side comes with sufficient Evangelical credentials to pull off that manipulation. We are watching Obama’s religious credibility evaporate before our very eyes, and Clinton’s went away about a decade ago. No Evangelical leader worth the title is going to say a word at this point, they know the damage this whole thing has wrought.

If Romney is the veep choice, there will be rumblings - something like aftershocks from a major earthquake. There might be some that cause a little damage, but nothing fatal. The worst is over, the significant damage done. My guess is the only people that will pay attention at this point are political junkies.
Sphere: Related Content

7 Comments »

One of the primary jobs we have had on this blog is to seek and highlight instances of anti-Mormon sentiment and bigotry throughout the Romney campaign. It is very real and it was very effective, and it was wrong. Lowell and I both acknowledge that is was a factor in the campaign. There will be much work for this blog in the future trying to get, as best we can with our limited and non-academic resources, a handle as to how big and how effective a factor it was.

But there is also an important question about how to move things forward from here. One of the things that I am most concerned about both for my Evangelical brethren and my Mormon friends is relegating ourselves to separate, but equally isolated political “ghettos.”

Frankly, I think the perceived ghettoization of Evangelicals goes a long way to explain Huckabee and I fear that too much emphasis on “Mitt lost because he was a Mormon” runs the risk of creating a similar self-fulfilling perception for Mormons who are just now in the process of moving out of an actual imposed ghetto - The Jello Belt. I think this accounts for the difference in viewpoint and emphasis that Lowell and I bring to the question we have been discussing.

To give this a complete view I want to look at three basic concerns: 1) Blacks and The Self-Fulfilling Ghetto; 2) The Perceived Evangelical Ghetto, and 3) The Potential Mormon Ghetto

Blacks and The Self-Fulfilling Ghetto

I recently heard Los Angeles Talk Radio Host Larry Elder discuss his new book with Sean Hannity. His book is entitled “Stupid Black Men: How To Play The Race Card - and Lose.” Here is the Amazon description:

Radio host and bestselling author Larry Elder has made a career out of being a thorn-in-the-side of the conventional wisdom crowd. He deflates the pompous and points out the completely logical truths hidden behind the nutty rhetoric and out-of-control pandering of many of the politicians and so-called leaders of a variety of special interest groups. In Stupid Black Men, he takes on the mind-set that always captures the most media attention—as well as masses of public money—in this country: those who rail against racism as the root of all problems, and who end up hurting precisely those they claim to be helping.

His sometimes hilarious and always infuriating examples of wrong-headedness skewer not just politicians for their smugness and hypocrisy, but also actors, educators, religious leaders and the “mainscream media” for keeping the story in the headlines.

But Elder has a positive message, too: though they are fewer—and generally not as loud-mouthed—there are leaders and role models today who want to sweep away race-based whining and urge everyone in America, to share in the hard work, smart thinking and optimism that make this country great. [Emphasis added.]

The fact of the matter is that for blacks a continued reliance on the politics of race has kept them segregated and denied them the piece of the American Dream they deserve because they demand it rather than earn it. There was a time when blacks were denied even the opportunity to earn, but that time is past.

This is the thing about America - everything is earned. As a democracy we removed the hereditary right to rule - you must earn your place in leadership in this nation. We cannot produce equality of result, we can only produce equality if opportunity, this means we must earn the rest.

Which brings me to . . .

The Perceived Evangelical Ghetto

In the early days of blogging, God bloggers often complained of existing in a “blogging ghetto.” By that they meant they all read each other, but none of them ever broke out an became the next High Hewitt or Instapundit, or Michelle Malkin, or…. That very sentiment carried with it the presumption that someone should have broken out. I never understood the complaint, to be frank.

Christianity Today has no where near the circulation of Time or Newsweek. It never will - it can’t - because it has a specific identity and exists in that niche, and that niche is of limited size. The newsweeklies exist in a much larger niche and therefore have a larger circulation.

The problem is simple, when all you do is hang around with people who are like you and talk about stuff only you all are interested in, you create a ghetto. Is that ghetto imposed on you? Not really, its just that no one else cares about what you care about so much. In such a circumstance you have two choices, really. One start talking about other things so that more and other people will want to join the conversation, or somehow change other people so they want to talk about what you are talking about.

In the case of evangelical political activity, tough as it is to believe, not everyone is as strident on abortion and defense of marriage as we are. We are abortion absolutists, most people are not, they want limits, but not banishment. So, how do we get out of this political ghetto? Well, we can expand our interests to join the rest of the party and thus, by virtue of joining the conversation, be better heard (provided we make our arguments in language other than the language of our ghetto), or we can evangelize the world to be Christians so they think the same as we do. In actuality the answer is probably some of both, but that is not my point. My point is that we stay in the ghetto by virtue of our behavior, by clinging to our evangelical identity above all else.

Mike Huckabee has not helped in this regard at all. His protestations nothwithstanding, - he can even try to play the victim but - Huckabee played to the ghetto. His supporters in many cases were even worse. The problem is exacerbated by how many of us there are. Just enough to have influence, but not enough to carry the day. Huckabee with his cries of “establishment” played to the perception of the ghetto and did so in a way that encouraged us to remain in it rather than break out of it. (Not to mention his getting personal gain from it as we languished.)

Through all this, we not find ourselves at best wallflowers, if not outside of the dance altogether. Evangelicals have to make some choices. We have to broaden our message or we will be stuck in the ghetto, powerless and taken for granted, exactly what Huck claimed to want to save us from.

The Potential Mormon Ghetto

Mormons historically had ghetto imposed on them through persecution, but they have spent the last 130 years or so trying to move back into the mainstream of America. Mormon are idiosyncratic, but then as Martin Marty points out, aren’t we all. There is little doubt that those idiosyncracies were used to trigger old resentments and that hurt the Romney campaign in some places and with some people. The question, as we have said over and over and over, is how many people, how effectively?

Well, in one sense, the answer makes no difference.  If people keep claiming that it was all about Romney’s faith, like this student, or this newspaper, or this magazine (even with contrary opinion in the mag’s blog) then the Mormons run the risk of a new, but still self-imposed, ghetto such as blacks have built a whole culture upon, and Evangelicals now risk doing the same.

As when this all started, Evangelicals and Mormons find themselves with far more in common than they have differences. Their political effectiveness at serious risk.

What To Do?

Look at the Larry Elder book blurb above again - What is Elder’s advice to blacks:

…sweep away race-based whining and urge everyone in America, to share in the hard work, smart thinking and optimism that make this country great. [Emphasis added.]

That is, I think good advice for Mormons and Evangelicals.

What we need to do is to grow more sophisticated - to learn better how to do politics. We need to develop a message that appeals to the majority of the American people, but we need to develop it with out giving up our distinctives, our idiosyncracies, or our uniqueness. We can do this. Thomas Sowell or Larry Elder or Ward Connerly did not stop being black when they joined the mainstream of American political and cultural thought; the only people that think so are those who are afraid to leave the ghetto.

We can remain abortion absolutists, for example, but we must be open-minded enough to accept limits as a step in the right direction. But we can only take even those steps if we leave our ghettos and join the party. We are going to be stuck in our ghettos if we keep pointing fingers at each other and naming names. But we can leave our ghettos together by finding our common ground.

This is the reason I am unwilling to grant that the elephant to which Lowell refers is “huge.” If I think that, then I think it is too big to move and I have to stay stuck here in this ghetto. I am not interested in that. I am interested in either moving it out of the way or walking around it. I don’t want to focus on the elephant, I want to focus on the end of the journey.

Lowell adds:  I hesitate to tread on John’s well-written and thoughtful post, which I agree with almost 100%, but this seems the best place to contribute (I hope) to the discussion.

I still think the elephant is huge, but as John correctly observes, what’s really important is what we do about it.  For Mormons, the teachings of our church could not be clearer.  Here are excerpts from a letter read in every Mormon sacrament meeting (the main meeting of the Sunday worship services) in the United States:

“We wish to reiterate the divine counsel that members ‘should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness’ (D&C 58:27) while using gospel principles as a guide and while cooperating with other like-minded individuals. . . .

“Therefore, as in the past, we urge members of the Church to be full participants in political, governmental, and community affairs. Members of the Church are under special obligations to seek out and then uphold those leaders who are wise, good, and honest (see D&C 98:10).

“Thus, we strongly urge men and women to be willing to serve on school boards, city and county councils and commissions, state legislatures, and other high offices of either election or appointment, including involvement in the political party of their choice.

“While the Church does not endorse political candidates, platforms, or parties, members are counseled to study the candidates carefully and vote for those individuals they believe will act with integrity and in ways conducive to good communities and good government. Hence, political candidates are asked not to imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders.

“As always, Church facilities may not be used for political purposes, nor Church directories or mailing lists.”

I have been hearing almost those same words regularly all my adult life.  It seems to me that for Mormons to retreat in to the “ghetto” mentality to which John refers is contrary to the teachings and beliefs of our church.  So John’s counsel (in Larry Elder’s words, to “sweep away . . . whining and urge everyone in America, to share in the hard work, smart thinking and optimism that make this country great”) describe exactly what Mormons should be doing.  I can’t see any reason why Evangelicals should not be doing the same thing. 

At the same time, there are clearly Evangelicals in this country who don’t want to see Mormons serving on “school boards, city and county councils and commissions, state legislatures, and other high offices of either election or appointment.” I don’t know what Mormons can do about that except keep trying, and keep extending the hand of friendship and common cause to those who may disagree with us on religious matters.  Evangelicals have some work to do on increasing their brethren’s willingness to accept those efforts.
Sphere: Related Content

5 Comments »

Yesterday, Lowell asserted:

I continue to believe that if Mitt Romney were a deeply religious Evangelical Presbyterian, with the same resume, he’d be the presumptive Republican nominee right now, way ahead of McCain, with Huckabee not even in the race. Why? Because Huck would not have been the “values voter” (meaning Evangelical) alternative to Romney. He never would have taken off in Iowa, conservatives would have flocked to Romney, and the entire narrative of this race would be different.

I will not and cannot deny that a creedal Christian, of any stripe, Mitt Romney would have produced a very different narrative to the primaries, but it would far from make him a sure thing. There are any number of reasons and I will discuss a few here.

Evangelical Discontent

Throughout the entire second W. term that has been growing discontent amongst Evangelicals with the Republican party. It is born of an apparent lack of progress on the Evangelical issues, primarily abortion and defense of marriage. Any Republican candidate perceived to be the “establishment” Republican candidate was, and is, in trouble. We see this in Huckabee’s continued acquisition of Evangelical votes, even with Romney gone, and his own status of mathematical impossibility. There has been a revolt brewing for a while.

Iowa Is Nuts

Pat Robertson won Iowa. Howard Dean won Iowa. Iowa is often not predictive, and often, in the Republican caucuses goes seriously religious. Even a creedal Christian Romney would be out “religioned” by a Huckabee, he was a pastor after all. Romney needed Iowa, or New Hampshire, to start the ball rolling, that much is true - but he lost New Hampshire as well, and those people pay no attention to religion. The momentum strategy lost on more fronts that just religion.

Romney’s shot at catch-up after those first two was probably better absent the Mormon factor, but he was still going to be playing catch-up, a risky proposition.

Rudy’s Stumble

Rudy was conservative, but not socially so. He was supposed to coalesce the conservative vote, absent the social conservatives, and then Romney would appear a better alternative since he had some social alternative appeal, and would thus complete the three-legged stool and prevail. But Rudy’s coalescence of the economic and national defense conservatives was necessary for Romney to be able to seal the deal with the social conservatives. As it was, Rudy was a non-factor and that coalescence never occurred. Even if a non-Mormon Romney could have captured social conservatives early, without the coming together of the other two legs, the moderates were going to drive through the hole in the line and sack the quarterback. Otherwise, Huckabee would be at least close, if not winning right now.

This is a conservative loss, not just a religious one.

Never Underestimate Southern Baptist Judgementalism

For better or worse, Evangelicalism is dominated by the Southern Baptist Convention. Now, there are very reasonable and good Southern Baptists - but as a generalization, they condemn not only Mormons, but Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and as my denomination, Presbyterian, moves increasingly leftward, we too become victims of Baptist judgment.

This attitude makes “one of their own” about the only acceptable alternative, particularly in light of the brewing rebellion discussed above. They feel like they have compromised with the areligious (Reagan and Bush I) and the differently religious (Bush II) have have not gotten anywhere. It was going to be one of theirs or it was not going to be at all. A Mitt Romney that was anything other than SBC, particularly with an SBC alternative in the race (Huckabee), was going to lose with social conservatives.

California and Gerrymandering

I think Romney would still be in and fighting today had he managed to at least split the difference with McCain in California on Super Tuesday - and the polls certianly indicated that he should have.   However, with congressional district assignment of delegates, combined with congressional districts gerrymandered to favor Democrats, Romney left California almost empty-handed.

The new California primary system is a huge blow to conservatism in general and it has little or nothing to do with religion.  A strong Rudy probably would not have faired much better in the Golden State.

Now, again, a non-Mormon Romney would have had a huge effect on the interplay of these factors and things would have gone very, very differently, but a non-Mormon Romney would still be far from a sure thing.
Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

We wrote yesterday of working hard not to let the MSM write “the simple narrative” to the Romney campaign, and particularly the religion angle. And yet the SLTrib started to paint it in entirely religious terms almost immediately, which Lowell addressed well last night. And other events are breaking that do not help much.

Conspiracy theories are born of events, often unrelated, but which can be strung together to create a picture of sinister intent. In light of the desire of people to paint a simple narrative on this whole thing, I think James Dobson has fed a conspiracy theory for years to come with his endorsement last night of Huckabee. I think this may haunt Evangelicals:

In a statement first obtained by The Associated Press, Dobson revisited his declaration on Super Tuesday that he could not in good conscience vote for John McCain, the front-runner, because of concerns over the Arizona senator’s conservative credentials.

Dobson said given the situation at that point, he was reluctant to choose between “two pro-family candidates whom I could support” - Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

But Dobson wrote that Romney’s announcement Thursday that he was suspending his campaign “changed the political landscape.”

Now, I believe Dobson here. I do not know the man personally, but I know people that do, and I do not think he is capable of the deception or misdirection that would be necessary to pull off the obvious conspiracy theory that will flow out of this. My interpretation of this is that James Dobson is extremely firm in his commitment to social conservatives issues, that he backs those issues at the expense of virtually anything else, and that he is politically naive.

But my convictions on this notwithstanding, the appearance, which will be used by many to establish a narrative, is just awful.

Let’s start here, with this piece in the American Thinker:

The US has always had far too many varieties of faith and non-faith for any religion to gain a majority. That is why Huckabee’s faith-baiting didn’t play in most of the country, and it is also why his support will not expand far beyond the Bible Belt.

The “faith-baiting” refers to Huckabee’s anti-Mormon “aside” to the NYTimes just before Iowa. There is a lot of truth to that quote. Which means that by endorsing Huck, Dobson has pretty much squandered his endorsement. His conscience may have demanded same, but given that his lack of support for McCain was already well known from his Monday statement, not to mention his very early statements and their context, would not an endorsement of Huckabee been implicit after Romney’s withdrawal? And would have allowing it to stay implicit not have avoided the appearance of a conspiracy?

The possible theory is simple. Dobson’s Monday anti-McCain declaration could be read, and certainly was read by some out of their own anti-Mormon bias, as an encouragement to vote for Huck. It will be interesting to see - I hope someone polls this - how much of an effect Dobson’s Monday declaration had in Huck’s Super Tuesday southern sweep. To come out with this Huck endorsement mere hours after Romney’s withdrawal makes it all appear very strategic. You just know someone is going to try and connect the dots, and with the MSM poised on the religion question, and wanting to simplify things, they may be active participants is such conspiratorial theorizing.

When you also examine the actions of the Dobson-allied FRC, releasing key staffers to the Huckabee campaign just long enough to help with Iowa and rob Romney of momentum, one can construct a very plausible “Stop the Mormon” scenario.

With Mormon disappointment and anger at the levels it is right now, I am surprised the charge has not already been leveled. With so many creedal Christians out there floating outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the Mormons; it is a testament to Mormon patience and forbearing that they have not struck back in a similar fashion.

None Of This Helps Any Of Us…

Now, here is the bottom line. We are fighting liberal, secularist tendencies in the nation. Something Evangelicals, creedal Christians in general and Mormons share in common. Given that common cause, it makes no sense whatsoever to divide the forces - particularly when Romney is out. What possible political good can come from deepening the divide in an already divided political camp? The Mormon vote is significant and important to social conservative causes (see the American Thinker quote above) - driving an additional nail in an already sealed coffin can only serve as a big enormous, “Get out of my face and leave me alone.” And thus we Evangelicals lose potentially 6 million allied Mormon votes; votes we desperately need - particularly in a McCain lead party.

The chief charge of the left against us, as religious voters, is that we are small-minded, irrational, and easily led. These moves add to that appearance, supplying ammunition to our genuine political foe. It makes us appear more interested in our petty inter-religious squabbles than fighting for the things that matter and can be affected on the national stage. Likely innocence of intent notwithstanding, it also makes us appear devious and untrustworthy.

The social conservative wing of the Republican party is hurting right now, and this move opens the wound wider. BIG MISTAKE.

Saturday Morning Addition:   The WSJ looks at Dobson’s move in almost purely political terms and makes some pretty stark statements:

But for the network of socially conservative activists who are now such a large part of the Republican Party, this is also an instructive moment. They have to decide if they care more about achieving their policy goals than they do about being kingmakers within the GOP.

They then go on to make a very convincing case that McCain is the best bet at this point for pro-life concerns.  I’d like to rephrase this pullquote just a bit - What Evangelicals need to learn at this juncture is that it is more important to do politics well, advancing you particular concerns, NOT play identity games.  The WSJ argument is in many ways, the same one I made on Monday, save adjusting the math to compensate for Romney’s withdrawal.  *Sigh*
Sphere: Related Content

13 Comments »

Here are the key words:

“In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. This is not an easy decision. I hate to lose,” the former Massachusetts governor said.

“If this were only about me, I’d go on. But it’s never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country.”

Jon and I are still deciding just what that chapter will look like, but we are not going anywhere!

For now, here’s an appropriate thought from our interview with the Rev. Cecil “Chip” Murray:

Article VI Blog: Considering the questions that continue to follow Governor’s Romney campaign, what do you see as the biggest challenge facing Mitt Romney in his bid for the presidency?

Reverend Murray: I think Governor Romney must see himself as a symbol. Symbol of the underdog, who must run a good race, fight a good fight, and if and when he loses, walk with his head high because the victory was not in the victory, but in the struggle. He must hold America to its highest . . . . He may see himself as a door opener, because four years from now he might run again and find a whole new chemistry. Or forty years from now another Mormon will run, and they will see, just as Jesse ran for President and Al Sharpton ran for president. There was not a chance that they would win. Blacks knew it very well. They themselves knew it. But they were door openers for such as Barack Obama.

There’s more to come on this blog. Stay tuned!

John adds: Here is my take-away from the suspension speech: (the video is here)

“What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world? We believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity: almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity – opportunity is in our DNA. Americans love God, and those who don’t have faith , typically believe in something greater than themselves – a ‘Purpose Driven Life.’ And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country. The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation’s strength and they always will be.

“The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug. We have got to fight it like the poison it is.

“The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography – even celebration of it – and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today’s grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children. How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school and in life. A nation built on the principles of the Founding Fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

“The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through Constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it.

“Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America’s vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.

These are things that remain worth fighting for, and now the battle ground shifts, but the battle is far from over.

We as co-believers in Christ, even if we believe very different things about Him, have this fight in common and we have much work to do on our cooperation. We as conservative have a great deal of work to do as well.

Mitt Romney is as class an act as I have known in politics on this level. I salute the man, I applaud his campaign and look forward to what is next for him.

And this blog has much work to do as well. But I hope our readers will indulge a slower pace. It has been a long, hard-working two years.
Sphere: Related Content

7 Comments »

For my personal primary vote - crunch time is at hand. Tuesday is THE day for me. I am going to vote proudly for Mitt Romney. Not much of a shocker there, really, but people must remember that I did not start this blog to support Mitt Romney. Lowell can express his own motivations if he wants to, but when this all started, I was less than enthusiastic about Mitt Romney.

On Friday, Rick Santorum appeared on Hugh Hewitt, endorsing Romney. He said, in essence, that as the campaign has worn on Romney has genuinely moved from a conservative “ticket-puncher” to the real deal. That in nutshell explains my vote this week.

The conservative voice in the Republican party is at stake - everybody agrees on that, and Evangelicals are the energy, motivator, and banner carrier for that voice. . . . The current electoral calculus is such that a vote for Mitt Romney is the only way to preserve that voice.

But if I have not been a Romney supporter from the beginning, why have I labored this hard (and believe me, you have no idea how hard this really is) for nearly two years? The answer is very straightforward. When I was first introduced the the idea via Hugh Hewitt and Robert Novak that Evangelicals would not vote for Romney because of his faith, one thought ran through my mind: “political suicide.” Only one thing could result from such a bias and that was the Evangelical political voice being cast to the side. I wanted to protect that voice. Thus my half of this blog was born.

As is almost always true in politics, the journey has been quite different than I expected, but I truly believe that the Evangelical political voice is now at stake. If Mitt Romney loses - far from a foregone conclusion - his religion will be but one of many factors in that event, and while important, I do not think it will have been determinative.

However, as the race has narrowed down to two and the spoiler, the conservative voice in the Republican party is at stake - everybody agrees on that, and Evangelicals are the energy, motivator, and banner carrier for that voice. Conservatives lose and Evangelicals are on the bench, if they are in the stadium at all. In other words, we stand on the precipice I feared from the beginning. The current electoral calculus is such that a vote for Mitt Romney is the only way to preserve that voice.

Continue Reading »
Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »