Pre-Iowa Comments

Well, here we go folks! A few final thoughts as we enter the battle zone with the Iowa caucuses.

(1) This is as tight and unpredictable a primary contest as there’s been in Iowa caucus history. It’s almost unbelievable that for both Republicans and Democrats, there is really no way to predict what will happen in Iowa. Romney and Huckabee have been as close as possible in the polls, and Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are essentially in a three way tie on the other side.

(2) What this means is that a few dozen people could make the difference. If you know anyone in Iowa, or who knows anyone in Iowa (I’m proud to have a few such friends who should be receiving this e-mail! Hello there in the Keokuk and Fort Madison areas!), do whatever you can to make sure that they are at their caucus meeting NO MATTER WHAT! Get those babysitters arranged! Layer up for the cold! Gas up the car in the morning! Carpool with your neighbors but plan to get there 20 minutes early – just in case – don’t let anyone make you late! Let NOTHING come between you and that precious caucus! ;-)

(3) This said, I have heard and read a few little tidbits today that suggest that it’s possible Huckabee is slumping late and Romney is rising. Can’t tell if that’s true until the numbers come in…but if so, IT’S ABOUT TIME! In addition to being the most liberal of the Republicans running, and being anti-Mormon, and not having a clue about foreign policy issues (he’s a decent entertainer but says very little that is substantive about the issues), he has run an absolutely bizarre campaign in the past couple of weeks. The sooner he can be beaten and leave the race, the better as far as I’m concerned.

And two more things…

(1) As strange as this might sound, I’ve found some of the very best and most well-thought-out comments in support of Mitt Romney on the website www.evangelicalsformitt.org. I am going to include two of my favorites from that site at the end of this e-mail. If you can spare a minute, it is a really great and interesting read.

(2) So here’s the lineup: Iowa on Thursday (tomorrow!), Wyoming on Saturday, then New Hampshire next Tuesday, then a small break in the action. Michigan is the following Tuesday. Nevada and South Carolina then follow on that Saturday. Florida on Tuesday the 29^th and Maine on the 31^st, then almost half the country on Feb. 5^th (California, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Colorado included). The path for Romney is this: he kind of needs to win Iowa. If he does, there’s a good chance he has momentum to take Wyoming. That momentum doesn’t always translate to New Hampshire, but there would be a good chance of a win or second place finish in NH, which would keep strong momentum (a second place finish would be a bit of a dent but not bad). From there, there’s a good chance it becomes a three person race or even two…candidates who haven’t done well by then will start to drop out. I think Romney, McCain, and Giuliani are likely to be the ones still in it.

Let’s see how this goes! And now, here are the two posts from the www.evangelicalsformitt.org site:

Why We Support Governor Romney

Editor's Note: One of the principal drivers of the EFM project is our friend, colleague, mentor, brother in Christ, and (in Nancy's case) husband, David French, who is currently serving our nation in Iraq as an Army captain. Had he been stateside, he would of course have provided his unique and fresh insights to the following revision of our "Why We Support Mitt" statement. Unfortunately, this new document -- intended to take into account the current state of the race -- comes without the benefit of his input. We hope you'll forgive the "eloquence gap" between this and previous texts, to which David contributed. Please join us in praying for and eagerly anticipating his safe return home, and the return of his always enjoyable and helpful insights to EFM!

The 2008 election is for president, not pastor. We want a president who shares our political and moral values and priorities, can win in 2008, and can govern effectively thereafter by articulating and implementing a values-based governing strategy. This is just what Mitt Romney did as governor and will do as president.

Governor Romney Shares Our Political & Moral Values

Political and moral values are informed by -- but not the same as -- one's religion. That's why we are not casting our votes based on whose theology we like most. History shows that to be a poor approach.

For example, in 1980 voters had two choices: a divorced movie actor who did not regularly attend church and was not on good terms with all of his children, and a once-married Southern Baptist whose evangelicalism was at the core of his national identity. Voting on the basis of whose doctrine was better would have meant electing the second guy -- Jimmy Carter -- over the first, Ronald Reagan. Excluding those who don't hold to orthodox Christianity would also have meant excluding such great Americans as Thomas Jefferson -- who denied the divinity of Christ -- from positions of authority. Is anybody going to argue someone else should've written the Declaration of Independence?

Today, we need a president who embraces a comprehensive and positive values agenda: standing for the sanctity of life, protecting traditional marriage, defending religious liberty and basic human rights at home and abroad, combating poverty and disease within the world's poorest communities, fighting for better quality of life for our citizens, and winning the War on Terror.

We don't want to say doctrine doesn't matter -- it does, very much, in our churches and in our individual relationships with God. But this is a presidential election, and those are about values. Governor Romney is the only candidate with all the right ones. One of his opponents (Mayor Giuliani) is simply not with conservative evangelicals on our bread-and-butter issues -- life and marriage -- and perhaps even more disturbingly, another opponent (Governor Huckabee) has virtually nothing to say about winning the War on Terror. That's probably the ultimate values issue, since the people we are fighting hate our values and want to destroy our civilization.

Governor Romney Can Win in 2008

The Supreme Court is one vote short of overturning Roe v. Wade, and the next president will likely nominate two or three justices. But he can't do that if he loses to President Hillary Rodham Clinton. Governor Romney can beat her -- and the rest of the Democratic field. As a fiscal and social conservative, he's the only candidate who can hold the Reagan coalition together. Plus, he has already put together a strong, well-organized campaign with the firepower to win. Every single other GOP candidate either alienates a key part of the coalition or has a weak operation incapable of defeating a well-funded, ruthless, counter-to-our-values opponent in the general election.

Governor Romney Can Govern Effectively Thereafter

It's worth reprising: The Republican nominee must be both a fiscal and social conservative. That's the Reagan formula for success. When it breaks down, Republicans lose. And it will break down if Republicans nominate a candidate who says public funding for abortions is a constitutional right (Mayor Giuliani) or one who's known nationally for hiking taxes and spending money (Governor Huckabee).

But there's more than that. Above all else, the president has to lead -- he has to be a good executive. And as much as we love President Bush, we've seen far too many examples in recent years of poor performance in this regard. Not only that, Washington is a tough town -- and that will be true whether the Democrats continue to control Congress after 2008 or not. In that environment, leadership -- especially conservative leadership -- isn't easy.

Fortunately, Governor Romney has been a leader longer than he has been a politician. Prior to his political career, Governor Romney helped to launch the very successful Bain Capital -- which helped launch such successful franchises as Staples and the Sports Authority -- and then led a turnaround at Bain Consulting. He also saved the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City which, prior to his leadership, were mired in debt and corruption but subsequently became one of the most successfully-run Games in memory.

And he's governed in a difficult political environment, too. Massachusetts is the most left-wing state in the union. If you think Bay State Democrats aren't any different from their Arkansan counterparts, try defending traditional marriage or vetoing stem-cell funding up in Boston, as Governor Romney did, and see what they do. (As for New York City Democrats, we don't even know how they would react to such values-based governing, because we can't think of anyone who's tried it.) But Governor Romney did -- in addition to helping turn the economy around, opposing driver's licenses and in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants, and defending Catholic Charities' right to restrict adoptions to man-woman couples. No other candidate has a record of such successful, across-the-board conservative leadership—especially on such hostile terrain.

Summing It All Up

Mitt Romney has been a standout conservative governor of a very liberal state. He believes in the traditional family, and he has fought for it -- just ask Massachusetts' pro-family leaders. He's admitted he was wrong on abortion, and is now solidly pro-life -- as his record in Massachusetts testifies. He also opposes embryonic stem cell research's speculative and open-ended carelessness with human life. He's shown courage under fire in several challenging situations, and has lived out his values (both publicly and privately) during a time when other Republicans, sadly, have not.

Conservative evangelicals do not have to compromise on our values this election: Gov. Romney embodies all the principles for which we've long fought. Plus, he has the organizational strength, executive experience, and moral rectitude to remind us what being a conservative is all about.

In other words, he's not just a candidate evangelicals can support -- he's the best choice for people of faith. It's not even close.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

MORMONS: AN APPRECIATION

By David French

I know that I'm going to get in trouble in some quarters for the following statement, but I'm going to say it anyway. I love Mormons, and I deeply appreciate the role played by the LDS church in our nation and our culture. I have returned from a lengthy absence from EFM (I was out of town working hard on my day job) to find a debate in these pages about whether Mormonism is a "cult," flipped on the TV to see a two part special about Mormonism on PBS, and turned on my computer today to see this absurd column by Robert Novak demanding that Mitt Romney account for a massacre that occurred 150 years ago. Given these times, I thought I'd take a moment to write a post that is perhaps a bit outside the EFM (i.e. political) umbrella and share with you my own perspective on Mormonism.

We live in tough times. Faith is under attack -- from within and without. I know there are some folks out there who deride such comments, but I ask those people who do to walk not a mile but a few feet in my shoes. In moments, you would hear from people of faith from across this country who are silenced, intimidated, and sometimes subjected to vile threats and abuse merely for standing for Biblical values and fundamental rights. Yes, Christians have political power in some quarters, but in others -- such as the academy, the mainstream media, and in popular entertainment -- we are relentlessly demonized. And this demonization has consequences. When "family values" are derided, families tend to falter. When families falter, poverty and violence follow like night follows day. When unborn children are viewed as a "clump of cells" that exists at the convenience of the mother rather than as a living person, they can be dismembered and slaughtered on a scale that staggers the imagination. When everything is relative and our culture is viewed as no better than any other, we lose the will to fight evil, and we abandon our friends abroad.

In the midst of this culture, our churches often look at millions of fractured families, millions of lost children, and waning resolve in the face of undeniable evil and say: "It's our fault, really. If only we were more accepting of family arrangements that lead to poverty. If only we were less 'obsessed' with murderous medical 'procedures,' and more 'understanding' of the people who seek to behead us, then perhaps we'd have influence in this culture." And so we watch as denomination after denomination turns its back on morality and righteousness, denounces the most generous group of people in the United States (faithful churchgoers) as "uncaring" and seeks to emulate a secular-progressive society that talks about poverty but keeps its money, that talks about compassion but acts outraged when the legislature bans the practice of killing a half-delivered child with scissors, and that talks about ending genocide but says we need to "understand" world rulers who openly advocate the destruction of an entire nation (Israel). So we watch as the mainstream denominations (and even some evangelicals) slide into a meaningless and empty social religion that is utterly powerless to sustain the soul or to confront evil.

But not Mormons. The LDS church still stands proudly for the family, for human life, and with the moral resolve necessary to confront the challenges of our time. They give generously, serve enthusiastically, and stand shoulder to shoulder with evangelicals on the great moral and cultural issues of our time. In my own life, every single Mormon that I have come to know has been kind, generous, and utterly devoted to their family. Even more, they have stood with me and befriended me (whether it was in a hostile and intimidating law school environment or in the midst of the exhausting challenge of basic training) during key moments in my own life. I know that people are fallen -- broken by sin and in desperate need of God's grace -- so I don't have an overly-rosy view of human nature or of any particular group of people (I'm a Calvinist, for crying out loud). But I do deeply appreciate the genuine strengths and accomplishments of the LDS church.

On Tuesday night, a good friend (and EFM reader) asked my thoughts on the Frank Pastore column Nancy linked below. She asked me, "Is Mormonism a denomination, a religion, or a cult?" I think this question is ultimately unhelpful. Rather than decide on categories, I think we should simply try to understand the faith itself. Mormonism is not creedal, orthodox Christianity; that much I know. I don't think Mormons want to be known as "creedal Christians." As for what Mormonism is, I leave that definition to members of the LDS church. They define their own beliefs and identity better than I ever could.

As for me, I'm proud to stand with Mormons as we confront the cultural rot that is destroying our country from within, and I'm proud to serve with Mormons as fellow soldiers facing a hideous evil overseas. I appreciate them more than they could know. I'm grateful for their presence in my life and in the life of this nation. So, I leave the question of "cult, denomination, or religion" to the Judge of all things. I'm content with a fourth category -- one not on that list -- the category of "friends."

Posted by David French on May 3, 2007 10:45 AM