Only Divine Intervention Can Make the Evangelical Endorsement Matter Now

Bookmark and Share  As disgruntled conservatives and the the doubting Thomases of the conservative evangelical community continue to fear the potential candidacy of Mitt Romney,  leading evangelicals met in Texas on Saturday, to finally decide upon a single candidate to unite behind in the hopes of denying Romney the nomination.

After all the hand wringing, they decided to get behind former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a committed Catholic and self-described consistent conservative.

In explaining the decision, Tony Perkins, the group’s spokesman and President of Family Research Council, said:

“Rick Santorum has consistently articulated the issues that are of concern to conservatives, both economic and social. He has woven those into a very solid platform. And he has a record of stability.”

While the decision and the statement supporting the decision to back Santorum has a plausible tone to it, the facts that led up to the choice of Santorum tell an ugly story which undermines the conclusion that these religious leaders and values voters made.

Rick Santorum is not articulating  “the issues that are of concern to conservatives, both economic and social”, any better now than he was two, three, or four months ago.  Rick Santorum has not “woven those” issues into a more “solid platform” than he already established when he first announced his candidacy.  Yet it took Mitt Romney’s winning of the first nominating caucus and primary for these religious leaders to suddenly decide that Rick Santorum is their man.

The indecision, procrastination, and lack of committment demonstrated by these evangelical leaders up to now,  has essentially made this way too late endorsement of Santorum as the consistent conservative, an incredibly meaningless move that in the final analysis seems to be based less on the actual issues and more upon religious bigotry.

Had these moral men and women been truly sincere and really did believe that Rick Santorum was the best candidate for them and the nation, they would have and should have reached this conclusion well over a month ago, when the decision may have helped Rick Santorum pick up the 9 votes it would have taken for him to actually win in Iowa.  If these people of conviction had the courage to turn their moral conviction in to political courage, they would have united behind Rick Santorum many weeks ago and while Santorum was campaigning in New Hampshire, the evangelical community could have been coordinating their efforts and preparing South Carolina for Santorum.

But for some reason, the spirit to support Rick Santorum suddenly struck these movement conservatives now, when it looks like Mitt Romney might lock up the nomination.

For some reason, I find it hard to believe that the so called consistency of Rick Santorum is the real reason behind their endorsement.  A part of me can’t help but feel that Mitt Romney’s Mormonism is more a factor.  While some of the most well known and popular mainstream evangelical leaders have stated that they have no issue with Romney’s faith in a political context, others have not been so tolerant.    One such person is Robert Jeffress of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Pastor Jeffress, a Perry supporter, essentially declared that he disqualified Mitt Romney’s candidacy simply because the former Massachusetts Governor is a Mormon.  And Jeffress is not alone in that sentiment among many people of more mainstream faiths.

In their defense, this group of 150 evangelical leaders may deny that religious bigotry played a role in their decision.  Such denials inevitably make this a my word versus their word issue, but what their is absolutely no denying is the fact that the evangelical base of the Republican Party, embarrassed themselves during this election cycle.

They essentially defeated themselves during this nomination process.  Their inability to agree upon a single candidate as their favorite social conservative, has in large part been the reason for Mitt Romney’s success to date.   Now, at this late stage in the game, their endorsement of Santorum seems to lack any real meaning.  The unavoidable impression they created here is one of last minute desperation which makes their endorsement of Santorum seem quite half hearted and disingenuous and most of all, a last ditch effort designed more to stop Mitt Romney than support Rick Santorum.

Meanwhile, as stated previously, the endorsement is too little, too late.

First of all, in the Bible Belt of South Carolina, Catholics like Rick Santorum are viewed only slightly better than Mormons and the weak endorsement of Santorum by conservative Christian leaders does little to chip away at that bias among the evangelical masses.  Under normal conditions, the endorsement would have certainly helped to convince this voting bloc to approve of the Catholic more than the Mormon, but the inept handling of the evangelical leader’s decision makes these conditions far from normal.  So it would seem that Santorum’s sudden spiritual based support will not save him in South Carolina and it will probably fail to gain traction in Florida, where conservatives are resigning themselves to the inevitability of Romney’s nomination and beginning to unite behind him.

Secondly, the unconvincing sincerity of the evangelical endorsement will do little to help Rick Santorum raise the amounts of money that will be required to continue competing with Romney effectively.

In the end, the entire process leading up to endorsement by these evangelical leaders seems to me to have been quite an unsavory one. I have also found it to be quite hypocritical.  During the Sunday morning news shows, several speakers for this coalition of Christian leaders made it clear that electability was the main reason behind their decision.  Tony Perkins added that Rick Perry was actually the favorite going in to their Saturday meeting, but he failed to meet their electability expectations.  So they went with Santorum.  The problem with that claim is that if electability of someone who promises to commit themselves to the same conservative values that they share, than Mitt Romney would have to  win on that argument.  But there was far more to this decision than electability and the consistency which this Christian coalition also claims led to their endorsement of Santorum.

I believe it came down to the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and that any excuse to deny him their support provided these social conservatives with a quick and easy way to deny religious bigotry played a role in their decision.    Were that not the case, based upon the Christian belief that people can change and redeem themselves, Mitt Romney’s committment to their issues combined with his electability should have allowed them to unite behind Romney.  Instead these religious leaders were more hellbent on just stopping Romney.

The question now becomes, will they be hellbent enough to stop Obama that they will allow themselves to vote for a Mormon come November?

Bookmark and Share

Democrat Ad Highlights Class Warfare Through Romney Meeting with Trump

Bookmark and Share    Today, as Mitt Romney becomes the latest Republican presidential candidate to kiss Donald Trump’s ring, the Democratic National Committee took the opportunity to reinforce their pathetic attempts to wage class warfare in the 2012 election.  In an ad entitled “Trump, Romney; You’re Fired[see ad below this post], Democrats attack both individuals as privileged rich men who merely victimize the middleclass in an attempt to gain more wealth.

In the first opening lines, the ad charges that both Romney and Trump have done well for themselves.

Stop! Stop right there.

Let’s analyze that.

Is it not un-American to attack someone because they have done well for themselves?  Or is it that ideology the and Party that believes in that ideology which are un-American because both seek to demonize individuals for being successful and because both try to make others dislike people because of this success?  Perhaps the DNC does not remember that 6 of the ten richest members of Congress are Democrats.  Maybe they forget that people like former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry, as well as Senators Jay Rockerfeller, Diane Feinstien, Frank Lautenberg, and Richard Blumenthal, are just some of those who are the richest.  But as we will see, wealth is not a bad thing if you’re a liberal.  Only if you’re a Republican.

President Obama recently accused Republicans of charging him with waging class warfare.  His response was that he is not waging war, he is actually just a warrior for the middleclass.  Well the truth is, this ad makes it clear that the President and his Party are indeed waging class warfare.  The first three lines of his Party’s new ad makes this painfully obvious.  And as for being a “warrior for the middleclass”,  President Obama is not fighting for the middleclass, he’s destroying the middleclass.  Under his Administration, America’s poverty rate has increased to extraordinary highs that we haven’t seen in decades.  Under his Administration, the middle class is seeing the longest recession in history and one of the highest long-term unemployment rates in our history.  Under the Obama Administration, the middle class is seeing prices rise faster than the salaries of those who are lucky to have a job.  And under leadership of President Obama, the middleclass has seen their interest on the national debt multiplied many times and while our national economy is growing by a painfully low rate of 1.7%, our national debt is growing at a rate of 15.21%.  Is it any wonder why our credit rating has been downgraded?

With the points about President Obama and the left waging class war fare and who is really the middleclasses’s enemy,  made clear, let’s go on with the rest of the ad.

With images of limousines and private jets, President Obama and his Party claim that the G.O.P. is promoting policies to help only the rich and corporations, and they resort to their typical scare tactics of senior citizens by claiming Republicans are trying to kill Social Security and Medicare.  The DNC attack ad goes on to blame Republicans for cutting funds to schools, research development, and healthcare, and of eliminating investments that can help cretae jobs and keep America competitive.

 These arguments may sound good on the surface.  But unfortunately for the left and the President, they only sound good to the left, not mainstream America.  Mainstream America has come to understand that the left is waging class warfare, scaring senior citizens, and creating policies that are making America less competitive in the world and preventing investment, economic growth, and job creation.  Simply put, most Americans have come to accept that the Obama economy and the liberal policies that account for the Obama economy, are not working.

Americans have come to understand that when liberals mention a buzzword like “investment”, what they really mean is more stimulus spending and higher taxes.  They understand that when the left talks about jobs, they mean government spending and when they throw out phrases like “save Social Social Security and Medicare, they mean deficit spending and an array of tax increases ranging from payroll taxes to death taxes and higher rates that no matter who they are raised on, are passed on to consumers.

Many have come to understand that Republicans seek not destroy Medicare or Social Security, but they do seek to insure that it is solvent for those who are on it now and that there is way for a form of the two to exist for future generations not yet paying in to those sytems yet.  They realize that when Republicans talk about jobs, they are referring to self-sustaining private sector jobs that are created by private sector investment, and sustainable econmomic growth, while at the same time, trying to get government under control so that our economy is growing at a rate faster than our national debt.

So this new atack ad is preaching to the liberal choir.  Like Jeremiah Wright preaching hatred to his flock, the DNC is preaching hate inspired rhetoric to its audience, an audience of liberals who they want to insure do not sit home on Election Day 2012 because they are embarrased by their Party’s performance.

The new liberal attack ad takes this opportunity to preach to their choir, by trying to tie Mitt Romney together with Donald Trump.

There are some negatives that do go with such a meeting.  Personally, I despise Donald Trump.  As I have written before, I believe he is an assclown.  I believe he hurts the conservative cause more than helps it and given his record of business scandals and failures, I believe he is the very last person in the world that the United States should call upon to lead it.  Ultimately, I would appreciate a Republican presidential candidate who stands up and makes that point.  I would even be more appreciative of them if they refused to feed Trump’s ego by kissing his ring.  But Trump has vowed to make his opinion known in 2012. He has even claimed that if he doesn’t like the Republican nominee, he will run for President himself.  My opinion of Trump aside, many Americans are driven by the pop culture mentality that is ruled by reality TV programs such Trump’s The Apprentice (and let us not respect the despicable lowlifes of the Jersey Shore).  So the reality is that between his money and popularity, no matter how I feel about Trump, he could be a factor in the 2012 election.  Therefore, there is a line of candidates waiting to meet with Trump.  Mitt Romney is merely the latest.

However, the Democratic National Committee sponsored web ad does not raise any of  my concerns.  It simply focusses on trying to associate Mitt Romney, a top contender for the Republican presidential nomination, not so much with Trump, but with rich people in general.  In other words, they are trying desperatley to wage class warfare. This new ad merely uses Donald Trump, not for any of the positions that they may disagree with him on.  They don’t use Trump because they want to focus on the issues or his record.  They merely use him because he is rich and because his meeting with Mitt Romney provides the DNC with the opportunity to advance their class warfare campaign against a potential opponent by demonizing the wealthy and highlighting Romney’s wealth through guilt by association ad.

Yet as I told you earlier in this article, demonizig the rich or those who are well off becuase they have been successful is only bad if you are Republican.  Need proof?  Do you think the D.N.C. will be running an ad featuring Warren Buffett as the speaker at a Chicago-area fundraiser benefitting President Barack Obama’s re-election bid on October 27th?  I doubt it.

Bookmark and Share

New York Special Election Demonstrates Big Troubles for Democrats and President Obama

Bookmark and Share   In what is a sign of just how fond the American people are of his presidency, as the polls close in New York’s special election to replace disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, President Obama remains as far removed from it as Anthony Weiner himself.

Under normal circumstances Democrats would be running congressional campaigns that at least try to create the impression that a sitting Democrat President is heavily involved in and supporting their candidates. This is especially the case for a congressional district that was carved out in the heart of heavily Democratic New York City and gerrymandered in a way that makes it meander through two boroughs in order to maximize election results for Democrats. Yet today, as the sun sets on the NY-9 special election, President Obama remains nowhere to be found. In fact he remains to pariah to the election.

The President’s voice has not even injected in to the special election through simple robocalls. Instead, today voters received such communication from former president Clinton and newly elected Governor Andrew Cuomo. In two separate calls made on Monday and Tuesday, both calls highlighted the New York Times’ endorsement of Democrat David Weprin over Republican Bob Turner, and focus on jobs and Social Security and try to make the TEA Party the enemy that motivates voters to come to polls and oppose by supporting David Weprin.

Cuomo’s call states:

“I’ve known David for many years, and I’ve known him to be a leader who stands up for what’s right. In Congress he’ll stand up for middle class families and he’ll fight to preserve Social Security and Medicare. David will bring jobs to New York and get our economy moving. That’s why he’s also been endorsed by the New York Times,”

Today Former President Clinton’s call states:

“The New York Times endorsed David. They support him for the same reasons I do: because he’ll stand up for the middle class, he’ll support a good program to put Americans back to work, and he’ll oppose the Tea Party plan to destroy Medicare”

But New York is not the only place with a special election to fill a vacant House seat. In many ways, today’ special elections are the last waves of the 2010 midterm election and they are about to sweep ashore the American political landscape. And much like the original tidal wave of victory that the G.O.P. rode to some of the largest gains of congressional seats in history, this last wave is expected to bring surprises and Republican gains.

In Nevada voters in the second district will be filling the vacancy created by Joe Heller’s appointment to the U.S. Senate following Senator John Ensign’s May resignation. In that special election Republican Mark Amodei looks to be a slam dunk in what was once considered a tight race but is now considered an impossibility for Democrats to pick up.

But the real story of the day is shaping up to be the special election in New York’s 9th congressional district. There, a district that as been held by Democrats since the 1920’s is about to fall into Republican hands.  And while Republicans have not recently had great success in special elections to fill vacant congressional seats in New York state, NY-9 seems ready to make up for that.

While Turner’s victory is not a sure thing, polls and the prevailing winds indicate that he is a likely winner. According to the most recent Public Policy Polling survey the race stands as follows:

  • Bob Turner (R) 47%
  • David Weprin (D) 41%
  • Christopher Hoeppner (S) 4%
  • Undecided 7%

But the story here is not merely that a Republican is about to take a seat away from Democrats that they have held for nearly a century, but rather that traditional Democrat constituencies are showing their dissatisfaction with President Obama and are sending a protest vote. Hence the reason for keeping President Obama as far away from this race as humanly possible. That story is explained by a deeper look at the most recent PPP poll of the 9th district. Republican Bob Turner has the support of as many as 29% of the Democrat vote, while Democrat David Weprin has a 58% share. Right there you can see that things are out of whack. Democrats in New York City typically back their Party nominee in numbers approaching 80% or more.

When it comes to Turner, he is receiving 83% of the Republican vote while a mere 10% support Weprin.

But some of the most startling and important stats come from the districts heavy Jewish population and those voters who consider themselves to be independent. In the case of Jewish voters, their dislike for President Obama’s policies regarding Israel seem to be so strong, that Weprin, an incumbent Democrat Assembly and orthodox Jew is hemorrhaging support from his own religious community.

Those results are as follows:

Among Jewish Voters

  • Bob Turner (R) 56%
  • David Weprin (D) 39%
  • Christopher Hoeppner (S) 2%
  • Undecided 4%

While all elections are mere snapshots of the moment, those type of numbers are the one thing that offer a sure sign of trouble for President Obama in 2012. His handling of Israel is dividing the support the Jewish support that Democrats traditionally receive a large portion of their support from.

As for the all independent vote that is breaking 58% for Repubican bob Turner to Weprin’s 26%.

All of these numbers come down to one thing. This election is really not between Turner and Weprin at all. As it turns out the vote is between two sentiments…………..are you happy with the way things are going or are you dissatisfied by President Obama and his liberal policies?

The answer to that question is that voters are pissed. And Democrats know it. As evident in the following numbers from the same PPP poll that has Turner ahead of Weprin, unfortunately for Weprin, it’s the President’s numbers that are driving this race

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

  • Approve 31%
  • Disapprove 56%

Among Men

  • Approve 27%
  • Disapprove 63%

Among Women

  • Approve 35%
  • Disapprove 49%

Among Jewish Voters

  • Approve 26%
  • Disapprove 62%

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s leadership on Israel?

  • Approve 30%
  • Disapprove 54%

Among Democrats

  • Approve 42%
  • Disapprove 40%

Among Republicans

  • Approve 13%
  • Disapprove 78%

Among Independents

  • Approve 13%
  • Disapprove 66%

Among Jewish Voters

  • Approve 22%
  • Disapprove 68%

How important was the issue of Israel in deciding who to vote for Congress: very important, somewhat important, or not all that important?

  • Very important 37%
  • Somewhat important 32%
  • Not all that important 29%
  • Among Jewish Voters
  • Very important 58%
  • Somewhat important 30%
  • Not all that important 11%

Insofar as the outlook for President Obama in 2012, in 2008 he won the 9th C.D. with 55% of the vote to John McCain’s 44% but when asked about the 2012 presidential election, President Obama is not yet anywhere near as strong now.

2012 Presidential Election

  • Mitt Romney 46%
  • Barack Obama 42%
  • Barack Obama 44%
  • Rick Perry 43%

Among Jewish Voters

  • Mitt Romney 52%
  • Barack Obama 38%
  • Rick Perry 47%
  • Barack Obama 43%

The voters of New York’s 9th Congressional District have not suddenly changed ideologies and gone from believing that government doesn’t do enough to believing that it does too much. They remain largely supportive of Democrat policies but in the eyes of NY Democrats, there is a disconnect between the President and liberal policies. Right now they are not blaming his ideology for failing them, they are blaming him for failing to do a good job. As such, they are taking their frustrations out on David Weprin.  Such sentiments are so much as directly stated in the following video of voters who who turned out for today’s election.

That is just one of the reasons why Democrats have not brought President Obama into this district. Apparently, they have learned from the 2010 special election to replace Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate. In that race President Obama was brought in to energize the base and motivate independent Massachusetts voters to turn out and vote for liberal Martha Coakley. As it turned out, they instead stayed home while the rest of angry electorate came out to support Republican Scott Brown and reject Barack Obama.

Now as we head into the 2012 election, NY-9 is showing us that if anything, that sentiment which swept Scott Brown into office has not changed and may have in fact built even more momentum.

Turnout is Critical

Republican Bob Turner can still lose this race. In fact the chances are very good that he will lose. Special elections usually come down to the Get Out the Vote operation and in that area, Weprin and Democrats have that aspect of the election wrapped up. With quite robust Democrat organizations in New York City as compared to the meager Republican organization in New York City, combined with the assistance of concentrated, organized efforts by unions, the Weprin campaign can out organize the Turner campaign. But at the same time anger is a strong motivational tool and the voters of the 9thare angry at President Obama. That could make it so that there are very few voters for Democrat GOTV efforts to drive to the polls.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: