Some Iowa conservatives are questioning whether Newt Gingrich is pro-life enough, reports the Des Moines Register:
A prominent evangelical pastor, alarmed by what he sees as a stream of Iowa Republicans leaning toward Gingrich, questions whether they realize Gingrich has in the past spoken in favor of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and abortions in certain cases.
Gingrich still supports abortions in the cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother. “He would allow for the three exceptions,” campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond said Monday. …
“Newt is famous for being all over the board,” said Cary Gordon, a minister at Sioux City’s Cornerstone church. “He is admirable in many ways, but I won’t back him. I don’t trust him.”
If conservatives demand absolute purity on right-to-life issues when it comes to Mitt Romney, it hurts their credibility if they don’t demand the same for Gingrich, some Iowa Republicans said Monday. Others said they believe Gingrich is now opposed to abortion and embryonic stem cell use, and they’re comfortable backing him today.
As the Register goes on to note, Gingrich has signed the Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge. Ramesh had a good post earlier this month detailing Gingrich’s history on embroyonic stem cell research.
Iowa radio host Steve Deace held a focus group with Iowa voters (ten out of the eleven were regular church attendees, to give you a sense of the demographics) yesterday, and reported this:
Question 4: Are Newt’s three marriages a problem for you?
All said absolutely yes, but to varying degrees. What seemed to bother the group more than the divorces (and several in the group have been divorced) were the affairs and the seeming lack of public repentence for them. Some in the group feel Gingrich has done enough to restore their faith in him, most did not, though.
The Union-Leader endorsement has helped shape the perception that at least in the Granite State, Gingrich is likely to be the top contender against Mitt Romney. But if he flounders in Iowa, it’s hard to see Gingrich being able to win or do well in New Hampshire — and will mean that heading into South Carolina, the likely dynamic will be between Romney and whoever did win the Iowa caucuses.
Anyone who would consider voting for a serial adulterer isn't really a social conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think abortion-on-demand is execrable. I think Roe v. Wade is bad jurisprudence. But I don't see how it's reasonable to undermine the candidacy of any putative conservative so that a strongly pro-life president can make impotent pronunciations from the White House—especially when an "impure" candidate would nominate the same caliber of Supreme Court justice, and even if for different reasons.
"Let's see what the Midwest zealots have to say" gets tiring every four years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think there are better candidates for pro-lifers than either Gingrich or Romney, but between those two Gingrich has a far better record on this issue. Gingrich has been solidly pro-life throughout his career except for some wavering on the side issue of embryonic stem cells. Romney was staunchly pro-abortion until conveniently changing his position just as he was preparing for a Presidential run.
As on so many issues, the choice between these two is between an imperfect conservative and a lifelong moderate who only recently claimed to be conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney has never been "staunchly pro-abortion." A leader in the Mormon Church couldn't be, and it's well-documented that, as a leader in the Mormon Church, he wasn't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, show us those well-documented documents, then. Or go to youtube where you can find Romney slobbering all over the pro-choice position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhich "Social Conservatives" are we talking about here? The figments of leftwing media's collective imagination who were supposed to flee Reagan when they repeatedly informed everybody that he and Nancy were previously divorced? Those 'bumpkins' in Georgia who sent Newt to DC several times in a row? Seriously, this is an "issue" for the halls of MSNBC, not an issue that matters on the street.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe are talking about social conservatives who are socially conservative.
Most people suspected that Reagan didn't initiate his divorce (although, gentleman that he is, he refused to discuss the matter). Moreover, social conservatives understand that no one is perfect and don't require anything like perfection in a leader. They do, however, believe that character matters. Gingrich is a man of low character. Social conservatives of the bumpkin variety as well as the cosmopolite "on the street" will reject him, for the excellent reason that he lacks character.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is a better model for social conservatives than Gingrich. He's actually chosen to stay with his family, he doesn't rail against "right-wing social engineering," and he's been about the same as Gingrich on abortion.
It is nothing but a freakish anti-Mormon suspicion that prevents any social conservative from seeing Romney as the natural choice for social conservatives (if, of course, we're assuming social conservatives for some reason shouldn't stick behind Bachmann or Santorum). Come on, people, they're Christians. Are we really going to pass over a strong presidential candidate for the least-respected toad in America? Does anyone really want to have a non-conservative, amnesty-loving, unelectable and unpleasant jerk for a candidate? Come on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's more than just anti-Mormon sentiment keeping social conservatives away from Mitt.
What about his flip flops on things like abortion? Like when he told NARAL that "he'd be a good voice" for them in Washington in 2002? External Link
Yes, Newt's damaged goods. But no social conservative can really trust Romney at this point. He's been all over the map, and too often on the bad part of it on issues that matter most to them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse