Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins announced this afternoon that the outcome of a meeting this weekend of around 150 prominent conservatives was a consensus to back Rick Santorum, achieved after three rounds of balloting. More details as they come …
UPDATE: “There was not a lot of hope that we could come to a consensus around a candidate,” Perkins said in a conference call with reporters about the expectations heading into the meeting, held near Houston, Texas.
When the third round of voting was held this morning, 114 people voted, down from around 130 the first round. (Perkins said some left to catch flights.) Out of those 114, 85 voted for Santorum. “There is this unanimous agreement to replace Barack Obama, and the strong consensus that emerged here was that Rick Santorum was the best one to do that,” Perkins said.
“I think you’re going to see some of the individual leaders that were here in the next few days probably step out with public endorsements,” Perkins remarked, adding that organizations, too, could be expected to get involved in supporting Santorum, in South Carolina and elsewhere.
Representatives from all the major campaigns, except for Jon Huntsman’s , spoke to those assembled.
The idea for the meeting emerged when conservatives feared a repeat of 2008, when the conservative vote split between multiple candidates, allowing the more moderate John McCain to nab the nomination. Asked what would happen if Romney became the nominee, Perkins said that hadn’t been discussed yet, saying those at the meeting had “not been resigned to the idea that he [Romney is going to have the nomination.”
“When you look at his delegate count, it is far from decided,” Perkins added.
What is unexpected or confusing about this? It's 'issue voters' backing the candidate who most strongly declares his alignment with their big issue. This happens just about every primary election cycles doesn't it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo thankful they did not pick Newt, although their pick may be irrelevant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHigh time.
And I agree, Fran, they would have lost all credibility in choosing Gingrich. They chose the right man. I'm just hoping their help will help and that it doesn't come too late.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf social conservatives were serious about social issues and beating obama they wouldn't be backing santorum. Ideological purity and certainly a little bit of bigotry is causing them not to back the only candidate who has a shot at beating obama (Romney). Not very principled or too principled if you ask me. At this stage they would have also been against Reagan for signing a liberal abortion measure into law, andwould have lost the chance to vote for one of our greatest presidents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf social conservatives were serious about social issues and beating obama they wouldn't be backing santorum. Ideological purity and certainly a little bit of bigotry is causing them not to back the only candidate who has a shot at beating obama (Romney). Not very principled or too principled if you ask me. At this stage they would have also been against Reagan for signing a liberal abortion measure into law, andwould have lost the chance to vote for one of our greatest presidents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGosh, I hope it's not too late. And I'm not even a socon. Two candidates did not have a history of backing Tarp (verbally or substantively) - Bachmann and Santorum. As far as I'm concerned, that's what separates the men from the boys. Plus Romney's lousy tax plan, which is as bad as Obama's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey would have lost all credibility in picking Newt, but this is still going to look like a Stop the Mormon! vote from a bunch of religious bigots. At least they've finally learned to embrace a Catholic, something that would make their pappies and grandpappies turn over in their sainted graves.
Since the Santorum vote in sagging in SC, though, it's problematical. If Newtie, Santy and Paul all get about 20%, Romney will still win, no matter how vigorously the so-called "true conservatives" (Paul excepted) in the race trash capitalism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know you dislike Santorum, but this is certainly not going to look like a "stop the Mormon" effort. That didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it, and I live among evangelicals. No, everyone knows that Romney is the moderate of the race, and FRC, like other conservatives and conservative groups, desperately wants a non-McCain this time around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have no earthly notion what the material difference for social cons would be between a Santy and a Romney presidency. I suppose Santy would spend much more time stridently denouncing abortions and homosexuals from the Oval Office, which would warm Tony Perkins' heart. And maybe he would invest serious effort in pushing for constitutional amendments banning abortions and gay marriages (though this would get nowhere). But, yeah, I'm afraid I suspect anti-Mormon bigotry played its role here too. Anything Gary Bauer involves himself in is going to be darned dubious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are two "material differences." The first concern is one evangelicals share with all other not-Romney supporters; Romney is the most "moderate" and statist-leaning of the candidates remaining in the race. (Huntsman doesn't really remain in the race.) The second misgiving concerns Romney's good faith and the energy he will devote to social issues. You can argue about their economic and social positions -- you can trot out Santorum's "compassionate conservative" deviations, for example -- but in the view of most conservatives, Romney is much less dependable in both areas than Santorum. While in my opinion a voter is perfectly entitled to consider a candidate's religion, that is not what is going on with the not-Romney contingent. After all, opposition to Romney is hardly limited to evangelicals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo Rook, in your line of thinking, things got better for conservatives when the federal government decided to define the very meaning of life on its own terms. And this time around you seem fine with the latest rage that no one had even heard of until a handful of years ago: let's let the federal government redefine the very meaning of marriage and family!
Just my two cents, but look around. When you find yourself in a chorus line locked arm-in-arm and high kicking it with Perez Hilton and Andrew Sullivan...it might be time to rethink what you regard as "conservative."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, anyone who has sourced their political records knows that it's GSE addicts for tax dollars Gingrich & Santorum promoting their Big Gov't agendas for decades at the federal level who are the "moderates".
Fiscal conservatives "desperately" want a non-McCain D.C. hack this time and are demanding a businesses/jobs creation & balanced budgets candidate with a public & private sector record to prove it.
There exists conservatives who are serious about winning the presidency in 2012 & who are determined not to let Obama hijack the Supreme Court.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich is more a loose cannon than a moderate, but regardless he is out of the question. You can make your case all day and all night that Santorum is more "moderate" on fiscal, economic, and constitutional issues, but he's pretty good, and Romney is much, much worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Evangelical "Stop The Mormon" crusades would have picked "Sonograms Before Abortions" Protestant Rick Perry had he a prayer in S.C. The hitch is Perkins & his Jeffress ilk had no choice but to go with Catholic "Contraception A Danger To Country" Santorum because "Wall Street Occupier" Newt is also (currently) a Catholic--AND is ditto a serial adulterer/groom.
"Values Voters" trapped.
boo hoo
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm glad you added the "currently" to Newt's Catholicism. Heck, if a fetching Muslim lady ten years younger, say, than Calista, catches his eye one day, he'll probably end up bowing to Mecca.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFinally we've found common ground.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo surprise. In 2008 "think tank" Perkins' Evangelical pals Mormon bigot Vander Plaat & Gary Bauer endorsed McCain in S.C.
It stands to reason that the Evangelical leadership would pick Big Gov't "compassionate conservative" Santorum pontificating "contraception a danger for country" with his "Bridge To Nowhere" agendas--& his residency/K-Street Project/UHS scams & incompetence in tow.
Another Washington insider hack loser without executive experience for the GOP nominee.
The difference is McCain didn't lose by nearly 20 points in his last election.
Arguably, 2012 will not be decided by the "social issues" Evangelicals.
For what it's worth, in 2008 Perkins said that it was Romney who was "strongest on the core social issues."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne has to question where the teachings of Jesus Christ actually enters into this equation, because it certainly isn't that Jesus would approve of a man that exploits charitable giving to funnel money to his opportunistic friends. I would imagine Jesus would be very turned off by that.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis reinforces something I have thought for some time: These people aren't too bright. Tony Perkins needs to embrace two indisputable truths: The Earth really has been around for WAY more than 5K years, and Mitt Romney is going to win the nomination.
In fact, given the way Santorum scares the bejesus out of women and moderates, nothing could help Mitt Romney put this away more than a surging Rick Santorum could.
After Romney ties up the nomination, where does that leave these evangelicals? Eventually ignored. If Romney loses, Obama certainly isn't going to give them anything to hang their hat on; you might even see abortions being performed in the West Wing by homosexual military doctors. And, if Romney wins. he'll know that he won without any help from these more strident social conservative voices, which will then reduce their influence with a Romney administration to virtually nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere you have it.
Statism, big government, endless debt, and destruction of the wealth of future generations.....all don't mean jack sheet as long as the candidate hates gays or something like that....you know the most pressing issues of our time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse