"I don't think that a person who's running for a secular position as I am should talk about or engage in discussions of what they in their personal faith or their personal beliefs think is immoral or not immoral," Romney said in an AP interview last week in response to a question about whether he believes homosexuality is immoral.
Giuliani didn't want to talk about his faith, either. "The mayor's personal relationship with God is private and between him and God," his campaign told AP.
I wonder if this is a blip or trend that suggests I can come back into the tent.
Aside: People keep saying the GOP needs someone like Fred Thompson to mobilize the base (i.e. religious conservatives). I'm not sure Fred would be a wise choice, not to say I don't like him. The base will be mobilized regardless (two words: Hillary Clinton), and focusing too narrowly on the base is going to alienate the moderates again meaning we will lose.
UPDATE: Here is the article that Andrew Sullivan linked to (h/t Matthew). The money quote (also highlighed by Sullivan) is
Paul Nagy, the group's top-gun in New Hampshire, believes nominating Giuliani would be disastrous for the American conservative movement. Along with other activists, Nagy signed a letter seeking additional signatories to the anti-Rudy declaration. The letter states: "Rudy Giuliani is an unacceptable Republican nominee for President of the United States. He is pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-registration of handguns, and pro-homosexual rights. He is the most liberal Republican candidate for President in our nation's history."
A couple of things. I readily disagree with Rudy on abortion and gun control, but since when is Rudy pro-partial birth abortion? Has he come out against Stenber v. Carhart? Is this an older position that has been swept under the rug as he runs for president? I'm not being argumentative, but that line surprised me. How DARE he, though, advocate equal rights for a minority. After all, homosexuals are a minority because they like to do icky things to each other (now, I'm being argumentative). Also it's interesting that this litany of sins mentions nothing about national defense, federalism, fiscal policy, or limited government, which is kind of what I thought conservatism was about. I'm in my 20s and already behind the times, I guess.
Seriously though, I need to get of the blog and do some paid work.
4 comments:
I think this is a blip. The Democrats will use religion to appear moderate -- "in touch" with the Joe Lunchbucket who, after all, doesn't like atheists -- and as justification for their Robin Hood-esque redistribution schemes. You know, "social justice" and all that crap.
And the religious right will make sure they get their way in the Republican primaries. Andrew Sullivan, just today, linked to a story of how some coalition of religious conservatives is fiercely organizing against Rudy.
One of the tragedies of the rise of the religious right is that now we are getting a religious left foisted on us, too. One must not appear indifferent to religion in America when running for office!
So, I take the opposite position of your (kind of) hopeful musings. The article you cite is terrible news, for it only shows that religion is becoming a tool of the left as well. Rudy is the exception to the rule. Romney just sounds like an idiot for saying that, given his pandering to the religious right on just about everything.
Matthew, you are probably right. In fact my first thought when I read the first half of the article was "so the left is falling into the same trap as the right did." I found a modicum of hope only in the second half. Why must politics be so depressing?
What, you mean WE agree on something?
"Icky???"
Well, sometimes, but then you [learn][teach them] how to clean up first.
Post a Comment