It’s Not Romney’s Religion, But His Reversals
Mitt Romney is panicked.
He has invested over $7 million to get his pro-family policy message out to the social conservatives who dominate the Iowa caucuses, and has held nearly 200 events there to solidify his support.
Then Mike Huckabee, a Baptist preacher with a sterling pro-life record, emerged. Rising to first in Iowa polls and second nationally, Mr. Huckabee threatened to become the alternative to Rudy Giuliani.
Based on the idea that he had lost his lead because of “the Mormon problem,” Mr. Romney devised The Speech to assuage religious-right voters that his religious values are basically the same as theirs. But his problem isn’t simply his religion.
Mr. Romney’s decline is rooted in something more basic than that.
In The Speech, one line stood out as an unintentional bit of irony. He declared: “Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.”
That sort of sums it up. Americans don’t like it one bit when candidates adopt positions (or entire platforms, for that matter) for political expediency.
After a year on the stump, Mr. Romney has yet to convince the conservative base that his transformation on a litany of issues, including abortion, gay rights, guns, immigration, campaign finance reform and supply-side economics, was anything more than a calculated maneuver to fill an open niche in the Republican primary race. The intensity with which he has argued contrary positions within such a short time period has been too much for many voters to accept.
His “credibility gap,” as one unaffiliated Republican analyst labeled it, remains huge.
Some conservative pundits express amazement that Mr. Huckabee—who lacks fiscal conservative credentials and foreign policy experience, and carries a full load of baggage from his days as Arkansas governor—could capture conservatives’ hearts when Fred Thompson and Mr. Romney couldn’t.
But they miss the point.
The base is seeking a person of conviction. If a candidate is indifferent (as Mr. Thompson has appeared to be over the course of his bid) or malleable on issues of conscience, he will gain neither their respect nor their support.
Mr. Huckabee may not agree with the base on college scholarships for children of illegal aliens, but he voices his views with apparent sincerity.
He, like John McCain—another politician whose strength lies in his ability to talk frankly about a consistent set of positions—contends that Guantánamo should be closed. It’s not necessarily a popular view with the base, but it’s far less cheesy than Mr. Romney’s pandering promise to “double” the facility.
One voter explained her preference for Mr. Huckabee over Mr. Romney in a news report by saying, “It’s his humanness. He’s not like a robot.”
In other words, he occasionally says things that aren’t the result of political calculation.
Which makes perfect sense. Like Mr. Romney said, Americans hate a phony.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.4
- 41.6
- Obama +4.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
Giving the disclosure which should be included here, Jennifer Rubin is a big Rudy fan.
What a baised hit piece. you want flip flops, look at giuliani. he has flipped on on his health care position, illegal immigration, conservative judges, partial birth abortion, civil unions, and a whole list of things.
just take a look at mittreport.com it has a catalog of article documenting rudy's flip flops.
What a stupid piece...Rubin must be very proud of her attack. Let me know when you are at a Rudy cocktail party. Because I have seen you there before...
I am very dissapointed in this one sided piece projecting Mitt Romney as a calculated robot. Maybe Mitt has changed his beliefs albeit from pro-choice to pro-life but that doesn't make him any less sincere than this article is. Least ye forget, Ronald Reagan changed his position from pro-choice to pro-life as did Bush 41st. Also, Reagan changed politically parties after realizing that "I didn't leave the Democratic party, it left me." If the National Review endorsed Mitt than obviously he has some very good qualities that give us conservatives hope for in the upcoming election. I would be more to say that his religion is more of a factor than his so-called flip flops.
I am very dissapointed in this one sided piece projecting Mitt Romney as a calculated robot. Maybe Mitt has changed his beliefs albeit from pro-choice to pro-life but that doesn't make him any less sincere than this article is. Least ye forget, Ronald Reagan changed his position from pro-choice to pro-life as did Bush 41st. Also, Reagan changed politically parties after realizing that "I didn't leave the Democratic party, it left me." If the National Review endorsed Mitt than obviously he has some very good qualities that give us conservatives hope for in the upcoming election. I would be more to say that his religion is more of a factor than his so-called flip flops.
I think this was an insightful piece.
If Romney cannot do well in Iowa, afer spending so much time and money, he cannot win the nomination. Whether that means it goes to Rudy or Fred or Huck, time will tell.
But it does appear that Huck has been consistent, even when it hurts him. Mitt has been consisten, only when it helps him. Americans can see the difference, which is why Huck is rising so much in the polls.
Mike Huckabee is a religious bigot. If he gets the GOP nod, I'm leaving the party and persauding as many Republicans to do the same. I will not belong to a party that rewards religious bigotry.
What Mike Huckabee is doing to Mitt is about as un-American as I've seen.
I wouldn't put it pass Dick Morris to have egged this on and the fact that Morris is running Rudy's campaign he stinks too.
Mike Huckabee is killing the GOP party.
And who cares that he spent 7 million. All that means is that there is no amount of money that can dispell religious bigotry.
AS an agnostic, Mitt Romney's faith speech reminds me of the aspects of religious people I like.
Mike Huckabee reminds me what I hate about religion and religious people.
I wish people would realize that Mitt is not a real good politician. But he is a great businessman. Politicians pander in efforts to get votes by defining themselves in terms of right and wrong, us verse them, or liberal verse conservative. Businessmen think in terms of risk verse reward. I can tell you because I am Mormon that Mitt’s core values are probably more conservative than Huckabee. And he lives those core values better than most. No drinking, smoking, porn, stable relationship with his wife, and children. Every single day. So as a businessman you put these things in your life and heart and go out in the big bad world and define a pathway where you minimize the risk to maximize your reward. Mitt has said on several occasions he evaluates the details and data and makes the best decision in order to accomplish what needs to be done. He leaves his personal opinion and feelings on the side in order to achieve success. That is how he governed Mass. and turned the 2002 Olympics around. If he would have been pragmatically pro-life he would not have become Governor. Because he was able to put his personal belief aside he was able to turn around a terrible fiscal deficit without raising taxes and develop a successful health plan where there wasn’t one before, all the while having Democrats controlling the rest of the government. This is exactly what we need as a president.
"Giving the disclosure which should be included here, Jennifer Rubin is a big Rudy fan"...I agree, too bad John Fund and Ann Coulter didn't add their Disclaimer for Romney when they issued their hit piece on Huckabee.
Jennifer is right. I talk to casual observers of politics, some of whom are of the other party, and they know of Mitt's flip-flopping on gays abortion, etc. Some even know of his hunting flip-flop. (Remember the 'varmints' story?)
That many religious people view Mormons as a cult hurts him with the GOP base, but the flip-flopping hurts him with everyone.
Mike Huckabee is turning American into The Middle East with his religious bigotry.
Hillary Clinton is a flip flopper, Barak Obama is a flip flopper, John McCain is a flip flopper, Rudy Giuliani is a flip flopper, etc..etc...etc....all which can be proven. Everyone in poltics can be proven to be a flip flopper.
In fact, I;m beginning to believe that people who use the term flip flopper are just being intellectually lazy.
Agreed Mitt is not a great politician, but you would think his campaign would take that into account when structuring their operation in Iowa. They have counted on staff and paid "super volunteers" to wrangle the voters to events and then follow up caucus targets with the Romney campaign narratives that change depending on the polling data. First it's "viable conservative" then it's "he's really not perfect, but remember he's the viable conservative", and another "what? Do you want Rudy to win?" Finally, with the Huckabee surge, it's panic time and the narrative is back to the "viable conservative, because Huckabee is a Christian looney". In the end, Romney the candidate, leaves potential caucus people cold, and if they don't feel "connected" to the candidate, no amount of campaign spin can change that.
One voter explained her preference for Mr. Huckabee over Mr. Romney in a news report by saying, “It’s his humanness. He’s not like a robot.”
If we nominated our candidates by some method where only the national elite had a say, then Mitt would win in a walk. They're important people and the candidate has spent real energy connecting with this group. The voters, I am sorry to say, are just widgets in Mitt Romney's world -- and it shows.
Mitt's flip flops extend far beyond abortion. He's flip-flopped on guns, immigration, gay rights, stem cell research, and a willingness to take a "no new taxes" pledge. I wonder how many of his defenders at this site are paid bloggers working for his overfinanced campaign.
I recognize your guys names your all the Pro Romney trolls on town hall and Politico.
SHAME!
Especially Galt, you guys should give your own disclaimers. If it turned out Romney shot JFK you'd still support him. If it turned out he was Osama Bin Ladin's lover you'd agree it was the right thing to do.
I get it. Christians are religious bigots but all the people spewing hate towards religious people are not ?? I guess its ok to spew hate towards religious people. What a double standard !!
Do you not get it folks ?? Its the media that are make religion an issue here. Its called ratings ! We all should be outraged at the media not the candidates.
Here's something Huckabee should flip on...EVOLUTION. How can anyone consider voting for someone who does not believe in evolution. We surely don't need a President who is that out of touch with science. As for Mitt's religion, who cares! Why do we in this country make it such an issue. We hear more about is faith that his stance on issues. If elected I'm pretty sure he's not going to force me to be a Mormon. It's like when the country thought Kennedy was going to turn the nation over to the Pope, get real people, religion in politics is a red herring and I don't trust people who blindly follow their faith.
Of course. Mitt is a yankee. Worse than that he is a yankee born and raised in Michagan and living in Massachusetts. Anyone from the south will recognize the fast gait, fast talk, driven nature of a yankee. But he was a dang good leader. He will make very good decisions in governing our country. He will not let his religion get in the way of finding common ground between right and wrong, and he will lead this country better than anyone else in the field. My fear is another reality I've experienced in my Kentucky born and raised perspective. You can't fix stupid.
There is just one problem with what you said. Respectfully I'd like to point it out. Mitt said a couple weeks ago said that he and his wife have never gotten in a fight. Now that may well be, but if they have not, then that is vey, very odd. I have been married for going on five years, and fights happen in a marriage. In fact, I don't know any couple that hasn't been in a fight. The only other option is that Gov. Romney was lying. I am not trying to put a hit piece on Mitt Romney, I will make it very clear that I support Huckabee. That being said though, whoever gets the GOP ticket has my vote. I'll even go on to say that I think it is crucial that whoever does get the nomination comes from an executive backround.
If he was lying about his comment regarding his wife, then we can suspect him all the more about other things that he has said. Is he really Pro life now? Does he really stand firm on the gay marriage issue? Or is he just trying to get the conservative vote? There is no doubt in my mind that Mike Huckabees record can testify to these things much more than Mitt Romneys word.
DEFENDING THE UN-DEFENDABLE...
How badly can the social conservatives damage the "big tent" (social, fiscal, security) winning coalition for president?
Just read every blog - 50% are filled up with bigots who want to fight about church doctrine and defend outragous statements which are not in the spirit of our constitutional form of government.
If Huckabee only had a lousy record on taxes, foreign policy, parols, ethics and the social conservatives liked his "style" well maybe you could defend the implosion and self destruction caused to our efforts to defend the White House from HRC.
However - the guy is an obvious "religious bigot" running a "christian candidate - anti mormon rhetoric campaign" - please stop posting bigoted anti mormon crap on these boards - you are scaring away all the Independents....and if you think you can win an election without the Independents you are not only religous "Taliban zealots" you are delusional in the practical aspects of American politics.
Rubin is a well-known shill and eager media whore for Giuliani. She did another hit piece on Romney earlier about New Hampshire.
The woman does have a kernel of truth in that true Party fanatics or ideologues always measure their belief in a candidate not on the stance, but on the purity of it.
Thus anyone who was not born rooting for gay marriage or no abortion restrictions, ever,is "suspect" to Dems in a way that a lifelong gay activist or partial birth abortion supporter since age 6 isn't. And anyone on the Republican side that has come to support stem cell research restrictions isn't as "trustworthy" as someone who believed it before being baptised as a child.
And both sides "hardcores" believe that such people that change their minds about some things after thinking on them or realizing as Reagan did, that America is not California and he had to modify his position on several issues in consideration of voters sentiments...is just unfit for office. (Good that Reagan escaped the Religious Right torch mob as he "flip-flopped" from being a Democrat and union backer and Godless Hollywood friend of homos and banger of any starlet he could nab while married to Wyman to the "moderate Reagan" to the conservative, compromising Reagan that signed the nation's most liberal abortion Bill. Then said a few years later he rethought it and considered it a mistake. What a flip-flopper he was!!)
At one point, I thought it was the goal of politics to convince people to come to your side, or halfway to your side, and be treated decently for it. Now if someone gifted like Harold Ford decided to go Republican he would be treated as a questionable former heretic and inferior in his sincerity and qualification for office to a true believing Republican. And Democrat activists will go after any Democrat of offers apostasy on the politically correct view on abortion, and suspicious Republican or Independent that shifts sides.
It was better back in Reagans early years. Shifts in view were respected, sometimes lauded even by opposition if they took serious thought and were well-defended.
Now brainless chants of "flip-flopper! flip-flopper!" are mainly done by the ignorant as a way of celebrating and reinforcing their minds being closed to any new idea or fact.
A real flip-flop, is like Kerry voting both ways on a bill in the same day, which stands out for crass expediency.
But there is nothing wrong with a candidate whose views were perfect for rural whites in Georgia when running for Congress moderating those views to acknowledge the different consensus of the whole State when running for Senate or Governor, then rethinking his positions if he wants to run nationally and get Connecticut and Illinois and Oregon voters as well as Georgia ones....
It may sound unbelieveable. I've been married 25 years to my one mormon wife and we have had plenty of arguments. But I have met a few people at church that have told me they have never had a fight, and while it amazes me I have to believe them. Maybe Mitt realized that the risk of fighting his wife was not worth the reward of being right, and learned to adjust his expectation. Wow, what a great lesson.
Dan, regarding your Evolution comment...
Do you mean athiestic evolution, for example evolution with No Creator? Because I am a Christian appologist. This is something that alot of people have a problem with about Christians in general. Mostly I think that you would find that christians do believe in evolution. For example I have two golden retreivers, that is proof that the dog has evolved. For there weren't alway goldens. The real question is this: Can a golden retriever change species? I see no scientific evidence for that one bit. Mike Huckabee believes in a creator. That means that some intelligent force created the world around us. If you'd like I can try to proove without any empiracal data that there is a God with the idea of a shoe.
The first possibilty ( and there are four) is that the shoe doesen't exist in realtity. Most people with a scientific backround would say that it is obsurd to think the shoe is an illusion. I would agree.
The second possibility is that the shoe is eternal. Well, I can see that most shoes have damage, the rubber on the bottom wears away, the shoe molds to your foot, there is change that occurs . If something is eternal, then it does not change.
The third possibility is the shoe created itself! I was walking down the street with nothing on my foot, and POOF! A shoe appeared. Most people of a scientific backround would find this laughable, as do I.
The fourth and final option, and the one that makes the most sense is this: The shoe was created. As was the Universe at large. What is the point of life if we are nothing more than a pile of aged preboitic fluids that were fortunate enough to find ourselves on a planet that is the perfect distance from the sun to keep us just warm enough, and not too hot that we can live and thrive?
If you ask me I think the fact that Mike Huckabee dosen't buy into that kind of evolution speaks lengths and measures to his intellect. But there is one thing, anyone who deos believe in evolution has much more faithe than even the religous zealotes they call foolish for having faith in the first place.
DonnafromMaryland I saw a well-worn bumpersticker once that read "VOTE for FREEDOM". There is this great quote from a speech that Ronald Reagan made in 1960 to a group of GE employees. He said that "Mankind has known but a few moments of freedom in its entire history. Most of those moments have been ours. But this freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Can we honestly say ours is still unimpaired?". In the end, as long as we have our freedom, we can right whatever ills and injustices come along because the ultimate power will rest with the people.
What are the greatest threats to our freedom? Terrorism and powerful, activist, judges? After 4 plus years of being on the email list of MassResistance.org , I am certain that Romney is not now nor ever was conservative based on his record. The Boston Globe reported in 2005 that Romney had "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
Sheryl... Are you serious? Huck is a religious bigot? How so???? I'd love to see some proof beyond your firing invectives that lack any support.
I personally am tired of this line of thinking. Because I personally don't support Romney, it must be some dark and sinister part of my conscious that doesn't like Mormons. That is the inferrence that Romney's camp is trying to portray. "Whoa is me, no one likes me because I'm a Mormon." Give me a break! I can't support Romney personally because he has flipped flopped on two many issues, notably Abortion. He does what he finds politically expedient. Thats his perogative, but don't expect me to vote for the guy.
This article is spot on in my viewpoint. Particularly with Thompson as well. I was very interested in the Thompson campaign initially, but just as the article says, he appeared way to indifferent. Its like his heart isn't into the campaign.
So yes, I'm a Huckabee supporter, for all of the reasons above plus a variety of others. To call him a bigot is just way over the line.
Bravo Mike007, Bravo.
Bravo Mike007, Bravo.
It is my belief that why Romney is not catching on in the Heartland of Amercia is because of two factors. Firstly, it is evident even to a casual observer that he has changed positions to pander to the conservative base of the GOP. Looking at his record as Gov. of Mass bears that out. He is more purple than red. Donna has the numbers. Anyone can read them.
Secondaly, and this is my personal opinion, but also a genral opinion where I work, that Romney appears to be a slick politician type. Yes, a good businessman. Would probably do really well in managing the finicial side of the governments operations, but to many he comes across as a slick elite type. WE the people have had enough of slick willy's, and the like.
When looking at the whole picture, the GOP'ers are looking for another RR, and Romney certainly is not that.
Its an interesting political season. I remian surprised how so many running for office seemingly have not yet figured out that we are in a new age related to information exchange. They can no longer hide their past. The voters now days get the complete picture. Maybe that's why no one has really caught on on the GOP side. Of course, the same is happening on the Dem side. Maybe they all will learn to be real versus presenting something to the public that is not true.