« Rush at Twenty | Main | "The New Reality in Iraq" »
August 3, 2008
"Campaign is no place for religious bigotry"
Earlier this week I wrote a post in which I expressed disdain for some evangelical leaders who "warned" Sen. McCain against selecting Mitt Romney as his running mate, saying that their flocks will "abandon the Republican ticket on Election Day if that happens." The post garnered several comments from pro-Huckabee people taking me to task for my comments.
If they didn't like that one, they really won't like today's editorial from The Washington Times titled "Campaign is no place for religious bigotry":
He flip-flopped on abortion and same-sex marriage; he is now pro-life and opposes both same-sex marriage and civil unions. However, much of the white evangelical opposition to Mr. Romney is not based on principle. It is simply old-fashioned bigotry - a discomfort with Mr. Romney's Mormon faith. White evangelicals need to be reminded that this is America - a republic where neither religious convictions nor the lack thereof disqualifies a politician from office.As Ralph Hallow, in collaboration with Don Lambro, reported in the July 29 editions of The Washington Times, white evangelicals prefer former Gov. of Arkansas Mike Huckabee as Mr. McCain's running mate. In a tight contest with Barack Obama, a white evangelical revolt might harm Mr. McCain's prospects. White evangelicals are the base of the Republican Party: 70 percent voted for the Republican Party in 2006. Also, President Bush won 68 percent of the white evangelical vote in 2000 and 78 percent in 2004, according to the Pew Research Center. Placing Mr. Romney on the ticket might lead to a drop of 7 percent to 10 percent of the white evangelical vote. It may also lead to a de-energized base. On the other hand, Mr. Romney would inspire fiscal conservatives to support Mr. McCain.
Rather than kowtowing to evangelical pressure, Mr. McCain should declare that he will not make a candidate's faith a factor in his deliberations. This will reinforce the Republican nominee's image as a man who marches to the beat of his own drum and is not a Party puppet. If Mr. McCain chooses Mr. Romney as his running mate, this will also help re-brand the Republican Party as one that can break down barriers.White evangelicals need a history lesson. Protestants began to flee religious persecution in England in droves in the 16th and 17th centuries; they were especially victimized by the provision that there was a religious test in order to hold office. Evangelicals in America would do well to rise above the same kind of discrimination their ancestors were once victimized by.
Mr. Romney has a long record of serving America. If his service has been good enough for Massachusetts, why is it not good enough for white evangelicals across America? Also, in the battle to win more and more adherents to the social conservative causes they hold dear, it is in the interest of white evangelicals to recruit as many allies as possible - regardless of their religious convictions. Thus, these evangelicals would do well to be tolerant and work toward broadening the conservative base, rather than upholding barriers based on religious bigotry.
Exactly right. If you really can't take Mitt Romney because he changed his position on some issues, fine. But don't embarrass yourself by calling Mike Huckabee a conservative. He's not. The truth is that most evangelicals who support Huckabee are doing so because they want an evangelical Christian in or near the White House. And religion is not a reason to vote for, or against, anyone.
Posted by Tom at August 3, 2008 8:00 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1169
Comments
Amen.
Posted by: suek at August 4, 2008 11:12 AM
Amen indeed.
I for one am hoping, perhaps naively, that John McCain will completely ignore both the self styled conservative litmus test proposers and the evangelicals.
I continue to believe that absent a meltdown by either candidate, the election will be won by the party to whom the moderate, independent voters will swing.
In 2000, those voters swung to George W. Bush and most are now chanting to themselves, "Won't Get Fooled Again" by the Who as their personal mantra. (Yikes! That song came out 37 years ago.)
These voters, and the rest of us, have seen an evangelical, conservative president at work for the past eight years, and I think the sentiment is: "Once bitten; twice shy."
So, I think that McCain's best interests are served by choosing a moderate VP. If the conservative litmus test proposers and the evangelicals stay home, then they get Barrack Obama.
My 2 cents.
TLGK
Posted by: The Loop Garoo Kid at August 5, 2008 2:38 PM
Thanks both for stopping by.
I should mention that for all my distain at these particular evangelicals, I myself go to a Calvary Chapel church, which can be fairly put into the evangelical camp. We're pretty conservative, and it's a pretty fair guess that the overwhelming majority vote the Republican party ticket.
Obviously since I go to such a church I must think that the evangelical movement has something going for it. And I do. There is much about the Christian right and evangelicalism that is commendable.
Perhaps this is why I was so hard on the folks who hate Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon; because they're part of the movement I belong to and want to keep it clean. There's nothing worse than a stench in your own house.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at August 5, 2008 9:21 PM
>>These voters, and the rest of us, have seen an evangelical, conservative president at work for the past eight years, and I think the sentiment is: "Once bitten; twice shy.">>
Nice twist.
If we were guaranteed the same sort of character in a president by the description of evangelical and conservative, I have no doubt we'd be just fine with another Bush-like president. My only problem with Bush is that he has exercised his Christian charity with government funds - he's too liberal for me. But he _does_ have character, and sticks by his principles...unlike those on the left who have no principles.
My disagreement is like Tom's...you don't judge a man suitability for president by his religion alone. We do not have a religious test for the presidency. I think the LDS religion is a bit weird, but its members are hardworking, honest people. We could do worse.
Posted by: suek at August 6, 2008 12:36 PM
TRH and Suek,
Please understand that I do not denigrate Evangelicals per se. I practice in shadows of the bastions of the Religions Right . One exit N on I-25, turn right and I am at Focus on the Family.
I know that evangelical churches do a tremendous amount of good in their communities, many being bastions of Christian charity. The world would go around a great deal easier than it does if we had more of it.
That said, I don't need James Dobson or his ilk, telling me what to think or how to vote.
In fact, I cannot tell you how much I felt the train went off the tracks quite badly when I read or heard comments about how this voter or that one voted for GWB b/c he was a "man of God" or b/c of his relationship w/ Jesus.
I live in a community w/ a significant LDS population and they are hardworking honest people, as a rule.
Off to commit some justice, I hope.
More anon.
Regards.
TLGK
Posted by: The Loop Garoo Kid at August 7, 2008 10:54 AM
No offense taken, Loop
Posted by: The Redhunter 
at August 9, 2008 11:26 AM
