McCain has appeal to evangelicals, even as he clashes with some of their leadership

From Steven Waldman for the WSJ:

The Myth of McCain’s Weakness Among Evangelicals

[...] But is this conventional wisdom really true? Or to be more precise, Sen. McCain clearly has a problem with evangelical leaders — but does he really have a major problem with evangelical voters?

On the contrary, Sen. McCain won the nomination in part because he did far better than expected with rank-and-file evangelicals. [...]

In a recent Rasmussen poll, Sen. McCain was winning 58% of evangelicals, and his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, was winning 32%.

Running Stronger Among Rank and File

Why would Sen. McCain be doing so much better among evangelical voters than evangelical leaders?

First, the leadership’s disgust with Sen. McCain stems from the candidate’s treatment of them. His “agents of intolerance” speech was not an attack on evangelicals, but on a few of their leaders.

Second, some of the issues over which Christian leaders have chastised Sen. McCain are inside-the-beltway concerns that don’t resonate with rank-and-file voters. For instance, Christian leaders often cite Sen. McCain’s authorship of campaign finance legislation that they believe would restrict their lobbying and advocacy abilities. Most voters care little about this issue.

Third, though he’s reluctant to talk about his personal faith, in many ways Sen. McCain is substantively in perfect alignment with today’s evangelical voters. They tend to be conservative but have veered from the religious right on a few issues, one of which is climate change – the exact issue that Sen. McCain has highlighted as his point of departure with Republican orthodoxy.

Fourth, Sen. McCain’s support of the Iraq war, his war-hero history and his emphasis on fighting terrorism appeals to those Christians who feel that fighting Islam has risen to the top of the list of important issues for Christians. For many Christians, Islamofascism is the new “gay marriage.” [...]

I think there are some excellent insights in this article. Evangelicals are not a monolithic bloc that all think exactly the same, there is some diversity among their views, and they can be more flexible on some issues than they are generally given credit for. They are also capable of understanding which candidate will ultimately serve their interests best, even if they can't agree with that candidate on every issue.

John McCain has by no means got the evangelical vote "in the bag", but neither has he lost it. Evangelicals were leary of Reagan at first too, but he was eventually able to gain their support. McCain may be able to do the same.


Related Links:

While I'm no fan of Newsweek, this interview with John McCain was pretty good, addressing their BS very directly:

How to Beat a Rock Star: ‘Substance.’
There is, McCain says, 'a right change and a wrong change.' His general-election case, in his own words.

And these two posts from Pat are also worth reading:

A new post-partisan mood?

It's a "Democratic year" and McCain is the best Democrat

Since Reagan's time, conservative Democrats have been essential for Republicans to win elections. It's true now, more than ever.
     

Will John McCain play nice with evangelicals?

I read that as many as 40% of evangelicals voted for Mike Huckabee in the primaries. I haven't been able to confirm that number, but it would seem that a significant number of evangelicals have split from what used to be called the Reagan Coalition. It seems they want something different from what past Republicans have offered them so far.

Much has been made of John McCain's uneasy relationship with religious conservatives. Some say that it makes it impossible for McCain to be a viable candidate for the Republican party. But what if McCain offers religious conservatives a New Deal?

McCain appeals to conservative critics

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer Wed Feb 6, 5:56 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain, more than halfway to his party's presidential nomination, told his conservative critics Wednesday to dial back their animosity and personally reached out to a leading Christian conservative.

"I do hope that at some point we would just calm down a little bit and see if there's areas we can agree on," McCain said at a news conference in a Phoenix airport hangar before he flew here.

The Rev. Jonathan Falwell, son of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell who made the religious right a political force when he founded the Moral Majority in 1979, disclosed Wednesday that he had a telephone talk with McCain within the past 24 hours. Falwell, who succeeded his father as pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchville, Va., said he wasn't ready to endorse a candidate but wanted to hear more from the Arizona senator on the issues.

"I look forward to seeing what McCain's plan is to unite the party," Falwell said, "and to see what he has to say in the coming days on the social agenda." He also expressed interest in hearing more from McCain on national security, the economy, Supreme Court nominees, and "how to protect human life and traditional marriage."

Falwell said McCain's call was the culmination of a couple months of contact he has had with McCain's staff.

McCain had a falling out with Christian conservatives during his 2000 presidential campaign when he called the elder Falwell and religious broadcaster Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance." But McCain made up with the elder Falwell in 2006 and spoke to graduating seniors that year at Liberty University. The school was founded by the elder Falwell and is now run by Jerry Falwell Jr., who last November endorsed McCain's rival, Mike Huckabee, himself an ordained Baptist minister. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) So McCain kissed and made up with Jerry Falwell before he died, and now he's meeting with Falwell's son and heir, Jonathan. Jonathan's older brother, Jerry Falwell Jr., endorsed Mike Huckabee. Hmmmm...

I believe it's Jonathan on the left, and Jerry Jr. in the center.

Sounds like McCain has been planning this outreach for a while. It's interesting to note he's reaching out to the Falwells, one of whom is a Huckabee supporter. It's also interesting to note who he is NOT reaching out to:

[...] He said he has no plans to reach out personally to Limbaugh or Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, but emphasized: "Our message will be that we all share common principles, common conservative principles, and we should coalesce around those issues in which we are in agreement and I hope respectfully disagree on a few specific issues there's disagreement on."

He later told reporters aboard his campaign plane: "I'm aware there's a very fine line between inspiring in unity and pandering. You know, you've got to present it in the right way, of course."

The conservative critique of McCain escalated Tuesday when Dobson released a statement saying: "I am convinced Senator McCain is not a conservative, and in fact has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are." Conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter has said she'd vote and campaign for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton if McCain is the GOP nominee. Limbaugh has said a McCain nomination would destroy the Republican party. [...]

Destroy the Republican party? It sounds like McCain realizes the party is already split and floundering, and he's going to try to pull together a new coalition. But it will not be the Reagan Coalition. I think he recognizes the Huckabee evangelicals discontent, and their unwillingness to vote for Mitt Romney. At this point, he's not interested in reaching out to conservative critics like Limbaugh and Dobson, who were Romney supporters. Actually I don't know if Dobson supported Romney, but he sure didn't support McCain.

Interesting.

UPDATE 01-08-08
Dobson has officially endorsed Huckabee. From AP:

Christian Leader James Dobson Endorses Huckabee for GOP Nod

James Dobson, one of the nation’s most prominent evangelical Christian leaders, backed Mike Huckabee’s presidential bid Thursday night, giving the former Arkansas governor a long-sought endorsement as the Republican field narrowed to a two-man race. In a statement first obtained by The Associated Press, Dobson reiterated his declaration on Super Tuesday that he could not in good conscience vote for John McCain, the front-runner, because of concerns over the Arizona senator’s conservative credentials. [...]

Dobson is concerned about McCain's conservative credentials? But he apparently has no concerns about these credentials of Huckabee's:

Why Huckabee is NOT a good GOP candidate

Some of us can read, and we read more than just the Bible. Some of us understand what party politics is about, how it works and how and why we need to form alliances and work within the Republican party, so we can actually win elections and have a voice that matters. Smart evangelicals know and understand this.

Romney gave a very good speech at CPAC yesterday, explaining why he was stepping aside, for the good of America. Huckabee ISN'T stepping aside... for the good of himself.

John McCain is trying to form a new coalition and bring the party together. If Huckabee and his supporters like Dobson continue to divide the party, they may find they are no longer part of it. Perhaps that would not be a bad thing.
     

Is the Romney Surge the Last Chance for Evangelicals and the "Reagan Coalition"?

Dee at Conservatism with Heart has a good post at her blog about why she if voting for Romney today:

Why I'm Voting for Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday

[...] I will be honest and admit (as most of you are aware) that Romney was not my first choice. Yet, as I look at what is at stake in this November's election I think it is crucial that we pick the most conservative candidate for our nominee. I am a pretty loyal Republican and I like, probably 80% of our guys. Why we are somehow stuck with several candidates that are a part of the 20% is very frustrating, to say the least.

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows that I have had HUGE issues with McCain for many years. The fact that he is now the possible nominee for our party is just beyond dis-heartening. It is like driving a stake through the heart of Reagan Conservatism. I cannot sit by silently while what so many of us have worked for is dismantled by someone as liberal as McCain. Therefore, it is expedient to support the one conservative left in this race, Mitt Romney. [...]

Dee is a conservative Christian, and I'm seeing more and more evangelicals rallying around Romney to oppose McCain. But will there be enough, and will it be in time? The polls keep showing McCain as far ahead. But the polls can be wrong; remember when the polls predicted that Hillery would lose New Hampshire? So I think it's more important to just vote, and see what the polls say later.

One of the links on Dee's post was about Huckabee as a spoiler. On that blog (Article VI Blog), I found an article by John Schroeder that was quite interesting, about the evangelical vote, conservatism and the Republican party, and how the evangelicals are about to lose their political voice, if they don't rally around Mitt Romney NOW. Here are some excerpts (bold emphasis mine):

What Is At Stake

[...] When I was first introduced the the idea via Hugh Hewitt and Robert Novak that Evangelicals would not vote for Romney because of his faith, one thought ran through my mind: “political suicide.” Only one thing could result from such a bias and that was the Evangelical political voice being cast to the side. I wanted to protect that voice. Thus my half of this blog was born.

As is almost always true in politics, the journey has been quite different than I expected, but I truly believe that the Evangelical political voice is now at stake. If Mitt Romney loses - far from a foregone conclusion - his religion will be but one of many factors in that event, and while important, I do not think it will have been determinative.

However, as the race has narrowed down to two and the spoiler, the conservative voice in the Republican party is at stake - everybody agrees on that, and Evangelicals are the energy, motivator, and banner carrier for that voice. Conservatives lose and Evangelicals are on the bench, if they are in the stadium at all. In other words, we stand on the precipice I feared from the beginning. The current electoral calculus is such that a vote for Mitt Romney is the only way to preserve that voice.

[...]

There is much discussion in this cycle by evangelicals of feeling like they are “taken for granted” by the Republican establishment. There is some truth to that, but there are two vitally important points I want to make.

The first point is - grow up. It is politics, not church. This is not about making friends and feeling good about yourself. It is about gathering enough support, meaning people, to your particular cause, concern, or issue. That is definitionally about “using” people. Once you have secured someone’s support, you have to move on to the next someone. Is that taking you for granted? In a way, it is, but no more so than your employer that fits you in a spot on the assembly line. And if you quit your job because you think your employer takes you for granted, all you really lose is a paycheck. Best have someplace else to go before you make that move, I don’t care how “hurt” you “feel.”

A brief personal aside on this point. Through the course of things it has been my privilege to meet Mitt Romney on multiple occasions. I have had extensive and personal conversations with some of his family. Over the years, I have met presidents of this country in intimate settings, and I have met presidents and potentates of many other nations. Almost all of these people have referred to me as their “friend.” When I was young, I thought that meant we were going to start hanging out and having beers together - yeah, right. But when Mitt Romney called me his friend, I knew that if time allowed, there might not be beer involved, but we could enjoy some conviviality. Simply put, the man is as genuine in his connection to the people he meets as the circumstances can possibly allow - more so than any individual of such position, and higher, that I have ever met. I can assure you, Evangelicals could never be “taken for granted” by Mitt Romney. They might get less attention than they think they deserve, but that is their problem, not his.

The second point is a far more important one. Party politics is how you get things done in this nation. In those rare instances where independents manage to get themselves elected, they are relegated to the role “the speech everyone sits through politely” or the “class clown” a la Jesse Ventura. Accomplishing things in government requires rounding up enough of the right people - yeah, it’s social networking. Political parties are the infrastructure necessary to build that network.

Political parties thrive on loyalty. If they cannot, at least from time-to-time, take you for granted, they have to move on to people and groups that they can depend on so that they can accomplish their goals. It is a simple exchange. You give the party your dependable loyalty and in return they give you the means necessary to make your voice heard.

[...]

As things have turned out, Evangelicals have not refused, so much, to vote for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon, they have instead chosen to vote for Mike Huckabee because he is “one of us.” How much a role suspicion and bias against Mormonism has played in that somewhat more positive-appearing choice is a determination that will ultimately be up to pollsters and psychologists in the years after the election to determine. And while it may not be “bigotry” it is identity politics, and they are as suicidal as pure bigotry.

No identity group is sufficiently large to carry a presidential election. A coalition is required. What Mike Huckabee has done is peel off one section of the traditional conservative coalition, Evangelicals, and claimed it for himself. With the coalition split, neither Evangelicals or the greater conservative coalition can win.

The presidential candidate for a party leads that party. That leader is going to pay attention to and drive the agenda of the coalition that got him there. Not only are Evangelicals not part of the coalition that has gotten John McCain this far, McCain has in the past loudly and actively found Evangelicals distasteful. [...]

He goes on to describe the consequences of evangelicals leaving the coalition, the consequences for both evangelicals and the conservative movement as a whole, and Huckabee's terrible role in bringing this about. Huck is promising evangelicals something he can't deliver, and following him will lead to political suicide.

It's a well thought out article, and worth reading the whole thing, I think there is a lot of wisdom in it.

I'm not an evangelical, nor are all their concerns my own. But I do acknowledge that they have been vital in the past for holding the "Reagan Coalition" together. If enough of them pull out of that coalition now, it will collapse, and a new coalition will form without them. John McCain's candidacy is just the first sign of things to come. If you are unhappy about it, you can thank Mike Huckabee and his followers for that. If it's going to be turned around, it needs to be done soon.
     

The Real Mitt Romney? Is he electable?

Smart, sober and chaste? Is the Real Mitt Romney a truly kind, nice guy?

“The Mitt Romney I know”

[...] I spent a lot of time with Mr. Romney that year, and I occasionally served as his volunteer driver, taking him to local campaign events. The Mitt Romney I got to know was warm and likable. He had an electric intelligence. He was unfailingly decent. He was totally committed to his family. He treated everyone with respect and kindness.

If you’re like most politically attuned Americans, you probably don’t agree with my description of Mr. Romney. You may consider him to be the personification of political ambition. You possibly believe he will say anything to get elected president. You might even consider him one of the least honorable politicians in the country.

As a longtime admirer of Mr. Romney’s, it pains me that many Americans believe these things. [...]

Follow the link to read the rest, including a convincing rebuttal to the claim that this is just political spin. I don't see any reason to believe it's not true.

Below is a photo of the Romney's, with their children (five sons), their wives, and the eight grandchildren: the extended Mormon family:



There has been talk about how electable he is, because of his Mormon religion. Personally, it's not an issue for me, but I have posted about it previously, because it would seem to be a concern for some people.

I came across this article in Meridian, an on-line LDS publication. It's an interview with Mitch Davis, an LDS filmmaker, who makes some interesting observations about Mitt making a bid for the presidency. It seems the interview was done before Mitt announced he was running, but it directly addresses the Mormon question, and some of the ways it might be dealt with. Some excerpts (bold emphasis mine):

Could a Mormon really become the President of the United States?

[...] MITCH: Right now the single largest impediment to Mitt’s election seems to be a widespread, negative impression of Mormonism. 35% of those polled nationwide by The Los Angeles Times said they could not vote for a Mormon for president. We conducted our own poll in South Carolina and got a 33% negative response to that same question.

We then asked South Carolinians why they felt so negatively about Mormonism. We didn’t have to go very far: 44% of them believe Mormons still practice polygamy, 50% believe we worship Joseph Smith, 27% think we don’t believe in the Bible, and 25% believe we are not Christian — with another 50% undecided on the topic.

On their face, those are very disappointing numbers. But I think they are actually good news for Mitt. They tell us that the basis of anti-Mormonism is ignorance rather than simple bigotry, and we can address ignorance.

MERIDIAN: How?

MITCH: We are going to produce a series of television ads that show who Mormons really are and why nobody should be afraid to elect one as President of the United States. Depending on funding, we will run billboards and newspaper ads as well. We just have to get rid of this widespread ignorance that breeds widespread fear.

MERIDIAN: Is it really possible for a grassroots organization to have that much impact on a national election?

MITCH: Absolutely! We modeled our organization after two groups: The highly conservative, “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and the ultra-liberal, “MoveOn.org.” Both have been extremely effective in having major impact on major elections the last few years.

[...]

MITCH: Let’s just say there are a lot of successful Mormons out there whose religion has not stopped them from stepping onto the world stage and performing at the highest level; athletes, musicians, business leaders.

Could you imagine anyone saying with a straight face: “A Mormon could never be a quarterback” or “A Mormon could never run a hotel chain” or “A Mormon could never be Senate Minority Leader.”

MERIDIAN: Wait a minute! You’re going to use Harry Reid (a Democrat) to campaign for Mitt Romney (a Republican)?!

MITCH: We’re going to use every arrow we have in our quiver, and we have quite a few.

MERIDIAN: Any landmines you need to avoid?

MITCH: Our biggest concern will be finding a way to address the issue of anti-Mormonism without fanning those same flames. The last thing any Evangelical Christians want is to feel that by voting for Mitt Romney, they are voting for or promoting Mormonism.

MERIDIAN: Aren’t they?

MITCH: No. They are voting for the best candidate to run for the office of president in a long, long time, and he just happens to be a Mormon. They are voting against ignorance and bigotry. They are voting for Article Six of the Constitution that prohibits a religious test “to any office or public trust under the United States.” They are voting for a man who is clean and smart and sober and chaste. They are voting for someone whose values mirror their own, never mind doctrinal quibbles.

MERIDIAN: Why are Evangelical Christians so key to this election?

MITCH: Because they wield tremendous influence in the Republican Party, and throughout the South.

MERIDIAN: Any bright signs?

MITCH: Jerry Falwell just stated that he wouldn’t have a problem voting for Mitt Romney, and Christian Broadcast News did a positive piece on him three or four weeks ago. You can find links to all of this stuff on our site.

MERIDIAN: www.RunMittRun.org?

MITCH: Don’t leave home without it.

One thing I have learned, as I've read more and more about the Evangelical community in the US, is that they shouldn't be seen as a big monolithic group that agrees on everything. They might well agree on many issues, like abortion, but even there they might disagree about strategies to deal with it. Evangelicals can be a diverse group, with diverse options about a lot of things. About how the majority of them would feel about voting for Mitt Romney, I can't say. But I do see some sense in Mich Davis' strategy for getting the word out. Give people the facts, so they can decide.

Mitt is not my first choice; I'm backing Fred Thompson for president. Yet there is no denying that Mitt is a major player, and if he doesn't succeed in getting the presidential nomination, he might still succeed in another role... perhaps as Veep? Whatever happens, he's still in the running, and I'm not counting him out.