Has the religious right picked a candidate?

In recent weeks, major religious-right heavyweights like James Dobson and Tony Perkins have made it clear that if Rudy Giuliani wins the GOP nomination, they’ll leave the party. For all the already-outlined reasons, I’m pretty sure the movement isn’t bluffing.

That said, Dobson & Co. aren’t executing a general-election strategy; they’re executing a primary-election strategy. They don’t want to give up on the Republican Party — the risks for the movement are at least as great as the risks to the GOP — they simply want an ideological ally to be the party’s nominee.

OK, but which one? The religious right wants someone the movement can trust (which excludes John “agents of intolerance” McCain), someone considered viable (which seems to exclude like-minded candidates such as Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback), and someone who’ll endorse the cause’s agenda (which would exclude Ron Paul). That narrows things down a bit.

Now, it’s possible the religious right powerhouses won’t rally behind anyone, but that poses yet another risk — if there is no religious right favorite, it’s more likely the theocon vote will be diluted and Giuliani will benefit.

Who’s left? Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. Dobson has already vetoed the prior, and as of yesterday, the movement seems to be shifting towards the latter.

In a bid to derail Rudolph W. Giuliani’s surge in the polls and rally evangelical voters, an influential evangelical public relations executive wrote to some 150 top conservative Christian leaders warning of the prospect of a Giuliani or Hillary Rodham Clinton administration and prodding them to rally instead around Mitt Romney.

Mark DeMoss, a publicist whose clients include the Rev. Franklin Graham, penned a five-page letter, urging evangelical leaders to “galvanize support around Mitt Romney, so Mr. Giuliani isn’t the unintended beneficiary of our divided support among several candidates.” Or, “worse yet,” he warned, “so we don’t abdicate the presidency (and the future of the Supreme Court) over to Hillary Clinton.”

It seems to be part of a trend.

Obviously, the religious right has been reluctant to back a Mormon, but DeMoss said the movement needs to put that aside.

“I fully recognize some evangelicals take issue with me for supporting a Mormon for the office of president, and I respect their concerns,” he said in the letter. “Indeed, I had to deal with the same concerns in my own heart before offering to help Gov. Romney. But I concluded that I am more concerned that a candidate share my values than he shares my theology.”

He went on to say, “as a Southern Baptist evangelical and political conservatives, I am convinced I have more in common with most Mormons than I do with a liberal Southern Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic or a liberal from any other denomination or faith group.”

Just as importantly, around the same time DeMoss’ letter was going out, two other major religious right players were signaling to the movement that Romney is in, and Huckabee is out.

Two social conservatives leaders — in surprise moves yesterday — criticized fellow evangelical and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, while praising another party hopeful, Mitt Romney, a Mormon.

Giuliani, meanwhile, is trying to impress local religious right leaders, but isn’t having much luck. Iowa Christian Alliance President Steve Scheffler, for example, sounds more annoyed than anything.

“Yes, I and others met with some of the senior staff — but only for them say…’We have some things in common,'” Scheffler says.

“It was clearly a meeting to patronize and not to talk about real issues. Just telling us that Hillary Clinton has to be beaten and insinuating that anything is better than her — just doesn’t cut it like it might have 10 years ago. This constituency is much brighter and sharper and ‘not taken in.'”

The point, Scheffler continues, is this: “Why won’t Rudy himself sit down with myself and a few key ‘movers and shakers’ in the movement without a bunch of staff in the room trying to control the sequence of events? Pro-family conservatives here in Iowa will not ‘buy’ what Rudy’s people are saying here.”

Stay tuned.

I don’t quite get this.

What makes Romney acceptable and Giulianni unacceptable? Romney doesn’t strike me as any more or less “liberal” than Giulianni. I suppose he’s substantially less libertine in his personal life than Giulianni is, but their records don’t seem that different to me.

Is it that Romney has gone out of his way to pander to the religious right while Giulianni has blown them off? Heck, I can see Romney nominating almost the same pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-corporate judges that Giulianni would nominate – except that they might be slightly less fascist than Rudy’s nominations.

I don’t understand this move at all.

  • It is about power, not just ideology.

    Dobson and the boys wouldn’t get those chat sessions at the White House from Rudy, like they do from Shrub. Can’t stand to give up the perks of power.

  • It looks like religious conservatives are addicted to the political power they have accrued over the last 20 years and are loathe to relinquish any of it. It’s so bad that in order to maintain that power they are ready to back a Mormon candidate. This is amusing on several levels. Two of which are that Romney’s conservative credentials are not that strong and most of them would never allow a Mormon into their home want to have dinner with one. I consider Romney a political chameleon who changes his color to match whatever political landscape he operates in. I can’t believe that the religious right believes that he will represent their views.

    As a Mormon myself, I am shocked that these religious conservatives would consider backing an LDS candidate because of the treatment I have received from some of these “devout Christians”. Most of them believe that, because of our theology, Latter Day Saints are going to hell. Why wouldn’t they believe that an LDS president wouldn’t lead the country straight to hell? The only explanation is that they would rather compromise and back a candidate that’s electable and then hope to be able to manipulate him/her when in office. Apparently, anything is better than electing a Democrat. These are strange times.

    out west

  • This isn’t surprising. Romney’s the one guy who is potentially acceptable to both the Dobson and Norquist wings, by virtue of his total shamelessness when it comes to “principle.” Unlike Huckabee or even Brownback who seem to have some truly unshakable convictions, Romney’s a true Al Davis Republican: just win, baby.

    The question is, one, whether the stamp of approval from Chistatollah Dobson, “Psycho” Perkins and the rest can overcome their constituents’ anti-Mormon bigotry, and two, whether or not Romney can finesse all those clips of him saying the exact opposite of what he professes now in 1994 and 2002, when soliciting the votes of a more liberal electorate.

  • So the fundy frontmen have made it plain that their political views are more important than their religious teachings. Or, I should say, that some of their religious teachings are more important than others. They say:

    …I am more concerned that a candidate share my values than he shares my theology.”

    He went on to say, “as a Southern Baptist evangelical and political conservatives, I am convinced I have more in common with most Mormons than I do with a liberal Southern Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic or a liberal from any other denomination or faith group.”…

    So there it is. Their “conservative values” (we hate gays and minorities) trump their “faith”, since the Mormons are, by almost every “conservative’s” measure, cult members.

    What these “conservatives” are saying is that they’re more like cult members (their words) than they are like normal Americans. Which is true. But they need to get busy deprogramming the wingnuts, who have been taught from birth that Mormons are in a cult.

    Good luck!

    And I hope I’m wrong, but I think Romney would gladly fake a “conversion” and renounce his Mormon faith if that’s what it would take to be president. What a story that would make! And even if he pissed off every single Mormon in the country, he would still get their votes because they really hate Democrats.

    Democrats of course would refuse to point out that it would be the mother of all panderings, because our side does not play hardball, we play the game the way we wish the other side would play it.

    ———————

    One more thing. When you read this:

    “This constituency is much brighter and sharper and ‘not taken in.’”

    Did anyone else have coffee shoot out of their nose?

  • While the Dobson gang may chalk up supporting a Mormon for the White House as “the Lord working in mysterious ways,” Romney has proved to them that he knows how the game is played. Romney is speaking in their code language and paying hommage to their ideals. Romney is telling the evangelicals he is in their pocket. Horselover Fat said it well when noting that it’s about access. Earlier generations of evangelists used to claim having a line of communication straight to God, these guys see the real power as a direct line to the Oval Office.

  • I’ve been saying for awhile that they would default to Mitt. They hate the Mormon thing, but all the other candidates carry worse baggage or, in the cases of Brownback and Huckabee, are such obvious southern hicks that they couldn’t be credible in the general.

  • Ron Paul doesn’t endorse the agenda of the religious right? As a fundamentalist seminary graduate who was born and bread in the religious right of Francis Schaeffer’s legacy, that’s news to me!
    To be sure there does exist a new religious right that has latched onto Bush’s big government “compassionate conservatism,” which does not match up with Paul (or the Bible). But the old religious right is still alive and well. This was and is a movement that believed in small government, federalism, strict adherence to the constitution, shunning of ventures toward one-world government, removal of federal meddling in all matters religious and educational, and most of all overturning Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul is the best match for this group that has ever run for President.

  • i, for one, look forward to an all-out religious war at the repub’s convention — complete with the losers being burned at the stake!

    mmmmm, crispy critters.

  • jimBOB – I agree somewhat. I think the “leaders” and the more plugged-in regularly engaged wouldn’t have any problems compromising and picking Romney, but some rank and file, everyday voters may still be squeamish enough to stay home. I guess time will tell.

  • The campaign process started way early for the conservatives to vet the perfect candidate to give them the best chance of not falling to Hillary or Obama. If the polls end up dictating that it has to be someone besides the fundies’ first choice, the other people have plenty of time to change their rhetoric over to something more like what the fundies want to hear. As long as your their trigger man, you’re ok in the eyes of the fundies, even if based on past experience you’re probably being totally dishonest.

  • Has the far left picked its candidate? -JRS Jr

    The difference is the religious right doesn’t mind disavowing their beliefs and goals if the choice is between a candidate who shares their views and the winning horse. They don’t want to appear weak by picking a the loser.

    Moonbat lefties like myself will choose principle over image. Probably why Kucinich will get my vote and Hillary never will. I’m sure you can imagine how well that will work out.

  • When religion infuses politics, politics returns the favor. The leaders of the evangelicals, despite having been stiffed on all of their issues by the Republicans, still think that they’re players with an influence on the party’s agenda. The party is willing to compromise slightly on church/state separation, the evangelicals on parts of their theology. Both sides are doing it in the interest of power rather than principle. It’s always sad to me when a person or an organization knows their selling price.

  • Isn’t this the same “ends justify the means” mentality that th evangelicals apply to Israeli Jews?

    “We need you right now to bring about the Rapture, but you’re still going to hell if you don’t repent.”

  • Ha, they’re picking out Leper Messiah.

    Now, some who read my #17 comment may think, “Swan, conservative candidates would usually swing right for a primary and then go moderate for a general election.” Think about it for a second- that is not what is going on here, if the relgious right’s candidate does not win. In that case, we have a totally different situation, because the base’s candidate did not become the candidate for the general election. Then that candidate faces the threat of the fundies not coming out for him in the general. So it was swing right to get the party nomination, and then swing righter to ensure there’s no walk-out at the polls.

    As usual, don’t jump to assumptions when reading my comments- think about them for a couple seconds- because I don’t come on here to write the usual pap, unless (it’s the rare occasion) I notice the most basic thing that should be said, that any of us could, isn’t being said.

  • Ron Paul doesn’t endorse the agenda of the religious right? As a fundamentalist seminary graduate who was born and bread in the religious right of Francis Schaeffer’s legacy, that’s news to me!

    Paul has two things going against him. He’s advocating for ending war in the Middle East. Radical Right Wing Clerics have a gut reaction against anyone advocating ENDING war – their millenialist beliefs tend to draw links between peace advocates and the Anti-Christ. Anyone who isn’t agitating for the Final Battle on the plain of Meggidio is a good candidate for the position of Anti-Christ in their theology. (A great discussion of this apparently strange view of Christianity has been going on over at Fred Clark’s Slacktivist blog – check the recent “Left Behind Fridays” links for some of this discussion.)

    The second thing that Paul has against him is that the agenda of the Religious Right has shifted a bit in the last decade. Before they were all for “State’s Rights” – a thinly veiled attempt to peel back civil rights legislation enacted by the Federal government in their home states. The conservative surge in power has, almost paradoxically, caused the Religious Right to move away from “State’s Rights” and to more Federal control. They WANT things like anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Muslim, pro-“Christian” legislation to be enacted at the Federal level now. 10 years ago all they could dream about was getting back to a situation where they could discriminate against gays, blacks, women, non-Christians and anyone else in their own states however they wanted. Now they’ve moved to a situation where they can see the ability to make everyone else live the way THEY want them to live. That’s incompatible with most forms of libertarianism – even with Ron Paul’s anti-abortion, anti-immigration, pro-“Christian” libertarianism.

  • Someone please explain why a devout Christian like Dr Paul gets castigated by the so called “religious right”.

    The man is married to the same woman for over 50 years, staunchly pro-life, delivered over 4000 babies often discounted or free of charge to the less fortunate, refused to bill Medicare or Medicaid out of principle, opts out of the lucrative Congressional pension, preaches the Just War Theory of Christianity,…

    Is that it?! He is against pre-emptive crusades that killed hundreds of thousands of foreign infidels?

    You people are NO Christians.

  • What is the problem with Dr. Ron Paul?

    The religious right has a chance to endorse a truly conservative individual for President and you say he is not “someone who’ll endorse the cause’s agenda”.

    If an American or a Christian say they cannot endorse Dr. Paul, then we have a greater problem. This man only wants to uphold our Constitution. What do you find wrong with that? I for one, fully endorse a candidate, I had never donated to a political campaign, now I have and plan to continue to help any way that I can.

    Am I getting paid or getting anything out of it? Absolutely no.

    Dr. Paul is the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, that wants the government out of our lives. That is called Freedom.

    I might not agree with everything he says, but for once, when I vote I will not feel I am choosing the lesser of two evils.

    Ron Paul can begin to restore what was once great about America.

  • Umm, because Ron Paul actually believes (I would imagine, ferverently) in a separation of church and state.

    That is death to the fundamentalists. Their goal is theocracy. So they’d never vote for a Libertarian, to them that’d be even worse than voting or a Democrat.

  • Romney has changed his views on abortion, and otherwise has been conservative as anyone. He recognized gays should not be discriminated, and he still believes that…but the marriage issue was never something he supported. He is the only one that favors the marriage amendment and has fought for it actively (which is huge in the evangelical community). He is pro-life and that’s hardly a negative that he changed because that’s what the evangelical community wants, and he has the moral fiber and image that evangelicals crave even if they don’t care for his religion.
    Electability is a factor and Huckabee or Paul just don’t have it.

  • “What problems do the religious right have with Ron Paul? He is pro-life and even considered becoming a minister.”

    As Steve mentioned, they need someone viable to support. Ron Paul doesn’t have the poll numbers to have a shot, and don’t start sending me links to online polls that RP supporters flock to. That doesn’t count, sorry.

  • Comments are closed.