Long wrong or recently right?
. . . That’s the choice conservative evangelical voters face in a Republican primary season that has already narrowed to two frontrunners: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. In his column this week, Joel Belz dissects the dilemma: Some of his friends, loyal WORLD subscribers among them, say that yes, Giuliani is wobbly on issues like life for the unborn and marriage . . .
But they think that overall he’s the tough-minded man the presidency requires-and they think he’s a straight-shooter whose word can be trusted even if you don’t like some of what he says. Such trust, they say, is especially critical with reference to Giuliani’s promise that he would appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito.
I haven’t been persuaded.
But a whole lot more of my friends and acquaintances have surprised me by swearing their early allegiance to Romney. Yes, they concede, they wish his eager pro-life and pro-traditional-marriage commitments had been part of his record for 15 years instead of just 15 months. But they like it (shouldn’t we all rejoice?) when a person admits he’s been wrong, and then embraces what’s right . . .
On this front, Joel writes — maybe more than on the first — he hasn’t been persuaded.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top23 Comments to “Long wrong or recently right?”
Anyone who actually thinks Romney is espousing sincere convictions should contact me about a bridge I’d like to sell them.
Report comment to moderator
Come on now. Romney is open minded. He has two positions on every issue. The one he had last week and the one he has this week.
Report comment to moderator
There is a good reason why I and others do not like the front runners, we don’t trust them.
Report comment to moderator
Doesn’t the fact that Romney earlier supported abortion rights–a position that even Mormon’s don’t support (as far as I know)–indicate that his Mormonism isn’t that important to him? He appears to be another politician who plays his cards as they advantage him–even the religion card. While I am not personally a Romney supporter, I do find it admirable that at least he calls himself a Mormon and not pass himself off as a “born again Christian.”
Report comment to moderator
I try not to be troubled by a candidates particular religion. Mainly because there are strange elements in every faith, and not everyone who is an adherent of a particular faith subscribes to everything their faith teaches. If only there was a good agnostic running
Basically I vote for the person who’s political views adhere most closely to my own. In the primary I almost always get to vote based on my principles. This election I have the opportunity to vote for Kucinich, who’s views are closet to my own. Now, I have no illusions – he’s not going to be the Democratic nominee. But that’s ok – I still got to vote based on my principles. In the primary I think people should vote based on their beliefs/principles.
However, the general election is another matter. There I am almost always forced to chose the lesser of evils. As I’ve said before, in Nov. ‘08 I will probably have to down a few shots of jager before heading off to the polls. I know I’m not going to be happy about voting for one of the two suckers.
I’ve tried to talk myself into just not voting in the Presidential election (”Don’t vote – it only encourages them!”), but I just can’t refrain. I’ve never missed an election. I figure if I vote it gives me full privilege to complain and gripe for the next 4 years. I usually take advantage of that
In any event, I’d encourage people to vote their convictions in the primary. Then vote for the least objectionable in the general election.
Report comment to moderator
My vote goes to the least bad candidate. Not that I have a chance of figuring it out accurately.
Report comment to moderator
Evangelicals’ obsession with Supreme Court appointments is hard to understand. Neither Roberts nor Alito has shown any tendency to push for radical change in the Court’s historic precedent. Even this year’s partial-birth abortion ruling was very narrow, and only cut back on Stenberg slightly.
The conservative dream of undoing the Warren era is not about to happen. Too many of that era’s rulings have become part of our legal institutionalism.
Besides, Republicans are working hard to keep moderate wealthy suburbanites within the Republican party. In the end, the Party would rather have the moderates’ money than the evangelical stormtroopers’ votes. Once elected, no Republican candidate will have any reason to hand evangelicals a SCOTUS nominee sympathetic to their desires for extensive social legislation. The evvies already got their way on the Roberts and Alito nominations. Now it’s time for the low-tax socially liberal Republicans to get their nominee (e.g., someone like Judge Posner).
Report comment to moderator
People let’s be realistic here. In 1960 there were serious adults who fretted that JFK would allow his Catholicism to shape and influence his decisions. Boy was that fear colossally unfounded!
Romney and Rudy’s commitmt to their respective church’s teachings are as flimsy, malleable and just as easily ignored as Catholicism’s moral injunctions were to Kennedy. Bill Clinton was an amateur piker compared to JFK the great “war hero” who somehow managed to let an enemy destroyer ram and sink his ship during broad daylight.
I will say this about Rudy. A proLIfe Rudy supporter made a good argument: “I as an individual can counsel a woman not to have an abortion, I can donate money to a portable ultrasound unit which will show a woman the baby she might otherwise abort. I don’t need the President to do that.
But if we’re talking about fighting a war against Jihadi fanatics in Iraq or Afghanistan, that is something I as a lone individual cannot do. To do that I need a president who has command of the armed forces. The war on terror cannot be brought to a desirable outcome/victory without serious commitmt from the White House”
On that basis alone, my ProLife friend is willing to vote for Giuliani
Report comment to moderator
At this time, we’re all overdue for a good Ron Paul plug by our man Frank in Phoenix.
WoW calling Frank; come in Frank! Over.
Report comment to moderator
Trying to paint mormonism (and mormons) as dishonest is hardly an act of christian charity.
If memory serves me correct, christian politicians have not been models of virtue. There is a reason the evangelicals are finding it hard to find a worthy representative of their ideals.
Thompson, McCain, and Giuliani are hardly better than Bill Clinton in aspects of sexual morality. At least Bill Clinton is still married to Hillary.
If evangelicals want to back “family values”, Romney is still their best bet. At least he has the same wife and children now as he did 20 years ago. The rest have all flip-flopped families.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose I would prefer a President who keeps his pants on at appropriate times. Otherwise, cleaning up the mess is a nuisance and distraction.
Somehow, I have an uneasy feeling there has to be a bit more to the job description that that. Hire in haste; repent for four years? OK, doesn’t rhyme.
Report comment to moderator
Besides, Republicans are working hard to keep moderate wealthy suburbanites within the Republican party. In the end, the Party would rather have the moderates’ money than the evangelical stormtroopers’ votes.
Without Evangelical votes and grassroots support, the ‘wealthy suburbanite moderates’ political strength will come crashing down; if Guiliani is elected, this may prove the election to show the Republicans (if 2006 failed to teach them) that they cannot take the Christian Right for granted.
If Guiliani is the nominee, I personally will vote 3rd party.
Report comment to moderator
There is very little reason for evangelicals to vote for Giuliani over Hillary.
But what 3rd party candidate would they vote for?
If Giuliani is selected, it won’t matter which Democrat is chosen. The Republican party will split.
Report comment to moderator
Who says Giuliani & Romney are the “two front runners?” I just looked at the realclearpolitics.com poll average and they show Giuliani with a 13.9% lead over Thompson, not Romney [who is shown as a distant fourth]. The listing is as follows:
Giuliani: 29.7%
Thompson: 16.0%
McCain: 14.7%
Romney: 11.1%
RCP takes an average of seven well-known polls. While this can change tomorrow, it can change back again the next day. The point is that no one should be counted out at this point.
I’m tired of the liberal media telling me who the top tier candidates are & ignoring the truly conservative ones, like Duncan Hunter. Please, Lynn, don’t fall into that trap.
Report comment to moderator
Tastes Better
Less Filling
Report comment to moderator
Well said Kayvee. I too am tired of being told that the race is over before it’s begun, particularly when those candidates being left out are those most likely to appeal to the conservative Republican base. It’s my opinion that in the last 10-12 years much of the MSM have gone from reporting elections to trying to shape them, in this case by pushing the most liberal of the Republican candidates and ignoring the rest.
Report comment to moderator
Just because Guiliani talks tough about terrorism does not mean he has the knowledge, skills, or leadership to actually conduct a “War on Terrorism.”
Before you go voting for Guiliani because on his much-touted (by him and no one else) counter-terrorism credentials, examine his record in New York. The NYPD and NY Fire Dep’t have both blasted Guiliani as an incompetent and even peevish authoritarian.
Guiliani would be a disaster for America. Even worse than Hillary.
Report comment to moderator
I think the media just loves a good story. I mean, they were enamored with John McCain for awhile. Many of them loved Ronald Reagan. When the current President was at 85% approval ratings they were reluctant to criticize him. I think it has little to do with liberal or conservative.
On the other hand, the media does love to appoint a “front runner”. I think they do it just to pit campaigns against each other. If people take their cues about who they’re going to vote for based on media coverage, they are not making an informed choice. I pay little attention to them, and I vote for whomever I want.
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone read Newt Gingrich’s superb book “Winning the Future”? Perhaps Marvin or some other WoW staff can do a review of it in a future issue. Gingrich is an associate of Alvin Toffler (he wrote the book “Future Shock” way back in late 60s early 70s; among other things he foresaw same-sex marriage).
Gingrich has a lot of intriguing and interesting ideas; much-needed reforms of our medical liability system, immigration etc
I wonder how many if any of the candidates in either party have bothered to read Newt’s book?
“Winning the Future” is out in paperback
Report comment to moderator
Is it true that Alan Keyes is running yet again?
Who are the folks who underwrite his nutty little Don Quixote quests? (Tell me it isnt taxpayers)
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Anlir. People are captivated by stories, so the media sells us political narratives, complete with petty rivalries, meteoric rises and unexpected falls. America too easily forgets that the nightly news is an entertainment business first and foremost.
Hence “frontrunners.” Here’s a little thought experiment for people willing to compromise their principles in order to choose the lesser of two evils:
Jesus, Hitler, and Satan are running for office. According to all the projections of all the pundits, Jesus has no chance of winning. If you want to keep Satan out of office you’re going to have to vote Hitler.
How do you vote?
What’s different in real world situations that justifies your voting for a bad candidate in order to beat a worse candidate?
Report comment to moderator
Kayvee,
Romney is listed as a frontrunner because he is expected to win Iowa and New Hampshire. These two wins are believed to vault him into the lead.
Nationally, he is not favored yet but he has not started to compete nationally as much. His strategy is to advertise in Iowa and New Hampshire and win those first.
It is all based on strategy and past results.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Alan Keyes, the Pat Paulsen of the new millennium, is running yet again. I imagine that IF he somehow fails to get the GOP nomination (and notice I said IF), he’ll try to set himself up as a third party candidate for evvies to rally behind.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!