by Mark Silva
In the courting of the Christian right, there are right answers and there are wrong answers.
And some of the Republican candidates for president, confronting a two-day screening by conservative voters that will culminate today with the results of a straw poll, are reminding this critical constituency that their rivals have given the wrong answers.
"I have been pro-life my entire political career," Sen. John McCain of Arizona told a ballroom full of social conservatives here Friday. Reiterating his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, McCain added, "You need only examine my public record to know that I will not change my position."
Fred Thompson, the actor and former Tennessee senator, delivered the same message. Citing a "100-percent pro-life voting record," Thompson said, "That's who I was then, that's who I am today, and that's the kind of president I will be. … As president of the United States, no legislation will pass my desk that funds or supports this procedure [abortion] without my veto."
The problem, for many of the evangelicals and conservatives assembled here, is that some of the party's most prominent candidates cannot say the same thing. Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York, supports abortion rights. Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, once supported abortion rights but has since switched positions.
For this critical constituency, the toughest question may involve principle versus pragmatism. Should religious conservatives embrace a candidate who hews to their vision of social values and "a culture of life," or reluctantly warm up to a candidate they believe can win? Someone, that is, who can promise that the White House will go, as one leader puts it, to "anybody but Clinton"—Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, whom many view as the most likely Democratic nominee.
"We’re not going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton,’’ Romney told the assembly Friday night.
See the rest of the story in today's Tribune:
As Christian conservatives try to answer that question, the "Values Voter Summit," sponsored by the Family Research Council, is giving them the opportunity to scrutinize a full cast of Republican candidates.
These voters are not talking about the Iraq war. They are talking about abortion, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research. The verdict emanating from this hall could resonate among a powerful audience.
Thirty-seven percent of all Republican and Republican-leaning voters are evangelical Protestants, the independent Pew Research Center has found, and 43 percent say social issues will be "very important" to their vote in 2008.
Courting and turning out the religious right was critical to President Bush's election in 2000 and probably even more so to his re-election in 2004. And, now, movement leaders insist that a GOP nominee who meets their test on opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage and other issues—including a strong foreign policy—will be essential to motivating like-minded voters in 2008.
"There is a line that we will not cross, and that is the issue of life," said Tony Perkins, the Family Research Council president.
That line could prove critical for the candidate who enjoys the most support among Republicans nationally: Giuliani, who alone among GOP candidates supports abortion rights. He plans to address this summit Saturday.
"I don't envision the majority of social conservatives actively moving toward endorsing a pro-abortion-rights candidate," Perkins said. "This issue runs strong, and just to sing the simple 'ABC song'—Anybody But Clinton—is not enough to rally social conservatives."
At the same time, Perkins downplays the talk by such fellow conservatives as Dr. James Dobson, leader of Focus on the Family, who warns that conservatives will rally around a third-party candidate if the GOP backs Giuliani.
"There is no desire to create a third party," Perkins said. "There is simply a statement that, if the party breaks ranks with social conservatives, there will be a number of social conservatives who break ranks with the party."
Giuliani's continued lead in the GOP polls presents an opening for the party's other candidates to stake a claim to the religious right. And they made the best of it.
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) told the audience, "When conservatives run on principles, we win. When conservatives run away from principles, we lose. … Conversions are supposed to be made on the road to Damascus, not the road to Des Moines."
Thompson added, "I really don't know what I would do in my first 100 days. It would depend on the circumstances. … But I know what I would do in the first hour. I would go into the Oval Office and close the door and pray for the wisdom to know what is right." That won him a standing ovation.
One question underlying the conference, however, was whether the religious right has the same power as in the past. Giuliani's persistent lead suggests to some that the influence of these activists is waning. Others note that the evangelical community is focusing on topics beyond the traditional ones of abortion and same-sex marriage.
"The evangelical community is by no means monolithic," said John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "It's not just social issues that they care about."
The quest for the evangelical vote is complicated by other hurdles as well. One-quarter of those evangelical voters surveyed by Pew say they are reluctant to vote for a Mormon.
This places Romney, a Mormon and a convert to the anti-abortion camp, in a difficult position here. Even if he convinces Christian conservatives of his sincerity on abortion, Romney will have to assuage others unsure about his religion.
And any nominee who runs hard to the right in the GOP primaries faces the challenge of tacking to the center by November 2008.
"Coming out of this values conference, whoever wins the nomination is going to see his words coming back at him next summer," said David Lanoue, political science chairman at the University of Alabama. "Anything they say in the primary is going to be used against them by Democrats in the fall."







Comments
This talk now of making abortion a states issue reminds me of the "southern strategy".
Posted by: bill r. | October 20, 2007 7:30 AM
Give me a break. These guys will say anything in order to pander to they're nut-ball base. Losers!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | October 20, 2007 7:36 AM
They claim they aren't monolithic but just wait until they get behind a closed curtain and see "Clinton" (and read Satan) as the other option. They'll all hold their noses and pull the "r" lever, regardless if their guy is a cross-dressing, thrice married socialist like Rudy. Just like 04 when they all got duped again by the "compasionate conservative". Mindless, brainwashed sheeple.
Posted by: Bubba | October 20, 2007 9:54 AM
Since Swamp reporter Mark Silva quotes U of AL Prof. David Lanoue as an "expert" to sum up this article, perhaps Mr. Silva should be aware of some other political predictions by this "expert".
For example, this prediction Lanoue made Dec. 15, 2006, as part of the U of Al faculty's yearly predictions for the coming year: “By mid-2007, President Bush will start seriously considering, and possibly implementing, a reduction of U.S. ground forces in Iraq. This, combined with public acknowledgement of a stronger economy, will improve Bush’s job approval ratings, and they will generally exceed 40 percent by late 2007.” http://www.ua.edu/advancement/ur/releases/anews2006/guess07/bush.htm
Or this other one, also on 12-15-06: “By the end of 2007, two of the four current “frontrunners” for president – Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, and McCain – will have dropped out of the race or decided against entering,” Lanoue says. “My guess is that those two will be Obama and Giuliani, but anything is possible. The left-wing blogosphere “netroots” will begin to coalesce around a more left-of-center Democratic challenger,” Lanoue predicts."
Spectacularly wrong, laughably wrong, Mr. Lanoue.
Perhaps reporter Silva should find another "expert" to quote.
Posted by: Bruce | October 20, 2007 10:43 AM
RNC Bruce,
Who do support to be president? Or doesn't the RNC let you pick a candidate?
Posted by: Doug Zook | October 20, 2007 11:02 AM
Perhaps RNC Bruce should quit obsessing about Mark Silva and The Swamp.
(Mark, does RNC Bruce wierd you out?)
Posted by: Doug Zook | October 20, 2007 11:20 AM
Uhh Bruce...
1. Yep, you must really be proud that this expert was wrong and that Bush's approval ratings haven't rebounded, that the war hasn't gone well enough for Bush to consider significant withdrawals and the public hasn't acknowledged a stonger economy.
2. In case you haven't noticed 2007 isn't over yet. I wouldn't count on McCain still being in the race come December 31.
Posted by: AJF | October 20, 2007 11:37 AM
Do you idiot Republicans honestly think that the American public isn't sickened watching you kiss ass and pander to a group of people so completely out of touch with reality that they actually look to Giulialni and (for God's sake!) Fred Thompson? This bunch of bible thumping, woman hating, homosexual hating, minority hating in-bred trash is completely irrelevant and it is laughable and disgusting that the Republican party continues to suck up to them.
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | October 20, 2007 12:42 PM
Posted by: Bruce | October 20, 2007 10:43 AM
Bruce, the only person who used the words "David Lanoue" and "expert" in the same post is ... YOU!
Nice try at the cheap shot at Mark Silva, too bad you failed.
Really, little Brucie, why do you bother coming here day after day?
Posted by: BC | October 20, 2007 7:43 PM
Bruce, the only person who used the words "David Lanoue" and "expert" in the same post is ... YOU!
Nice try at the cheap shot at Mark Silva, too bad you failed.
Really, little Brucie, why do you bother coming here day after day?
Posted by: BC | October 20, 2007 7:43 PM
BC, I think he secretly wants to be a Democrat, but lacks the intestinal fortitude to make the switch. He must be a bit of a masochist as well. After all he defends the indefensible every day here in The Swamp.
Bruce make the switch from the torture team. You'll feel better about yourself and your contribution to a constitutionalism.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | October 20, 2007 11:47 PM
Why don't we just draft Larry Craig to run for president. After his sex change, hell be the right woman to stand up to Hillary. "Laura" Craig will represent fine family values and the religious right will drool over her.
Posted by: Giraffe | October 21, 2007 11:40 AM
Just in case anyone wanders over here...
The predictions cited above by one of your commenters are from an annual series called "Educated Guesses", put out each December by the UA media relations office. It's meant to be something entertaining for the local press to use during the slow holiday season. Because of the nature of the project, we're encouraged to be bold and take a few chances in predicting the future. This is, in short, an entirely different exercise from speaking to reporters about current events.
Regardless, I suppose the old saying applies: Say whatever you want about me, just make sure to spell my name right. In that sense, "Bruce" passes the test.
Cheers,
David Lanoue
Tuscaloosa
Posted by: David Lanoue | December 1, 2007 2:17 PM