So many endorsements, so little time. Faced with the typical influx,
Stumper usually says, "Skip it--a former state comptroller from
Nowheresville, Nev. isn't going to win Rudy McRomneyson the Republican
nomination." But today isn't typical. This morning, Rudy Giuliani and
John McCain simultaneously received endorsements from major figures on
the religious right. Couple today's coups with a Moral Majority
founder's recent declaration of support for Mitt Romney,
and you've got yourself a veritable trend (and you know how we
reporters love trends). Here's a primer on what this week's bevy of
blessings says about the contenders' shaky standing among social
conservatives--and how these endorsements will help and/or hurt them
with the broader electorate:
Endorsee: RUDY GIULIANI, former mayor of New York
Endorser: PAT ROBERTSON, top televangelist; religious right icon; 1988 candidate for the Republican presidential nomination
Reason: "To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense
of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists. Our second
goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing
federal deficits. He understands the need for a conservative judiciary
and... has assured the American people that his choices for judicial
appointments will be men and women who share the judicial philosophy of
John Roberts and Antonin Scalia."
Translation: We
must beat Hillary at all costs--even if it means supporting a
"pro-abortion" candidate. Added bonus: Rudy really, really wants to
kill Islamic terrorists. Even more than babies. I think.
Pluses:
Even though Robertson's influence is waning, he's enough of an icon on
the religious right to provide the thrice-married, pro-choice,
pro-gay-rights, pro-gun-control former mayor of the nation's leading
den of iniquity--that's Giuliani, FYI--with quick and easy defense
against claims that his candidacy threatens the conservative coalition.
"Me, liberal?" he can say. "Would Pat Robertson support a liberal?"
Minuses: Robertson is, well, rather nutty. Among his more controversial statements: that "Gay Days" at Disney World will "bring about the destruction of your nation... terrorist
bombs... earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor"; that the "feminist agenda" is "a
socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to
leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
capitalism and become lesbians"; that "maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom [Va.,
site of the State Department in Washington, D.C.] to shake things up";
and that if Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "thinks we're trying to
assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
I'll stop there. Suffice to say, no voters will assume Giuliani agrees
with Robertson just because he's welcoming the man's support. But they
may assume he's a pandering pol--and that's sure to turn some people
off.
Endorsee: JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona senator
Endorser: SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas senator; former candidate for 2008 Republican presidential nomination
Reason: "John McCain is the only candidate who can rally the Reagan coalition of
conservatives, Independents, and conservative Democrats needed to defeat Hillary
Clinton or any other Democrat in the general election next year. John McCain has
spent a lifetime standing up for human rights around the world, including a
consistent 24-year pro-life record of protecting the rights of the unborn. John
McCain alone has the courage, leadership and character to lead our party to
victory in 2008 while keeping faith with our most cherished values -- life,
faith and family."
Translation: Okay,
so McCain can be a bit incorrigible. But why not try a candidate who,
like Giuliani, can compete in blue states--without abandoning our core
anti-abortion values? Call me crazy. Just a thought.
Pluses:
To win the GOP nomination, McCain needs to win New Hampshire. To win
New Hampshire, he needs a strong finish in Iowa. To finish strongly in
Iowa, where his maverick tendencies, especially on immigration, have
sunk him to fifth place in the polls, McCain needs to shore up support
among social conservatives. The endorsement of Brownback--a Midwestern
senator and a hugely popular figure on the religious right--will help.
It will also lend credence to McCain's new electability argument--i.e.,
that he alone can preserve the coalition of independents and social
conservatives that, according to the Politico,
"has powered the GOP
to success in five out of the last seven presidential races." Plus,
he'll have access to the small but stalwart reserve of supporters
remaining from Brownback's failed presidential bid.
Minuses: None, as far as I can tell. The Kansas senator may have used his place
on the Senate Judiciary Committee to rail against the "homosexual
agenda," "bestiality"
and "murder" -- not exactly a centrist move. But no one who knows
enough about Brownback to ardently oppose him was going to vote for
McCain anyway.
Endorsee: MITT ROMNEY, former governor of Massachusetts
Endorser: PAUL WEYRICH, founder of the Moral Majority and the Heritage Foundation
Reason:
"I believe that he has flip-flopped in our direction, if you will--the
direction of the values voters--and I think he will stay there... In
analyzing the primary situation, I believe it's going to come down
to a contest between Giuliani and Romney and I don't want Giuliani. I
feel that it would be a
mistake for the Republicans to nominate him--so I decided that Romney
would be the better of the two."
Translation: This is a
marriage of convenience. Yes, Romney's a flip-flopper. But at least he
agrees with us now--which is more than you can say for Giuliani. Oh,
and he's really rich.
Pluses: The least known of the
three, Weyrich is nonetheless an "influencer" on the right. His support
sends a message to other movement conservatives that Romney, despite
being a Mormon and former advocate for abortion rights, is the only
candidate who, unlike Giuliani, now passes all the social-conservative
litmus tests--and actually has a chance to beat Giuliani in the primary.
Minuses:
Minor, but worth considering. In 1989, Weyrich, seeking revenge on the
unresponsive George H.W. Bush, called his former ally John Tower a drunk playboy, ruining Tower's chances to be Secretary of Defense. And some of Weyrich's views--"Christ
was crucified by the Jews"; "I don't want everybody to vote... as a
matter of fact, our leverage in the elections
quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down";
"[Conservatives] are radicals, working to overturn the present power
structure of this country"--aren't exactly election winners. But still.
Most voters won't be aware of Weyrich after today, if at all--and the
ones who will (i.e., hardcore conservatives) won't hold this stuff
against him. Or Romney.
Loading Menu
