We Don't Need A Replay Of 1992
By Randy Rudder
October 4, 2007
I can still remember that dreadful evening in November of 1992. I was sitting on the floor in front of the television set at my girlfriend's apartment as I watched the states turn colors one by one on CNN. I slowly came to the realization that a man who had earlier boldly pledged that he would "only nominate Supreme Court judges who would uphold Roe v. Wade," would soon be moving into the White House. My depression was exacerbated by the fact that this man would be elected to the highest office of the land with the support of only 43% of voting Americans. The "now you see me, now you don't" third party campaign of Ross Perot only served to pull enough votes away from Bush the elder to solidify Clinton's place in history for the next eight years.
Upon hearing this week that some evangelicals, disgruntled with many of the Republican candidates, might consider backing a third party candidate, I immediately had flashbacks to that infamous evening fifteen years ago.
It was not a pleasant memory.
Why so many evangelicals are reluctant to back Thompson as of yet is astonishing to me. With Thompson being in line with evangelicals on 90% of the core issues (and only semantics separating him on the other 10%), why on earth would Christian conservatives be hesitant to give him more attention?
Fred is not given to spouting platitudes and vague stands on issues that try to play to both sides of an issue. He is a man of concise rhetoric. His positions on abortion ("bad law and bad medical science"), immigration ("a government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, abrogates a fundamental responsibility"), family ("I am committed to using the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a culture of life, strengthen the institution of marriage and traditional families, and advance freedom of religion"), terrorism ("We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan--the central fronts in this global war"), and gun control ("The 2nd Amendment means what it says") are clear.
Thompson's stance on gay marriage is based on his view of federalism. He believes in taking power away from renegade judges in regards to defining marriage and giving the people of the states the power to decide that issue. Thompson believes the voters in the states will do the right thing and uphold traditional values concerning marriage -- which they have done in overwhelming proportions wherever the issue has reached the ballot box.
Given these particulars, it is puzzling to me that James Dobson and other leaders in the evangelical community have been slow to embrace Thompson's message. Perhaps Thompson's camp needs to work harder to get the message out to those beyond the blogosphere. Hopefully, between now and the summer of 2008, that can be accomplished.
This is a time when conservatives and Republicans should be circling the wagons and defending the attacks on the family by the media and the far left. We cannot allow the missteps in Iraq to allow progressives to divide and conquer us. A third party candidate endorsement by evangelicals would be disastrous for conservatives, disastrous for family values, and possibly enable another Clinton to enter the White House with only 43% of the vote.
And that is a memory I have no desire to relive.
--------
Randy Rudder is an English professor and freelance writer in Nashville, Tennessee.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
++ Discuss this topic in The Forum
Current rating:  4.8 out of 5.0 (15 total votes)
| 
