The following was sent to members of the Iowa Press today. Thanks to Jeff Fuller at Iowans for Romney.
Contact:: President, Steve Scheffler(515) 971-7363
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, DES MOINES, IOWA,
November 7, 2007 – Iowa Conservatives: Don't Fall for Rudy
STATEMENT BY STEVE SCHEFFLER:
"We're not going to beat Hillary Clinton with someone who has a record of agreement with her on abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration and many other issues important to Iowa conservatives.
Some conservatives (insert Pat Robertson) seem willing to look past Giuliani's liberal record because he appears strongest in national polls against Hillary Clinton. The truth is, the national election is still months away. Iowans should nominate a candidate who can draw a contrast with Hillary, not someone who shares her New York values.In fact, recent polls point to Giuliani's slippage against Hillary Clinton on the national scene and are evidence that the "electability" argument doesn't hold water.
We hammered that "electability" argument just the other day. It's baloney!
Social conservatives such as Pat Robertson who back pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage candidates do a disservice to the conservative movement. At the end of the day, we have to stand for something, or our movement has no purpose."
1 comment:
When conservatives like Pat Robertson say they will not support Mitt Romney based on his previously pro-choice position and suggest his conversion is suspect before throwing their support behind pro-choice Guiliani, is it really about life? Or is it possible they haven’t the nerve to stare bigotry in the mirror? In some conservative circles it isn’t bigoted to believe that Mormons are the embodiment of evil. It’s Sunday school.
Popular conservative radio talk-show host Sean Hannity supports, rather publicly, Governor Guiliani. Last week he invited well-liked and well-known conservative writer and former secretary of education, William Bennett, to spend a half hour speaking about the post 9/11 Republican Party and its migration away from a firm position as pro-life. He suggested that the concern over islamo facism has opened a window for a candidate like Guiliani to rise as the primary front-runner. Apparently Robertson used the same reasoning. In Robertson's press conference he hyped the crusade against islamists. Narry a word about pro-family, pro-life, anit-adultery, pro-marriage, anti-divorce conservative values.
In a private conversation last week former Secretary Bennett told Guiliani that “now was the moment in American political history which allowed someone like him to win the republican nomination”. I’m assuming that “someone like him” means a social liberarl leading the conservative movement, however oxymoronic that may appear to some. Exactly where Giuliani would lead republicans isn’t in question. But does the conservative movement really want to go there?
The Republican party professes pro-life positions as moral absolutes. Party members choose to accept or reject those unchanging values or to covert, but the morality of the issue doesn’t migrate like so many ducks in winter. So instead Hannity invites his guests to bloviate justification for supporting Guiliani. I can only lament the torture of so much twisted rationalization.
Technically Hannity isn’t supporting a pro-choice position. His guests are. Bennett’s position on life hasn’t changed to “undecided”. The flap in the liberal media over his comments on his pro life stance a few weeks back (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/politics/30bennett.html) certainly suggest he’s on board. Hannity is still with the program. And Pat Robertson hasn't disavowed his conservative ideals. But you wouldn’t know it to listen to their justifications for supporting Rudy.
Life is full of so many contradictions. Pro-life is not. The real world is a confusing place, but there should be no confusion on this: Guiliani shouldn’t be the one bearing the republican standard. Conservative morality is a much higher bar.
Wasn’t it moral relativity that got the GOP banished to the congressional minority wilderness? And now Pat Robertson supports Rudy as the best conservative hope. I think not. There is likely only one reason Pat and a few other social conservatives are not supporting Mitt Romney and it has little to do with conservatism.
Mitt Romney is possibly the best advocate for the conservative movement in politics today to say nothing of his ability to bring conservative change to federal government operations and legislation. Compared to Rudy's value compromised personal life coupled with his liberal record as mayor of New York, Mitt Romney wouldn't be such a bad Sunday School teacher after all. And that's why all the confusion.
There are some who simply don’t want a Mormon teaching Sunday School from the white house.
Post a Comment