Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Moral Majority, has announced he’s supporting Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination. Anybody interested in the 2008 race may find this interesting:
“I felt it would come down to a contest between Giuliani and Romney,” Weyrich said. “I don’t want Giuliani as the nominee because a lot of our values voters will defect… I know the same argument is made about Romney, but eventually, I think those voters can be brought around. There is a hardcore group that absolutely will not vote for Giuliani… I don’t think they’ll go for a third party candidate, I think they’ll stay home. I think there’s no convincing them. I’ve talked to a number of these folks. Even though they recognize that Hillary is a real problem, they think that it’s better to have somebody bad like that than it is to have somebody halfway reasonable.”
Translated into less politically correct language, what this means is that Weyrich feels “values voters” (ie, social conservatives who don’t always vote) will not vote at all when having to choosing between two social liberals, Giuliani and Hillary. However, when having to choose between a social conservative Romney and a clearly social liberal like Hillary, they will be motivated to come to the polls, despite the fact that Mitt is a Mormon. Interestingly, Weyrich argues that anti-Mormon evangelicals can be “brought around” to supporting a Mormon if it means preventing Hillary from getting elected.
I know I have posted a lot on the 2008 campaign. It’s one of my areas of interest, and I think Weyrich’s comments are newsworthy. If you don’t like the post, don’t read it. It’s a free country.
Any off-topic comments will be deleted.
Interesting–more anti-mo’s will vote for Romney than Guiliani. I think Weyrich is right.
This just might be the tipping point for Evangelicals to throw their weight behind Romney.
This from Rich Lowry in National Review “the Corner” today:
“Speaking of Romney, he is probably best positioned of any of the candidates to win the nomination at this point. Doesn’t mean it will happen obviously. But he has solid leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, is real close in South Carolina where he has been weak, and has done his utmost to become the right-most viable candidate in the field. He’s not always inspiring, but has to get credit for doing the blocking-and-tackling it takes to win the nomination.”
Lowry also points out that Giuliani is hurting himself with his socially moderate/liberal positions.
Here’s the link:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDM5NTFlNGNmOGU5YjM4NTY4NDJhNTM5Y2QyNjM5ZDQ=
This is newsworthy. I didn’t know this.
I remarked elsewhere that I really think Romney is shooting himself in the foot by trying to act like “there’s really no difference between us.”
Statements like that are just going to annoy conservative Christian voters, many of whom are emphatically convinced that we are most certainly NOT the same as them.
Face it, a lot of the conservative Christian base thinks Mormons are two-faced religious opportunists who will do anything and say anything to get our missionaries in your door. They have long suspected us of saying one thing while believing another. So they simply aren’t going to buy it when Romney comes around claiming to be “one of them.” All he’s doing is making people unnecessarily suspicious.
When Romney also is seen doing ideological about-faces on questions of abortion, and pandering to the base, it actually serves to reinforce these stereotypes about Mormons, and by extension, about himself.
I actually think Romney would be getting more respect from Evangelicals if he weren’t so busy kissing their butts. He really should be playing the centrist who has shifted opinion slightly on the key issue of abortion. But so far, I think he’s overplayed the lets-all-join-hands theme. And I think he’s not passing a lot of people’s smell tests as a result.
It will be interesting to see if Huckabee can make himself relevant by attracting enough votes in the early primaries. His momentum might be the most significant threat to the Romney campaign.
I thought that it was the consensus on right and left was that Paul Weyrich is crazy. I may be the only thing that Orrin Hatch and I agree on. Romney has become the “anybody but Rudy” candidate. I am not sure if it will work for him. I know that Paul Weyrich supporting him is not reason enough to oppose Mitt but for me it is a red flag. I might have voted for Massachusetts Mitt. His conversion to right conservatism is sad. Wow, Paul Weyrich…
Chris H, Weyrich is certainly pretty far right-wing, but he is a big deal among movement conservatives and evangelicals. I wouldn’t call him “crazy,” based on what I know about him, but he is taken very seriously by conservatives. If you don’t like right-wingers, then you probably won’t like him. But in the end the issue is really whether this fits into Mitt’s strategy, which is to be the true conservative candidate. Whether or not you agree with the strategy, or want him to be a conservative, or want him to be a moderate is really irrelevant. The issue is what does he believe and what will get him elected. Rudy is clearly the moderate among the Republicans. If you want a moderate, vote for Rudy (yes, I know that Rudy is right-wing on some issues, but overall he is a moderate). If you want a conservative, well, Romney appears to be that candidate.
Bill, I would agree that Huckabee is a significant threat. He has been surging lately. Interestingly, the movement conservatives are not coalescing around him. One reason is his lack of money. Another is that he is a “populist” candidate. He raised taxes in Arkansas and is a protectionist, for example. Some people have described him as the typical Southern populist, and that seems right. Putting aside religion, he would be a horrible candidate for the Republicans, in my opinion, even as a VP. Personally, I like the Romney-Haley Barbour ticket. But that’s just me.
Seth R, I know that you are a centrist, and you want a centrist candidate, but Romney is not a centrist at the end of the day. Yes, he ran for Mass gov as a centrist, and yes, the flip-fopping charge carries some weight. But I think he has been a conservative all along and that finally he is getting to be himself. If you want a centrist, vote for Rudy.
Rudy’s nuts. If I choose any of the Republicans, it’ll be McCain (even though his candidacy is tired and out of luck). I’m just saying the pandering is reinforcing all the negative Christian fundamentalist stereotypes about Mormons. He’d better do some straight talking quick, or he’ll never have the momentum he needs to win the national election.
I’m a conservative voter. I’m pretty sure I can’t cast a vote for Rudy. His head seems to be in the right place on important issues, but I can’t trust his heart. I think his moral compass is broken and I don’t see any signs he’s made repairs. I won’t stay home from the polls, but I might skip voting for president if I can’t cast a vote for anyone on the ballot in good conscience.
Geoff wrote:
I have to give Geoff props for either the most honest or the most ironic comment yet made about the Romney candidacy.
This statement shows the problem with the single-axis left-right political model. There are many key issues — most notably war and civil rights — on which Giuliani’s stance is far from moderate, and closer to fascist.
Better political spectrum models include the Nolan Chart and the Political Compass (Google them), which more accurately place Rudy — and most of the rest of the candidates, Republican and Democrat — in the realm of authoritarian conservatives.
See:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007
Mike, the only thing we may agree on about this particular issue is that traditional “single-axis left-right political models” are indeed problematic when describing different candidates. Rudy is very conservative on some issues, liberal to moderate on others, very law-and-order but at the same time anti-gun, so, yes, he’s hard to categorize accurately.
Geoff,
Being “anti-gun” is not a liberal/left position, it is an authoritarian position. There are plenty of historical examples of far-right leaders who wanted a disarmed populace.
I agree with most of what Seth R. had to say. I think Romney has been running his campaign all wrong. I think he at heart is a problem-solver, an executive, rather than the ideologue he is portraying himself to be. It’s ironic that the things he did best in Massachusetts, such as working with members of the opposition to develop a palatable (thought not perfect) health plan, he is now downplaying. And by running as a rabid right-winger (let’s double Guantánamo!), he comes across as a panderer. And these days, he probably is.
Rudy’s foreign policy stance could probably accurately be described as the kill-em-all-let-God-sort-em-out approach. The guy’s a mad dog. But at least he’s principled. Which is more than I can say for Romney. Same thing with McCain. Heck, I’d even take Thompson or Huckabee over Romney at this point.
Romney could change my mind. He’s undeniably competent. But he’s got to drop this kiss-up routine if he wants my support.
Mike, wow, even when I agree with you, you find something on which to correct me!!! :0
Seth, Eric, I’m shocked, SHOCKED that there are people in the bloggernacle who don’t like Romney. What is this world coming to?
By the way, for any Rudy supporters out there who may be interested, Pat Robertson endorsed him today, so he is getting at least some conservative support. In case there is any doubt, if the campaign is Rudy against Hillary I will vote for him in a heartbeat (but not enthusiastically).
An endorsement from Pat Robertson seems rather lightweight when compared to someone like Weyrich. I know Robertson is well known, etc.. but how many people really take him that seriously when it comes to political punditry?
Guiliani is a demagogue, and frankly scary. He is everything that is wrong about Bush with none of the social conservative values, If it cam down to him and Hillary I would stay home, or vote Ron Paul, which is the same thing.
Doc: Ron Paul just raised $4.2 million in a single day this week. With a strong independent streak in New Hampshire and Paul the first to run TV ads there, don’t count him out yet.
I voted for Giuliani every time he ran for mayor, and I liked the fact that he was a tough s.o.b. The city needed one, and he did a great job in helping to make this a decent place to live for a lot more of our fellow New Yorkers.
That said, I’m not sure that I want the same kind of man as President.
I’m with Mike–the best line of the thread so far is this one:
I’m not sure what Romney does believe–or if he really believes anything at all (on political matters, not religion–I’m not doubting his faith or his faithfulness), and I’d like to see the real Mitt come out from behind his political strategists. It might even make me want to vote for him (and not just as a vote against any of the Democrats running this go ’round).
Mike, Ron Paul is this election’s Howard Dean as far as grassroots fundraising and support goes. I’ll admit he has been impressive as far as those things are concerned.
That said, I still think it’s safe to count him out of GOP nominee battle. Whether you like Ron Paul or not, a vote for him will have the same net impact as staying home.
For the record, I’d vote for Paul over Hillary any day. But then again, I’d vote for a fire hydrant over Hillary any day.
If my dog were a male, she’d vote for that fire hydrant too.
You know, it’s kind of funny. So far this has shaped out to be a very interesting presidential election. But that said, I haven’t been this indifferent as to who gets elected since high school. It’s neat entertainment, but I don’t really feel vested in the ultimate outcome.
Probably because I’m a foreign policy wonk. And honestly, there’s really not much difference at all between any of the candidates on this score (except Rudy and Ron Paul). Hillary is unlikely to do anything differently foreign policy-wise than Romney or McCain, or Obama.
I’m utterly unconcerned about the immigration debate. Whichever direction the government takes on the issue, fine by me. As for health care, I’m just not seeing much difference between the candidates. Edwards seems to be championing some desperately needed consumer protection, so I might consider him on that score. But otherwise…
And I’ve never cared much about the abortion debate one way or the other, except to express irritation about it being essentially one big national threadjack.
In the end, I don’t really care if Hillary wins, or if Obama wins, or if Romney wins, or if McCain wins. There’s honestly not much difference between them. That said, it’s looking to be an entertaining show to watch – if a tad long.
I beg to differ, Seth.
There may not be much of a difference between the parties yet on some of the foreign issues you’re most concerned with, but there seems to be a huge difference- at least between the parties if not between candidates within their own parties- as to how we’d handle Iran.
The other big difference would be Supreme Court nominees. Roe v. Wade may not be a big deal to you, but it is to them. Roe tends to polarize the citizenry and the candidates. With that as a litmus test, you’ll get very different politically oriented judges from the respective parties. You give me your stance on Roe v. Wade, chances are I can guess how you’ll run international policy.
Roe v. Wade, I would personally like to toss the whole issue back to the states to fight it out, the way it should have been done 30 years ago.
But pragmatically speaking, we may be too far gone to turn back the clock on this one. In which case, I’m in favor of the trimester approach outlined in Roe v Wade. If it has to be a federal issue, I don’t think you can deny abortions to women who want them. Partial birth abortion seems unnecessary to me and I support the ban. But I would totally relax restrictions on the “morning after pill” and birth control drugs (aside from safety concerns).
In foreign policy, I’m an old school Clausewitz-style realist along the lines of Bush Sr.’s crew (with a generous nod toward multilateralism). I’m utterly disgusted at the juvenile antics of the the neoconservatives, whose stance can be summarized as “imperialism absent the willingness to pay for it.”
On issues of government regulation of industry, I tend to fall in favor of more regulation – and that IS actually an area I care about.
You might very well be right about Iran actually.