Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Evangelical Extremists

Note: Tomorrow I'll be reprinting two e-mails I've received: one from Matt (of SenseinPolitics) about the positive qualities of Mike Huckabee, the other from John Hawkins (of The Forgotten Street) about the conservative credentials of Fred Thompson. Here's the e-mail I sent to them today:

Matt & John, could I reprint your e-mails (one each)? John Hawkins in Florida, a long-time associate of mine who's a supporter of Fred Thompson), wrote a thoughtful e-mail. Matt, your supportive comments about Mike Huckabee are pretty much in line with my own views of him. I just don't believe he or Fred can win a year from November. (In the early part of 1992, I didn't believe Bill Clinton had a chance against Bush, Sr., who was coming off a period of great popularity after the Gulf War.) What has changed since then is the huge amount of money needed to advertise on TV in the Super Tuesday states (including California and New York, as well as several other large states).

Super Tuesday comes shortly after the Florida primary, which will also require a lot of money. I expect Giuliani and Romney to have significant amounts of campaign cash, and Thompson MAY have enough to keep afloat. McCain is always a question mark, but he seems to be doing better.

One candidate in modern times has had an amazing take-off, and that was John Kerry, who was at 9-10% in late November, 2003, and was at 52% in February, 2004.

(Howard Dean screamed himself out of the running, and John Edwards was always more popular with the media than with voters, so it was relatively easy for Kerry to move up quickly.) Kerry it turned out was "everybody's second choice" among the Democrats, which may also be the case with Mike Huckabee.

Remember, however, that Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire, which I don't believe is possible with Mike. If Mike doesn't win Iowa, he should withdraw and begin planning for the next campaign.

The only real movement in the polls in the last several months has been by Hillary Clinton with her putting distance between herself and Obama. Giuliani has been at 30% since the last Ice Age.

There was one poll that showed Romney with higher unfavorables than Hillary Clinton. She has high favorables (high 40s) and high unfavorables (mid-40s). The highest favorables of any candidate are those for Giuliani. People who aren't going to vote for him in the primary still have a favorable view of him.

I've heard that 59% (think that's it) of the American public hasn't seen so much as ONE debate. The campaign started very early, but it's still mainly of interest to political junkies like us.
Of note: Evangelical-type candidates in the Northeast and West (Dreier in Cal., Irey in PA) tend to be going toward Rudy.

Hard-right evangelicals like Dobson are attacking Thompson, mostly for his virtues rather than his faults. He's not for an amendment banning gay "marriage," mainly because such an amendment doesn't have a snowflake's chance in Hades of passing. He's against a total ban on abortion because (1) it wouldn't pass either the Senate or the House; (2) it would criminalize women and doctors involved in early-term abortions. There's massive national support for allowing such abortions -- 84% believe it should be allowable.

Romney said that abortion should be left up to the states, because that's exactly what would happen if SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade. To Romney's credit, he told people the truth, even though some evangelicals didn't want to hear it. Despite Dr. Dobson's and Rev. Larry White's rants, there is never going to be an amendment overturning Roe. If it happens, it would be the result of actions by by SCOTUS, not by Congress and the states.

The problem with the extreme evangelicals -- the "absolutists" as my friend Sanity102 calls them, is their appalling egoism. The define their own form of Christianity as the only type of belief acceptable to God. They believe that because they want a certain political action to take place that the system has failed if it doesn't. I've compared them them to naughty two-year olds, individuals who start screaming if they don't get their own way.

The absolutists do harm to a campaign like Mike's. One evangelical on the main Huckabee blog said that Mike was heading to perdition because his band played some Willie Nelson songs. Another individual said that the election of Hillary Clinton (herself a liberal Christian) would lead to "the persecution of hundreds of Christians." Other supporters deserted Mike because he said essentially that DC residents were being subject to taxation without representation. Still other evangelicals got in an uproar against Mike because he said there was SOME racism in the opposition to immigration reform.

Perhaps Mike's most controversial statement was when he said, "Life begins at conception, but it doesn't end at birth." This was a slap at evangelicals and others who claim to be "pro-life," but show no concern for children outside the womb who need assistance.

As I've said before, Mike is a better candidate than some of his strongest supporters could ever imagine.

steve maloney

Evangelicals and (Conservative) Gay American Bloggers

Note: This is one of two columns for Monday, September 10, 2007. Your Comments are Very Welcome, except for those from "Anonymous." TOMORROW, 9/11, A DAY FOR HEROES AND SADNESS, I WILL WRITE ABOUT 9/11 AND "THE TWO AMERICAS."

In my return to total candor in my discussions of national politics, I will discuss two related issues: (1) the way that small group of my fellow evangelical Christians have damaged our representative democracy with their commitment to a theocracy; (2) the anti-Christian and thoughtless way they have used gay Americans – including millions of gay moderates and conservatives – as scapegoats for America’s social problems. Let’s look at my second point.

As Christians, we are under divine admonition to love God and our neighbors (basically, all other human beings). We don’t have to agree with everyone on issues. We don’t have to vote for people we feel would not be good leaders. We don't have to change our individual definitions of what constitutes sin.

Yet, we absolutely must show respect to people who disagree with us and perhaps conduct their lives in ways different from us.

I despise two terms: (1) “gay lifestyle”; (2) “the gay agenda.” My observation is that gay lifestyles (plural) are as diverse as those of “straights.” Also, the implication (“gay agenda”) that gay people form some monolithic political and social movement is nonsense. When people rely on such terms, they indicate they’re homophobes – or worse.

To all gay Americans, I -- as a Christian committed to our universal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ -- apologize sincerely for the contemptible treatment of people portraying themselves as Christians who have done harm to the lives and reputations of gay and lesbian people. I realize small segments of evangelicals have, in violation of the teaching of Jesus Christ, used Christianity as a weapon. Their behavior, in the past and now, has been reprehensible. "What ye do unto the least of them ye do unto Me."

It is well past the time when homophobes and gay-bashers should have grown up. They need to stop portraying the Republican Party as some sort of hate group. It is time to restore the GOP as an institution committed to decency, a legacy that traces back to Lincoln.

Frankly, the way other ADULTS conduct their own lives is none of my business. It’s also none of YOUR business. Granted, traditional marriages and traditional families face some great challenges, but it’s thoroughly improper to blame them on any group, including the (relatively) small cohort of gay and lesbian Americans.

It is a sin to scapegoat others. Such behavior is destructive of the tolerance and unity our society so desperately needs.

Recently, I re-visited a prominent gay conservative blog, http:gaypatriot.org/. I checked out the blog roll, which consists primarily of other gay conservative sites. If you go there yourself, and I hope you will, here’s what you’ll see (plus a final comment).

(Let me add that I disagree with some regularity with GayPatriot on certain issues. To me, they're much too willing to accept the views of Republican elders about the need for Beltway experience. To me, much of that "experience" is the kind true leaders could do without.)

GayPatriot Blogroll

A Stitch in Haste
Advance Indiana
Adversus Monstrum
Americans ForCondiRice
AnotherGayRepublican
As I Please
AustinBay
Average Gay Joe
Baldilocks
Bilious Young Fogey
Blogger News Network
Blogs For Bush
Cake Or Death?
Captain's Quarters
CaptionThis!
Cathy's World
Christian Grantham
Citizen Crain
Classical Values
Conjecturer, The
Conservathink
Conservative Eyes
Conservative Grapevine
daily dose of queer
Dan Drezner
Dean's World
Debbie Schlussel
Dreadnought
Dreams Into Lightning
Eva Young
Free IraqiGateway Pundit
GayAndRight
GayOrbit
Gays for Life
GOP Bloggers
GOP Vixen
Grand Conservative Blogress Diva SondraK
Homocon
Independent Gay Forum
Instapundit
Iron Teakettle
Jackson's Junction
Jane Galt
Liberty Files
Liberty Film Festival
Lifelike Pundits
Little Green Footballs
LorieByrd.com
Maggie's Farm
North Dallas Thirty
OUTzoneTV
PajamasMedia
Political Vice Squad
PrismWarden
Pryhills
Pundit Review
Queer Conservative
Queers Against Terror
RedStateRant
Republic Of M
Rick Sincere News & Thoughts
Right Wing Nation
RightRainbow
Roger L. Simon
Romeo Mike
Scrappleface
Sean Froyd
Sister Toldjah
Somewhere in the Middle
StopTheACLU
Take Back the Memorial (9/11)
Tammy Bruce
ThatGayConservative
The Big Tent
The Dook
The Hotline's Blogometer
The Liberal Wrong - Wing
The Malcontent
The Moderate Voice
The Party Crasher
The Western Seminarian
Tim Blair
VietPundit
VikingPundit
VodkaPundit
Volokh Conspiracy
Western Seminarian
what if?
YoungPun


Gee, I wonder what “agenda” these (almost exclusively conservative) gay blogs are pursuing? I also wonder how many evangelicals have visited even one of them?

So, why does Steve Maloney emphasize the need for Republicans to reach out for support and votes from gays – as well as from other minorities?

Frankly, people who live in an evangelical cocoon – a small minority of the evangelicals – certainly need to get out more. If you start reading the above blogs, you’ll find you have a great deal of agreement with what you see.

Mike Huckabee recently said he wanted support from “anybody” who agrees with him. I’d put it this way: I want the support of everybody – even those who don’t currently agree with me on certain issues.

I want all those blogs – and their millions of visitors -- above to back the Republican nominee for President. I want them to sign up to back Sarah Palin for vice-president and ultimately for President.

Most of all, I want my fellow evangelicals to put their Christianity where their mouths are. If they cannot, then I suggest they seek some alternative form of religious expression.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

Note: Not every blog listed above has a gay orientation, but the vast majority of them do. I want all these people to know they have my love and support.

Rudy Giuliani Among the Evangelicals

The short answer is he feels they're unreliable, dogmatic, and toxic when it comes to attracting "normal" Republican voters and independents. He believes the far "right-edge" of the evangelical movement is a liability – a band of sanctimonious hypocrites.

The major issue confronting Rudy Giuliani is whether he can attract a big chunk of evangelical votes. At some point (soon) Rudy is going to challenge people who don’t grasp the significance of Mike Huckabee’s saying that “Life begins at conception, but it doesn’t end at birth.”

That’s a criticism of supposed pro-lifers who talk a lot about the subject, but don’t actually DO much about it. They also seem to lose interest in children after they’re born.

Mike can’t (currently) express such unpleasant truths in stark terms, but Rudy can -- and probably will. Sometime during the primary season, you may hear Rudy uttering such sentiments out loud.

He will try -- and perhaps succeed -- putting the far right element of evangelicals on the defensive and even marginalize them. And when he speaks out, don't be surprised if he doesn't get a resounding "amen!" from many evangelicals. He will get affirmative responses from those evangelicals who have reflected deeply on implications of Mike's statement about life's beginning and continuation.

Let me get personal. I am strongly pro-life (from conception to its end in natural death). I have been sending money to the National-Right-to-Life organization for decades. I've written dozens of articles promoting the sanctity of life.

But in recent years, I've become suspicious of some elements in the Movement. Occasionally, it seems more about raising money, issuing press releases, and uttering maudlin statements.

Yes, it is a very emotional issue, but it's also one with some profoundly practical elements: specifically, reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions. Which of the candidates has the BEST RECORD of achieving those ends?

It MAY (key word) just be Rudy Giuliani. In getting pro-life RESULTS, it could be the supposedly pro-choice individual. In his tenure as Mayor of New York, abortions declined and adoptions increased. That happened on his watch.

The right-edge of the evangelical movement chronically underestimates Rudy. He's one of the great coalition builders -- and one of the great Mayors -- of all time. He won election twice as a Republican in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than a four-to-one margin.

Rudy Giuliani's presidential strategy is to compete vigorously in several Blue States. He believes he can win in Pennsylvania (went 51-49% for Kerry) and New Jersey (went about 55-45% for Kerry). He also believes he can be very competitive in the critical state of New York. (In 2004, George W. Bush, who spent no money in New York, was polling nearly 45 %. at one point)

At the same time, Rudy believes he can hold states in South and the Mountain West, mainly because he would be the conservative alternative to Mrs. Clinton. The current polls (and hey, it's early!) suggest the strategy could work.

In response to such situations, what might the right-edge of the evangelical do? A thoughtful Baptist preacher in Houston suggested this approach: that devoted evangelicals form a third political party, one with a (Christian) theocratic flavor.

He suggests that the evangelical party's nominee might be Mike Huckabee, whom he assumes won't win the Republican nomination. It's an eminently bad idea, but -- perhaps perversely -- I'm not totally against it.

Frankly, Mike Huckabee doesn't possess a death-wish, so he would pass on the nomination, because it would be a time-consuming, expensive process that would end with him winning zero electoral votes. He knows all about being the cutest fat boy at the dance.

Ross Perot, who's filthy rich and spent money like a drunken Naval Academy grad (which he is -- not the drunk part) ran as a third-party candidate. He succeeded in tipping the election to Bill Clinton, and won zero electoral votes. (He came close to winning Maine but not any other state.)

The recent condemnations of by evangelicals (like the Romans) of Mike are sad to see. However, the souring of a few extremists on Mike reflects this fact: in his effort to win the nomination (and also the election), Mike is becoming slightly more like, well, Rudy Giuliani.

Specifically, Mike realizes that it's essential for him to appeal voters who've been turning away from Republicans: Blacks, Hispanics, "security moms," and younger people. He also knows that to get votes you have to give something in return.

Far-right evangelicals (I call them the "I'm right and you're not" crowd) proceed under the illusion that in politics you can somehow get something for nothing. Good luck!

Both Mike and Rudy have similar assumptions about what evangelicals will do in the general election. If Mike loses a handful of evangelicals, well, so what? If Rudy loses a bigger handful of evangelicals, well his motto might be: "Don't let the door hit you in the butt."

Almost strangely, the polls continue to suggest that Rudy is doing well among evangelicals. He's getting a higher percentage of them than the supposed "evangelical favorite," Mike Huckabee. (That may change somewhat.)

Admittedly, a candidate like Rudy Giuliani doesn't want all or most evangelicals out of the Party. Instead, he wants to purge the far-right corps of evangelicals, people like the Romans, the Dobsons, and Pat Robertson (the "Prince of Smarm"). He knows their choices either will be to stay home or vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Giuliani assumes that if he runs against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he'll get a large chunk of evangelical votes. Again, the polls suggest he's correct. What he does want is to shove aside single-issue and single-candidate evangelicals.

In other words, Giuliani is NOT looking to attract people who despise moderate candidates like him. He believes there aren’t enough of them to cost him the election. To people who say, "If Mike doesn't get the nomination, I'm outta here," Rudy is saying, "It's been nice knowing you."

(As the day goes on, I'm going to write about gay and lesbian people and their role in the conservative movement.)

NOTE: I'm informed the Romans persist in making bogus statements about my being a Giuliani backer. Many months ago, after the first debate I did endorse (on another blog site) Giuliani because I thought he was the candidate most likely to beat Hillary Clinton. Since then, partly because of my Palin work, I've backed away from an endorsement.

At times this week, I've considering endorsing Mike Huckabee. I regard Giuliani as an authentic American hero with a superb record as Mayor of New York. Mike is, for me, "the candidate of the heart." He certainly has a way of growing on people., and his appearance today (Sunday) on CNN was very impressive.

Granted, I regard Hillary Clinton as NEARLY unbeatable, partly because of the clumsiness of some evangelicals in understanding what's at stake.S ometime in November perhaps I'll endorse someone.

As for 2012 and 2016, the person I endorse for President is Gov. Sarah Heath Palin. I also recommend her as keynote speaker for the 2008 Republican National Convention. She can send a powerful message: that the Republican Party doesn't consist mainly of angry, aging white guys.

On Sarah and the vice-presidency, I know there have been some contacts with the Giuliani and Huckabee campaigns, but I don't know their exact nature or significance. I also know the Arkansas Republican Party says, "Sarah is now on our radar." Look for more and "Sarah sightings" as the primary season unfolds.

(For my column tomorrow about gay conservatives -- and how GWB's win in 2000 depended on his getting hundreds of thousands of votes from gay people, paticularly those in Florida -- please take a look at today's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Forum (opinion section). You can find Timothy Patrick McCarthy (gee, he's as Irish as I am) writing about, "Homos, Hypocrites, Haters." Apparently, he's the "homo," whereas we Republicans are the hypocrites and haters.

Unlike Stephen Richard Maloney, Timothy Patrick McCarthy appears to be rather strongly on the Left. Here's his salute to the GOP: "The Republican Party is clear about its 'values' [he puts it in quotes] when it comes to gays and lesbians: They oppose our right to raise children, to live in safety, to work in peace, to serve our country, or to marry our loved ones."

I believe he's accusing us of coming up short in our adherence to Jesus' Second Great Commandment. As to gay marriage, I'm a "civil union" type of guy, but like a good Republican, I believe it's primarily up to the several states.

My essay will not be about Mr. McCarthy but rathr about the hundreds (yep) of CONSERVATIVE gay and lesbian bloggers, with emphasis on http://gaypatriot.org/ and http://tammybruce.com/. In general, I like gay people, but Mr. McCarthy and I are off to a rocky start.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I'M PROUD OF THE FACT THAT I'VE HELPED BRING DOZENS OF SUPPORTERS TO THE DRAFT SARAH PALIN EFFORT. HOWEVER, I WANT TO WRITE HARD-HITTING MATERIAL ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES -- AND CONTROVERSIAL CANDIDATES -- AND THAT CAN SOMETIMES CONFLICT WITH ADVANCING THE BLOGGERS-FOR-PALIN EFFORT. I WILL CONTINUE TO WRITE ABOUT SARAH FROM TIME-TO-TIME, BUT I'D LIKE TO DIRECT ALL ENQUIRIES ABOUT LEARNING MORE ABOUT HER -- OR ABOUT JOINING THE BLOGGERS' GROUP -- TO ADAM AT HTTP: //PALINFORVP.BLOGSPOT.COM. HE STARTED THE PALIN EFFORT AS A "COALITION" OF ONE, AND ITS SUCCESS IS LARGELY A RESULT OF HIS EFFORTS. SO, PLEASE CONTACT ADAM ABOUT ANY IMPORTANT PALIN MATTERS. I UNCONDITIONALLY SUPPORT SARAH FOR VICE-PRESIDENT, AND I SUPPORT THAT REMARKABLE WOMAN FOR EVEN HIGHER OFFICE AS EARLY AS 2012, AND NO LATER THAN 2016. THE V-P MOVEMENT WILL BE IN GOOD HANDS WITH ADAM. -- STEVE (AS YOU'LL NOTE, I HAVE CHANGED THE FOCUS AND MY PROFILE SOMEWHAT. )