Veteran Christian Broadcaster TakesOn "Compromising"Pro-Family LeadersPro-Life Leaders: Principle or Politics?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
By Dick Bott Sr. To:ThoseWho Also Wonder
From: Dick Bott, Sr.
Subject:Abortion & Marriage / How Important Are They?
These are my honest and heartfelt reflections. And that's all they are.
From the beginning, I've listened and watched and thought hard about who is the right candidateforpro-life leaders, who say the issues of Abortion & Marriage are the two absolutes beyond any other consideration. Those two issuesand those alone, are the only issues that are"deal-breakers." It was agreed that finding the 'best' candidate on those two issues is why the meetings were convened.
Along with several others, I sat in meetings where the merits of various candidates were discussed back and forth. Every consideration was put on the examiningtable for discussionamong those whogathered for that expressed purpose. And I never heard anyone in those meetings say the issues of Abortion & Marriage were simply two of many other issues of equal weight.
As important as taxes, national defense, the economy and even immigrationwereduring these discussionsamongthat group of leaders, no one ever expressed that Abortion & Marriage were no longer theonly twoissues that would dictate our final consensus as to who was therefore most worthy of our collectivesupport.
There were one or two who were already so settled on giving their support to Mike Huckabee, becauseof his unbroken pro-life credibility,they didn't care to even discuss any of the others. But for the most part, everyone else showed great interest in considering all others in an honest attempt to determine who was the RIGHT candidate -- not necessarily who was the most likely to WIN!
But as time passed, it became clear to the vast majority that Mike Huckabee was the one candidate our group could support with complete confidence.
It was then, however,the group was encouraged, by a few 'leaders' to postpone any collective decision until a special Values Voters Summit could be held in Washington where grass-roots values voters citizens could actually hear for themselves each of the Republican candidates and then cast their votes for who they thought was theclearchoice. Even thoughpostponing a consensus-vote would delaythe action of the group of assembled leaders, it was finally agreed that no collective action should be determined until after the Values Voters Summitwas held.
And the rest is history.Determining the consensus of the group from then on was derailed. The thought seemed to be that nodetermination was better than having to acknowledge that Mike Huckabee was the candidate of choice. Any candidateother than Mitt Romney would not be permitted to surface.
When the Values Voters Summit was held, after hearing all of the candidates speak for themselves,the values voter grass-roots attendees voted five to one for Mike Huckabee. Huckabee gathered more votes than all other candidates combined, including Mitt Romney. Even when the ballots ofthose who voted on-line before the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Summit were included in the final tally, Mitt Romney was just a point or two ahead of Huckabee. It was never made clear why the on-line voting was mixed-in aspart of that tally, because including the on-line votes distorted the meaning of the outcome.Theoutcome of those at the Summit, who voted "after" actually hearing the candidates speak, was notcreditedwith thetruemeaning it deserved.
And then it became very clear to me, and to many others, that Mitt Romney was being pushed along into a presumed front-line position beyond any understanding as to why that was happening. Mike Huckabee was the ONLY candidate whose past record on Abortion & Marriage was totally consistent and unbroken -- and therefore totally trustworthy, and therefore totally supportable by those pro-life leaders who had publicly said those two issues were the primary and paramount issues for them to weigh.
Now whether or not Mike Huckabee could actually win was not my major concern. This is not a horse-race where handicapping a winner is part of the process. My concern has always been WHO is the most pro-life and pro-marriage candidate to support andmost trustworthy on those "Two issues."
In looking athis "pastrecord" and listening to his own voice on TVwhen he was running for the U.S. Senate and for Mass. Governor, Mitt Romney forcefully, even heatedly, proclaimed his support for Abortion andfor GayRights.That factual record alone should have madeMitt Romney clearly unacceptable.And any consideration of his recent so-called pro-life"conversion" should have been explained.And itnever was. His so-called "conversion"was directly tied and timed to his White House aspirations. The guy is "Slick" -- andhe's got lots of money. But is that the criteria for being a genuine trustworthy pro-life President? Come-on!
Nowit seems clear, at least to me, that if Mike Huckabee would have had the pro-life leaders' support he deserved and that he had earned from the start, he would be way out front right now.Even without it, he's doing amazinglywell.If poor old tired and grumpy Fred Thompson would have bowed-out beforethe South Carolina vote, Huckabee would havewon thatstate handily. And he would have not only beaten John McCain, he would have blocked the McCain surge that has been growing ever since. Add it up. Look at the results. Thompson stayed in the race in South Carolina to play the part of a spoiler. And the pro-life movement is paying the price. Shame!
And if the pro-life leaders' VOICE would have been clear and"clean" from theday it was obvious whowas the one candidatewhose past pro-life & marriage record was most believable and trustworthy from the start, who knows where the pro-life cause would be right now.
But I fear,for lack of leadership on those TWO issues, John McCainwill be the Republican nominee --clearing the way for Obama & Clinton towin theWhite House.But perhapsthat's the way it always is -- when "first things are not kept as first things" by those whose voices are trusted and followed.
How much money did Mitt Romney spread around? How much influence and/or silencedid hismoney buy?How much justification can be made for the positions of some? I don't know. But I do know that at some time in the future, history will tell us the full story. And whatever it is, it will be interesting. But will it be helpful to the future? Will pro-life movement leaders have learned alessonfrom it? I doubt it. Somehow history is always repeated.
But one thing I do know for sure is thatI've known Don Wildmon for more than thirty years and his only motivation has always been to do what was RIGHT regardless of whether it seemed to be winnable or not. He's never, ever, seemed to care about finding ways to WIN at the sacrifice of PRINCIPLE! He's content to stay in the background maintaining a constant effort to do what's right regardless of what others do. Good for him.
And after graciously listening to each candidate, and after carefully considering the past and present record of each --Don Wildmonstaunchly endorsed Mike Huckabee!
