Editor’s Note: In collaboration with the hard-hitting Washington, D.C. newsweekly Human Events, WorldNetDaily brings you this special report every Monday. You can
subscribe to Human Events through our online store Christian Coalition Members Say: Trust But Verify
More than 3,000 Christian Coalition members attended the group’s annual “Road to Victory” conference at the Washington Hilton, Oct. 1-3. Human Events reporters interviewed dozens of delegates and found that many of them, while not completely satisfied with Texas Gov. George W. Bush as the Republican frontrunner, are not yet ready to abandon the Republican Party either.
The conference convened after Bush had accused the Republican Congress of balancing the budget “on the backs of the poor” — but before he went to Manhattan and accused conservatives of stressing social issues in a way that “has painted an image of America slouching toward Gomorrah.”
Bush gave a typically vague speech to the coalition that received a polite but lukewarm response from the same packed ballroom that, moments later, rocked with a series of standing ovations for Gary Bauer. Bauer had rolled off a number of tried-and-true conservative policy proposals ranging from prohibiting abortion, to the flat tax, to canceling Most Favored Nation status for China.
The next day Steve Forbes also received an enthusiastic response to his speech, that listed areas where he differed with Bush, especially on social issues. “The frontrunner will not promise to appoint pro-life judges,” said Forbes, “but I have and I will. The frontrunner won’t promise to appoint a pro-life running mate, but I have.”
No pro-choice VP
Perhaps the warmest reaction to Bush came from Christian Coalition Chairman Pat Robertson. Robertson, who during the conference made critical statements to the press about Bauer, Forbes and Pat Buchanan (who had canceled a scheduled appearance at the conference), told the Washington Post, “I think [Bush] would be a very acceptable candidate. We had lunch together and talked about issues. I think he’s a solid guy. I think he’d make a good President.”
“So far,” Robertson later told a press conference, “George Bush has said things that have led me to believe he would be worthy of the support of the coalition were he the nominee of the party.”
Human Events asked a sampling of conference attendees if there were any circumstances under which they would consider not supporting the Republican nominee for President next year. Few of those questioned expressed great enthusiasm for the front-running Bush, but few ruled him out either. “Probably, if it were Jesse Ventura,” said Hank Hilburn of Germantown, Md., naming the only man the Republicans could nominate whom he would not vote for. His son, Dan, said, “I’m still troubled by the positions of Bush, McCain, and [Liddy] Dole on the Kosovo issue. If Pat Buchanan or Alan Keyes or Bob Smith ran on a third-party ticket, I would have to vote for them. . . . On the other
hand, it’s possible that four Supreme Court appointments will be made by the next President, and I don’t want Al Gore doing it. But I believe the Kosovo bombing was immoral and criminal.”
“Yes, if Pat Buchanan were one of the candidates,” said Bob Semonian of Boston, Mass., a former Buchanan campaign organizer. “If he went to the Reform Party and they let him into the debates, you’d find a lot of people supporting him.”
“If the Republican nominee abandons the abortion issue, like by choosing a pro-choice VP, I will not vote Republican,” said Norman Graut of Lincoln, Neb. “Otherwise, I have a hard time seeing me leave the party.”
“I don’t think anyone can win on a third-party ticket,” said Graut’s wife, Zona. “So unless Bush did something really bad, I will vote for him. Leaving the life issue behind would be really bad,” she added pointedly.
Donelda Grubb of Minot, N.D., a Christian Coalition chapter chairwoman, said, “If, like Lincoln, someone broke away from the major party, and it was in the best interest of the country, I would vote for him. Alan Keyes and Bob Smith are the most truthful candidates.” Donelda’s sister, Lavon Grubb, said, “I haven’t made up my mind” on whether to vote Republican or not.”
“If George W. chooses a pro-choice Vice President,” said Judie Almos, “I will not vote Republican. Then I might write someone in.” While some indicated that Christian conservatives would swallow a bitter pill to keep Vice President Al Gore or former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley out of the White House, most said that a Republican nominee who wavered on the right to life or was too timid on moral issues should not count on their support.
‘If they took out pro-life plank’
“Yes, I would if the Republicans compromised and didn’t stand by the morals and values that caused me to get involved in the first place,” answered Frank Marsico of Mechanicsburg, Pa. “I’m looking for character, integrity and honesty in a candidate, and if he doesn’t have that, then we’ll vote someone else in there.” When asked if he held certain bedrock convictions on which a nominee must not differ to retain his vote, Marsico cited two. “Abortion is one issue,” he said. “There’s no reason why we shouldn’t get two-thirds or more on a vote for a partial-birth abortion ban and other issues like the marriage penalty. There’s no reason to have something like that, and it still confuses me how something like that came about.”
Wife Bobbie Marsico, a partner in their small business, agreed. “The abortion issue and marriage penalty,” she said. “That tax is ridiculous. I just always thought it was a benefit to get married with taxes, and then when they put [the facts about the marriage penalty] out there, I did the figures and looked it up in the tax book and thought ‘Aaaah!’ . . . If a Republican I was going to vote for wouldn’t keep their word, I would switch.”
“Only if I felt they would step over the hot topics, if I felt they were just out making speeches using lines they knew would get them applause without commitment,” said Karen Skidmore of Grahamsville, Md.
“I always support the Republican nominee because of the platform, not necessarily because of whoever is running in that particular slot,” said Lynn Smith of Granbury, Tex. “We are looking for the person who most closely supports our values.”
Mary Harrigan of Charleston, S.C., said that because religious conservatives know a few Supreme Court nominees might come up in the next presidential term, they will be pragmatic with their votes. Christian conservatives “aren’t stupid,” she said, “they don’t want to see a Democrat elected through not going out to the polls.”
“I certainly don’t like the Democrat,” said Dr. Alfred Kirkwood of Springfield, Va. Kirkwood supports Steve Forbes, particularly because of his health plan that emphasizes medical savings accounts.
“If they took out the pro-life plank and adopted liberal social policy positions, or you might see Republicans jump ship over issues like gay marriage,” said Paul Redpath of Waco, Tex. Redpath singled out Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) for criticism. “He hasn’t ‘thought through’ about this and he’s a presidential candidate?”
“Well, they must have integrity,” said Judith Crawford of Bryanton, Md. “They’ve gotta be pro-life and pro-family because if they don’t have these values they are going to support or practice policies that have an adverse effect on families.” Husband Jim Crawford agreed: “If they removed the pro-life plank or the candidate were not unequivocal on the pro-life plank, if that happens, I would vote for a Bob Smith or Howard Phillips. If they’re not right on that issue, forget it.”
“I probably would, regardless of who it is,” said Joan Bennett of Gerrardstown, W.Va. “Even if it’s George W., he’d still be better than Gore or Bradley.” Bennett said no to supporting a third-party candidate. “I would not switch.”
Team Trump: Young, smart and ready to rumble
Bucky Fox