From David Brody:
Mitt Romney’s campaign tells The Brody File that Bill Wichterman, who used to do conservative and religious outreach for Fred Thompson’s campaign, has joined Team Romney. This is a nice “get.” He’ll be a part of the Faith and Values steering committee.
Bill Wichterman left the Thompson campaign because Thompson DOES NOT support the federal marriage amendment. At least the version that is on the table now. Mitt Romney does support it. Wichterman liked that fit. Who can blame him?
This is a guy who has been big on the federal marriage amendment for years. When Bill Frist was trying to push the amendment through the Senate, it was Wichterman who was leading the charge by getting social conservative groups organized and mobilized. Expect him to be a big boost for the Romney campaign when it comes to the marriage issue. His depth of knowledge here is masterful.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
People from Fred’s campaign have to start jumping ship or they will go down with it. As I mentioned on another thread – I am surprised the MSM has not reported on Fred’s decline.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
How long will Fred hold out before calling it Quits? …. Probably as long as his wife tells him to….
October 31st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
2 Abe
Until he gets waxed in SC, and his national numbers are in the tank. He’s got enough cash that he won’t bow out before then, IMHO.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
He will leave when it is no longer fun. That has been his MO pretty much his whole life.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Good riddance. Not a big fan of the FMA myself — this is a state issue, not a federal one.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Agreed MattyN. This is an issue that maybe could have entertained us before 9-11 et al, but now we have to many real issues.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
The FMA needs to be a part of our campaign, regardless of who our nominee is. It’s the type of wedge issue that costs us very little and gains us a lot. Mitt has phenomenal credentials on it and is the only one of our candidates supporting it. It’s also favored by a large majority of the nation, and its support is strongest among voters over 50, who are the most likely to vote. Beyond the political considerations, it’s the right thing to do. If we can’t muster a strong defense of the sanctity of marriage, we’re useless.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“Mitt has phenomenal credentials on it and is the only one of our candidates supporting it. ”
Uh, Huckabee (the Baptist minister?) supports it.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
For those who are calling for a federal marriage amendment. Do you actually believe it has the minutest chance of ever being passed? Try to answer that question in an objective manner. Intrade currently has us losing Virginia outright, with Colorado and New Hampshire as Dem leaning toss-ups. New Mexico, Minnesota, and Oregon are considered Republican leaning toss-ups. And this is after we dodged a bullet when Mike Johanns scared off Bob Kerrey in Nebraska. Now, my best guess (a reasonably informed guess), is that we lose NH, Colorado, Virginia, and New Mexico (though this posits that the leading Dem now doesn’t end up with the nomination). We’ll hold MN and Oregon. And we’ll pick up in Louisiana. So a net loss of 3 seats. What is the prospect of getting a federal marriage amendment passed in a 54 Dem senate, when we couldn’t manage it with a 55 seat majority? I’ll do a quick synopsis of the likely new Dem senators. Shaheen in NH is a raging liberal. Udall in Colorado is a raging liberal.
So this leaves only Warner and possibly the new New Mexico senator as possible “yes” votes on the amendment. Warner is certainly opposed to gay marriage, but unless an extremely strong Republican conservative appears to challenge him, there’s no reason for Warner to move beyond “I’m opposed to it, but the issue should be settled on a state by state basis”. But, let’s assume you manage to get 1 of the two Democrats to support it.
You probably think you’ve made some progress. But, alas, you’ve actually taken a step backward. Both Domenci and John Warner, were IN FAVOR of the amendment. And you’ve also replaced a pro-amendment GOP’er, Allard, with an anti-amendment Democrat, Udall. Now, adding Johanns in Nebraska, and Kennedy or Dardenne in Lousiana, probably adds two votes to the total. Ok, so you’ve broken even. Assuming that the socially liberal Warner is pro-marriage amendment. I’ll let it go for now. So where do we go from here? Well, if you’re very lucky indeed, you might get same exact 51 votes (or whatever the number was) you managed last time. That is, of course, if the Democratic leadership, for unknowable reasons, brings it up for a vote. In other words, it’s not going to happen.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
“The FMA needs to be a part of our campaign, regardless of who our nominee is. It’s the type of wedge issue that costs us very little and gains us a lot”
Isn’t it the Romney guys that always talk about how it would be terrible for the GOP to choose Rudy just for the sake of winning one election?
I have to tell you that this is a doubl-edged sword. This type of wedge issue might gain the GOP something *for now* and not cost a lot *for now*. But I’m 27 years old and I can say with absolute certain that the vast majority of people younger than me have absolutely no proplem with gay marriage. None. Zero. Zip. If the Republicans want to push this it’s going to come back to haunt them. And it’s not going to take long for that to happen as the older folks die off. We’re talking ten, maybe twenty years tops.
From a strategic point of view, it’s just a bad idea.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Gosh, what am I thinking. I forgot to factor in the 06′ elections where we lost Santorum, Talent, Allen, and Burns on the “pro-amendment” team. Only Santroum’s replacement is possibly pro-amendment. So you’re left with, best case scenario, -3 on the marriage amendment.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
The worst part is that even if Romney were to win the nomination he would never push this. The guy is a technocrat at heart. So say that Romney wins the nomination and by some stroke of incredible luck, the presidency, what do you think the odds are that he would push this issue? Does anyone seriously think he cares?
And if he doesn’t care then it’s pretty despicable. George Bush played the same game in 2004. How many times did he bring up the Federal Amendment after he was re-inaugurated? I guess when the going gets tough, the tough rhetoric comes out for the gays.
And by the way, I don’t support gay marriage. But this political stunt is getting old.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Adam,
Yup, I’m 21 and I concur. I consider myself pretty socially conservative. I’m in favor of a constitutional amendment banning abortion. I’m against all embryonic stem cell research, even research which doesn’t destroy the embryo. And I think our culture, including standard sexual mores, has deteriorated significantly. But, I can’t be bothered to support a federal marriage amendment. I’m in favor of DOMA in amendment form (Fred’s position).
October 31st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Adam,
I actually do think Romney cares about the federal marriage amendment. It’s fair to call him a technocrat, but he’s also a traditionalist personally. If there’s any social issue Mitt Romney genuinely cares about (and I personally think he cares about abortion as well), it’s the state of marriage.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I have to say that it would bother me less if Bush cared about this and really believed in his heart that the gay marriage issue was going to be harmful to America. If he REALLY believed that then he wouldn’t have been silent on it after the election. After all, why should he have been? The politics for now on the issue favor the hard-liners. Even though I don’t support the Federal Amendment, I would have more respect for Bush if he showed he really meant what his heated rhetoric suggested in 2004. Maybe he could have talked about it once or twice more than never. Who knows, maybe he could have talked about it more often than he obsessed about “comprehensive immigration reform”.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Matt,
You and I just have much different estimations of whether 1994 Candidate Mitt or 2007 Candidate Mitt is closer to Real Life Mitt. Who knows? Maybe Dave and Jason and Matt C et al will get their wish and find out which one of us is closer to the truth. For now, none of us can be sure.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
12,
Actually I do think he cares about the FMA. he did testify before congress as well as fought pretty hard for one in Mass. Let’s not forget Romney’s religion is a major opponent of gay marriage initiatives. While he won’t take their orders, he is a mormon, and the family unit is central to Mormon theology. I pretty positive he is passionate for the FMA.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I believe Mitt cares deeply about FMA. He cares deeply about his marriage! I think we have the best shot with him.. compaired to any of the other top tiers.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Of course, the biggest part of this endorsement/staff hire switch is at the end of the article:
“It’s not just the marriage issue. By nabbing Wichterman, it’s a sign to inside and outside the beltway social conservative groups that Romney is serious in courting them. Wichterman is very well respected by these groups and he has close contacts at places like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, etc. When he was on the Hill, he was very active in the Senate’s “Value Action Team” meetings where dozens of groups would meet once a week to go over social policy and plot strategy.”
One of the biggest reasons endorsements matter is because of the organization and contacts they bring to the campaigns. This is huge in those two areas for Team Romney.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Adam, Matt,
I don’t know if the FMA can get passed or not, but I do know 2 things: 1) Right now it is favored by a solid majority of the electorate, and is therefore a valuable weapon to use against the Democrats, who oppose it en masse; 2) The country, and our future, need to protect the institution of marriage or we will ultimately pass out of existence. At current rates of demographic deterioration, most of Europe will vanish in the next century. At its current birth rate, Germany, for example, will have its population cut in half every 35 years. And that’s assuming that the accelerating rate of birth rate decline doesn’t accelerate! Most of Europe is in even worse shape than Germany. Russia had an absolute decline in population this last year of 700,000 people. They will lose millions more in the next few years. America is right at 2.1 births per fertile female right now. That’s exactlyl the birth rate needed to sustain our population. Any decline, and we join Europe and Japan as countries with no future.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
#1 Razorbacks
I was surprised too, no mention over at CNN and since they’re liberal, why aren’t they jumping all over that bad news?
October 31st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Adam,
“For now, none of us can be sure.”
I don’t think that’s true, and is a rather convenient (and lazy) position for Romney’s detractors to take. When you have conflicting evidence in history, or any number of fields, you’re able to evaluate the material, and come to a conclusion as to which of many competing possibilities best explains the data. Sometimes this conclusion is tenative, and sometimes it’s quite firm. There are really 3 basic possible conclusions one can come to about Mitt Romney’s social stances.
A.) He really was relatively socially moderate/liberal in past races, and now he really has become genuinely more conservative. B.) He really was relatively socially moderate/liberal, he’s still socially moderate/liberal, and he’s simply lying for effect now. C). He was always fairly conservative socially, and simply attempted to deceive voters in past elections. I’ve seen some evidence to support either proposition A or C. I’ve seen absolutely none to support B. A historian evaluating the data would laugh B out of the room. I find C most plausible, for a number of reasons. First, there’s ample evidence to suggest Romney was socially conservative, at least in his personal affairs, long before 1994. He married at 21. He’s stayed married for 38 years. He’s given every indication of having been entirely faithful in that relationship. He counseled women against having abortions numerous times in his private capacity. Numerous people claimed, in his 1994 campaign, that he’d called homosexuality “perverse”, during a worship service. He’s a member in good-standing of a faith that opposes legalized abortion and gay-marriage by margins of more then 3 to 1. And the evidence for his social liberalism currently? Well, he said some socially liberal things while running for office in the bluest state in America. We have absolutely no actions or past experience to support this claim. Romney was a uniformly conservative Governor. He led a uniformly conservative lifestyle. Even the notion that he’s changed positions so that he could run for president lacks persuasive power. Because the point it’s being used to support, is a point that it doesn’t even suggest.
No plausible chain of reasoning can get one from “Mitt Romney governed like a pro-lifer and social conservative so that he could win the Republican nomination” to “therefore Mitt Romney isn’t a social conservative”. It’s a non-sequitur. The former doesn’t doesn’t even suggest the latter. At best, you’ve established that Romney governed in a manner that was incongruous with his campaign statements, for political purposes. I.e, Mitt Romney ran as social moderate, but governed like a conservative to advance his political agenda. But, you’ve completely failed to establish what he actually thought, before he started deceiving people. The best explanation for the evidence is, Mitt Romney knew he couldn’t win as a social conservative in Massachusetts, so he sublimated his conservative instincts, and has since returned to his natural positions in a more favorable environment. And it’s leagues better then the silly “Mitt Romney’s really a social liberal and has always been a social liberal”.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
MWS,
Sorry about the omission of Huck. I confess that I don’t think of him as a real candidate because he has absolutelyl no chance whatsoever of being the nominee. It’s possible that Hunter or Tancredo favor it as well…I have no idea.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Matt,
Mormonism is a very tolerant religion. Check out the Articles of Faith sometime. This tolerance is juxtaposed, however, by hard-core religious convictions; one of which is the sanctity of marriage and family. Mitt has never deviated (perhaps an unfortunate choice of terms) from the proposition (another one?) that homosexuals have free agency given by God to live their lives as they please. The FMA is simply a way for society to protect itself from social pathologies. No flip, and definitely no flop.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Matt,
That’s all fluff. Say what you will. Until late in his single-term stint as governor, when Mitt decided to run for president he didn’t CARE about the gay issues. There’s no reason to suspect he does now. None. You can cite his positions and former positions and what you think his future positions are and will be, but the guy has his reputations for a reason. I’m not alone in this, however outnumbered I may be on this site. I don’t believe Romney cares a wit about CHANGING POLICY on the issue, whatever you believe about his religious beliefs and dedication to his family.
Just because one thinks homosexuality is “perverse” doesn’t mean said person thinks its up to him to change marriage laws based on the belief. Until he wanted to become president, Romney made no attempt or pledge to do so.
You can play detective all you like. I bet in 2004, lots of so-cons REALLY THOUGHT that Bush was going to gain some yardage for the Churchies on the issue. Unless or until Romney actually gains the reins of power the point stands. None of us really knows what he would do.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
And as for your three scenarios, TIMING and CONVENIENCE are what drive many people to go with option B.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Adam,
TIMING and CONVENIENCE and COMPLETE LACK OF PERCEPTUAL FACULTIES.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Dave,
Condescension isn’t going to get your guy the nomination. And it sure isn’t going to get him to 50 percent next fall should he get the nomination.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Adam,
You’re a bright guy, but for whatever reason you have no clue what Mitt’s all about. You seem to sense that something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is (to paraphrase Bob Dylan). Best wishes in all things other than the primary.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Adam,
Nonsense. It’s nothing like “fluff”. We have facts as to his past and present positions. We have facts as to his personal convictions. And we have facts as to the various situations he found himself in. That’s hardly fluff. I quite agree that Romney did very little to promote social conservatives until he was Governor (though I’d argue that his record as Governor was conservative socially from the get-go). And I quite agree that timing and convenience ought to be considered. But, again, we’re looking for the best explanation to explain the data.
Timing and convenience appears to supports your point, but in fact, it simply moves the ball backwards. If we’re positing that Romney changed his positions to suit the conservative GOP electorate, then there’s simply no reason for us to assume that he didn’t change his positions in 1994 to suit the liberal Massachusetts electorate. You’re forced to be consistent. From timing and convenience, we can know absolutely nothing about Romney’s true beliefs. But, again, the data doesn’t end here. We’re forced to then consider the whole panapoly of Romney’s background, his known beliefs, etc. And this points decidedly towards “he disguised his true beliefs to woo the Massachusetts electorate, and has returned to something like his true beliefs now” For all the reasons I stated previously.
And this is under the assumption that Romney really did mischaracterize himself at some point. I’d argue that that we’re wise to do so, but I’m not completely wedded to the idea. If we take the assumptions of people like Dave at face value (i.e., Mormons, despite being personally conservative, don’t always seek to oppose their beliefs on others, due to the unique nature of their faith), then the needle points quite a bit nearer to “Romney really is socially conservative right now”. Because, it assumes that A.) Romney’s willing to ignore his personal convictions on an issue, in the interest of “freedom”. This leads to one of two possible conclusions. That he believes in freedom of action to such an extent, that he wouldn’t abandon the principle, unless he ceased to view a particular issue solely in terms of freedom of action. Or that he had held this position by default, but given a set of circumstances that allowed him to consider the issues more fully, he’d be easily convinced to turn his personal convictions into policy.
In other words, if you begin with the assumption that he really has deceived people about his positions, the evidence suggests he deceived the citizens of Mass, not the GOP electorate. And if you begin with the assumption that he was genuine in 1994, the evidence suggests that his conversion was sincere. I understand that people distrust Romney, and possibly with good reason. But, I think you need shoddy reasoning to come to the conlcusion that Romney’s genuinely a social liberal currently.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I think that Fred may be hemorrhaging some support among Values Voters due to his position on the Shaivo case along with his strong support for Federalism. Fred needs to finesse these issues a bit while moving to the right on a couple peripheral social issues. He may be able to pick up some of the anti-illegal immigration vote from Tancredo if Tancredo quits and if this is the case, Fred’s strong statement on immigration was well-timed and strategically advantageous.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Would the FMA or DOMA have prevented Larry Craig from soliciting sex in a Minnesota bathroom? Do they offer his wife any protection or consolation? Will they lower the current divorce rate hovering around 50%? In other words, what marriages are protected?
October 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
“But, I think you need shoddy reasoning to come to the conlcusion that Romney’s genuinely a social liberal currently.”
Matt,
I think you’re looking too deeply into this. I don’t know what Romney’s true positions are, but I have my suspicions, just like you do yours. The larger point is that it doesn’t matter. I think Romney is actually a lot like Hillary. I think he, like everyone else, has his own set of beliefs and positions on “the issues”. I think that he, like Hillary, finds it exceedingly easy, easier than most politicians, to put all that aside and say and do whatever is needed to win. Lots of people say that Romney has no core. I’m guilty of saying that about him myself out of anger when something he says or does (or one of his surrogates says or does something that)frustrates me. To be completely honest, what I really believe is that he just doesn’t let his personal politics get in the way of his goal to achieve power. Something about that bothers me and I find it difficult to pull the lever for someone so ruthless and calculating. Bill Clinton was like that too and it was one of the things that really turned me off to him. (Personally I didn’t care a wit about who was crouching on her knees beneath his desk).
I just don’t think that the presidency should be something that should be won based on this sort of business model where if product A doesn’t sell to the public, the candidate goes and reinvents himself (or repackages himself without reinventing) as Product B, C and D until something sells.
I like authenticity, and whether it’s just my perception or actually a problem Romney has (I believe it’s the latter) that’s why I don’t like Mitt Romney. That’s it. In a nutshell. It’s not that he changes his positions (though my problem is with WHY I think he did). It’s not because he was governor of Massachusetts (though that makes me suspicious of how he can win both there and nationally as a Republican…though to be fair I would have to have the same issue with Rudy and I don’t so that’s off the table). It’s not because he is a Mormon (though the fact that he thinks it’s not okay to pester him about his religion’s different views and then cozy up to the so-con right, some of them bigoted and he knows it, just as the means to an end DOES bother me. Those folks shouldn’t even be invited to the table for any candidate).
This argument about the Federal Amendment banning gay marriage is just a symptom of a bigger problem I have with Romney.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Maybe someone can answer these: Does Mitt support Civil Unions? and who in your opinion among the current crop of candidates is the most conservative on Gay, Lesbian and Transgender issues?
The answer to these questions might be informative on where the Values Voters end up swinging to.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
The only time Mitt expressed a willingness to consider Civil Unions was when he floated a possible compromise to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Massachusetts. But it quickly became obvious that the liberals in the Massachusetts legislature wanted all or nothing. He has argued against them ever since.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
marK,
From your perspective, do you think that the Values Voters could enthusiastically get behind any candidate who supports Civil Unions?
October 31st, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Dave and others are off their rockers if they think a *Constitutional Amendment* that’s *against* a minority group would ever pass *or* would get more votes than it lost. Totally and utterly out of touch with the American electorate, political reality, and Constitutional history.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Besides, how the hell does banning gay marriage “protect the family” or make families “stronger”?
There is a gay member in my extended family, Scott. The family encouraged him to find a long-term relationship. He did and they are a successful partnership. Isn’t it consistent with that encouragement that we offer him and his partner marriage or a civil union? Doesn’t that strengthen and protect our family?
How does KEEPING Scott and his partner from having a union protect my family and make it stronger?
PLEASE. I’d love to know.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:17 pm
JA,
About the only people in this country that vote as a block are the african-americans. Some will be for CUs. Others will be against them. I suspect the majority will be against.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
marK, polling is already available on that question. Not only is a majority of Americans for civil unions (if not gay marriage), but a majority of *Republicans* are. The latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll finds that even 48% of *conservatives* are.
Your ignorance is showing.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Actually, that tends to show the ignorance of those answering the poll. I had an argument with a vicious opponent of gay marriage, who somehow thought civil unions were something completely different. He kept insisting that the benefits of marriage shouldn’t be granted, and that civil unions had nothing to do with that.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Really, Metro. What did I do to deserve that swipe?
JA asked for my opinion on where the Value Voters are on the issue. I gave it. I may be wrong. I may be right. But why the slam?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Oh, didn’t realize you were speaking only of the Values Voters.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Metro,
I suspected as much. I will try to be more explicit next time. Sorry for the confusion.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Metro,
“Gays” are a “minority”?
Try convincing your black friends of that (i.e. most black activists are pretty pissed off that the homosexual groups are trying to ride the “minority” and “civil rights” train).
But if I give you that gays are indeed a minority . . . shouldn’t the dying breed of WASP male social conservatives be a minority group too?
October 31st, 2007 at 10:59 pm
MarK,
You’re apologizing to Metro when he called you ignorant despite not following the thread (i.e. he was in the wrong)??!!???!!!???
Metro needs to leave his personal attacks out of this forum . . . and certainly doesn’t need to be APOLOGIZED to when he makes a blatant mistake and then doesn’t even apologize for it (he just EXPLAINED why he attacked you, but didn’t apologize for it . . . poor form IMO).
November 1st, 2007 at 12:07 am
Jeff,
This is not a playground. I am not interested in keeping score.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:17 am
Jeff,
MarK is condescending too, so he is comfortable with Metro’s behavior.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Jeff,
I am completely satisfied by Metro’s response. Case closed.
Shawnie,
Good call. I do tend to be condescending at times. It is one of my worst faults.