View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Christopher Adamo |
December 14th, 2006
As the details of his past are revealed, conservatives around the nation find it increasingly difficult to join the Mitt Romney camp.
Prominent grassroots conservatives were dismayed this week to learn of a 1994 letter written by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney when running for the U.S. Senate, in which he voiced his support of "gay rights," to the point of claiming to be a stronger ally than Ted Kennedy. His stance on abortion was little better, assuring pro-aborts that he would do nothing to infringe on current Massachusetts law.
While not as thoroughly indicting as John McCain's tirades against the Christian Right back in 2000, this information represents a clear disconnect with the constituency Romney now seeks to court.
Ever since the mid-term elections, he has sounded like a citadel of traditional values. But as the details of his past are revealed, conservatives around the nation find it increasingly difficult to join the Romney camp. In truth, none of this is really new. Certainly those conservatives living in Massachusetts, few in number though they may be, are not surprised.
The Bay State has been at the epicenter of such movements as the establishment of same-sex "marriage" and public school "sex education" programs designed by the homosexual advocacy. To ensure that little Johnny arrives at adulthood properly pre-programmed to accept this countercultural ideology, schools have presumed the authority to teach on such subjects without parental knowledge or consent.
In none of these circumstances has Romney led the charge to return to traditional values. Nevertheless, he recognizes the necessity to garner support from the vaunted "values voters" whose antipathy towards the Republican Party proved decisive in this past election. So now Romney is presuming to carry the torch for faith, family, mom, and apple pie.
Far from being outraged at the recent revelations of Romney's moral and philosophical inconsistencies, conservative movers and shakers ought to be extremely thankful this information came to light long before the 2008 primaries. The timing of this controversy affords them the opportunity to find another, more worthwhile candidate around whom they can rally. And some such individuals may indeed be entering the presidential fray.
In the meantime, it is critically important that conservatives do not entrap themselves with their own version of John Kerry. In 2004, Kerry was the presumptive winner of the Democrat nomination early on, despite being unable to muster any voter enthusiasm other than being an alternative to President Bush. The ploy did not work.
Nor has such an approach ever proven successful for the Republican ticket, especially in recent decades, after social/moral issues had risen to prominence. Any Republican candidate, who does not possess a clear track record of actively and enthusiastically championing such causes, can be virtually guaranteed to lose in the '08 general election.
The real lesson of the '06 elections, despite the incessant "spin" being put on them, is that the conservative base will not support liberalism from either party. But while Democrats can appeal to their leftist fringe as a suitable substitute, Republicans who lose conservative support will ultimately be hung out to dry.
Those latecomers to the conservative bandwagon, who then seek to ingratiate themselves among the conservative camp by talking the talk, despite not having "walked the walk" over the years, can count on being exposed at some point. The press will see to it.
In Romney's case, his cover was blown by conservatives such as Paul Weyrich, who primarily operate at the grassroots level. Ideally, old-media types would have preferred to keep the lid on such revelations until just prior to the general election. At that point they could be stridently exposed and conservative voters disenfranchised, but with no alternative available. Thus the liberal/Democrat would win by default.
Despite the disturbing 2006 election results, the constituency known as "values voters" is not going to disappear from electoral politics. Furthermore, their presence severely complicates the political scene since their numbers are great and their interests are comparatively inflexible.
Those who have either undermined or dismissed them in the past will find it extremely difficult to gain their trust, now that the pivotal nature of their support has become inarguably obvious. If mere "spiritual" sounding verbiage could qualify a candidate, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and even John Kerry would be in the fold, since all have occasionally dabbled in pious rhetoric.
Until recently, the field of Republican candidates has appeared devoid of any real conservative who could rally the grassroots and generate true enthusiasm. So the "fall back" position among Republicans has been to attempt to generate momentum for one of the presumed "moderates" already in the race.
In only the past few days, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) has announced that he is considering a run for the Presidency. Admittedly, Brownback has much catching up to do. In the areas of fund-raising and name recognition, he is far behind those whose names have been bandied about by party insiders for some time. Yet he possesses the sort of long-standing conservative pedigree that can inspire the grassroots.
It is abundantly clear from all of the contrived media hype over Barak Obama in the past few weeks that the Democrats intend to run an eminently capable, experienced and invincible candidate in '08. This is not to say that Obama actually qualifies on any of these fronts, but only that the media/Democrat political cabal incessantly tells us that he does.
Against such fabricated stardom, any "business as usual" Republican will be obliterated at the ballot box. If the GOP hopes to compete, it cannot afford to settle for anything less than a true Reagan Conservative who carries no baggage and makes no excuses for past liberalism.
Whether the Republican nominee is indeed Senator Brownback, or some other individual who has not yet announced, conservatives had better begin immediately to define the 2008 race by endorsing only a candidate whom they can enthusiastically support as a champion of true conservatism. Anything less will set the stage for a Democrat in the White House in 2009.
cadamo@thenma.org
Visit their website at: http://www.chrisadamo.com
Responses to "Posturing “Moderates” Could Sabotage GOP Prospects In ‘08"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Where exactly does Romney stand on important social conservative issues? It is clear that he has had a change of heart in some aspects. I thought his one-on-one today with National Review's Katherine Lopez was particularly interesting. You can view it here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE
Comment by briteredconservative | December 14, 2006
The title of this blog ought more aptly be applied to Governor Romney. He is an intellectual - and some other "conservatives" are what is killing the Republican party. The absolute intolerance for anyone who thinks and acts differently than you is baffling and insulting. Politics, and effective governing in this country is about compromise, not complete domination. Governor Romney has stood firm behind his no stance on gay marriage. But how can you fault the man (or anyone else) for not standing behind the institutionalized discrimination of homosexuals? I am not homosexual, and in my own right, do consider it a sin before God. That does not, however, give me the right to judge or condemn. Love the sinner, hate the sin - as it were. It isn't about capitulating or abandoning your beliefs and principles. It is about allowing others the opportunity to express theirs, to change theirs, and working together to arrive at some sort of consensus.
Also, any notion that conservatives are holding out for a more viable candidate than Governor Romney is laughable. Brownback? Huckabee? Are you kidding me? The race is and will be between Giuliani, McCain, and hopefully Romney - those are the only three on the right side of the aisle that have any realistic shot of retaining the White House in 2008. The sooner "conservatives" realize that, the sooner we can unite behind a solid candidate, instead of wasting our time parading around right-wingers who have no shot at winning any sort of national election. Running Brownback or Huckabee would be akin to the left running Dean or Kerry. They are too extreme to win in a national election.
Comment by Stabilis | December 14, 2006
With all due respect, Stabilis, what gives you the right to judge us? Because you are "tolerant?"
Anyway, on to your points. "Politics, and effective governing in this country is about compromise, not complete domination." Well, perhaps you ought to try this statement on the leftists, because they are all about domination. They want to completely eliminate conservative ideology in this country. Or do I need to remind you of the constant vitriol they spew?
Politics is and always has been about winning. Sometimes without regard for consequences, in the case of leftists. This is not a statement of approval, just an acknowledgement of reality. Governing, on the other hand, is about compromise. It is about moderates compromising with leftists, which is defined as moderates giving leftists everything they want. That, too, is reality.
"…how can you fault the man (or anyone else) for not standing behind the institutionalized discrimination of homosexuals?" True leftist rhetoric, Stabilis. No one is discriminating against homosexuals regarding marriage. Marriage is not a right. If it were, then anyone should be able to get married. But boys and men cannot. Sisters cannot. Gary and his dog cannot.
Oops, I said couples. Surely it is true that polygamists are also being discriminated against, aren't they? At least according to your logic, Stabilis. Fact is, marriage is a privilege, one granted by the government according to its own criteria. No one is entitled to marriage. No one has a right to call themselves married apart from the criteria set by law, thousands of years of cultural convention, biology, and dare I say, God Himself.
Extreme is in the eye of the beholder, Stabilis. Conservatives have been demonized and caricatured until their mainstream views are no longer discernable. This is deliberate, perpetrated by those "tolerant" ones on the left who want to win at all costs.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 14, 2006
The theme of this article centers around gay marriage and conservatism. As posted in recent blogs, I have no issue with gay marriage, but I am a conservative. I truly hope that this issue won't become the theme for the '08 election. As a party we have so much to work on; immigration, spending, defense, abortion, term limits, etc., why are we making such an issue as gay mariage? The defining statement of these posts is the fact that the current race is between Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. I do not know much about Romney, but it is evidently clear that McCain and Giuliani are no social conservatives. Will the conservatives be able to support a social liberal? I do not know, but I will say this: I will happily support a social liberal who is a fiscal conservative (Giuliani) than a fiscal liberal who is a social conservative (Bush). GWB and the GOP Congress has done more to destroy the conservative movement than the liberal media, the democratic hate campaign, and gay marriage could ever dream of. If conservatives go to the ballot box with social issues in the forefront and do nothing to repair the spending suicide path of the last 6 years, the liberals will sweep. Allow the states to determine what happens with gay marriage, a true conservative idea, and lets put someone in who will secure our borders, stop the spending, defeat terrorism, and lower taxes.
Comment by Honker | December 15, 2006
Just one small correction to Mountain Man’s entry. Marriage is a right, at least according to the Supreme Court which defines these things. Whether they right or wrong they have defined marriage s a fundamental right in a dozen cases – a right being something so fundamental in our system of ordered liberty that without it, neither liberty nor justice would exist. I’d argue that’s about right on marriage. Fundamental right to abortion, no, but marriage I think fits. What the gay rights movement never tells you I that in pretty much each case where the Court found a right to marriage it was based on the importance of procreation to the species. BUT, no rights are absolute – you can’t shout fie in a crowded theater for example. The State may regulate even your fundamental rights where they have a compelling reason and the regulation is narrowly tailored to that purpose – polygamy, incest, bestiality all fit a compelling ban. I suppose gay marriage is a more debatable question
I agree that if a Court finds a right to same sex marriage you are on a slippery slope towards a right to polygamy or consanguineous marriages. But states ought to have the freedom to recognize what marriages they choose. That doesn’t present a slippery slope problem –states can ban some conduct while not banning everything. Federalism is a principle of conservatism. That does not mean I condone federalism at the point of a judicial gun barrel as happened in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont. But the results will be interesting to watch. For example, the first gay marriage in Massachusetts has already filed for divorce. Does this prove they are more like traditional marriage or less? Many scholars have noted that the gay rights movement wants the right to marriage, not marriage itself. So how many will actually avail themselves of it?
May I propose a question for our conservatives on both sides of the question? What is marriage’s purpose in your eyes, and how does same sex marriage fit into that? For example, if marriage’s purpose is procreation, then gender duality seems a requisite? Is it a biblical objection? Is it a family rearing objection – i.e. gay homes are or aren’t good for kids?
Comment by mmcclel | December 19, 2006