Santorum’s Speech Wasn’t Perfect, But Today Was Darn Close

April 10, 2012 By

You know how things in life are never perfect? I’ve found with every good gift, there’s a shadow waiting to steal the joy you otherwise would’ve gotten from that gift.

For example, you get a new car, but a hail storm put dents in the hood the first week.  Or, you love your job but it takes so much time away from your family.  Or you get a new puppy but now you can’t leave the house for more than a few hours without worrying about the thing. Or you have a good friend, but hurt her feelings with a stray comment you didn’t mean.  (Or, worse, something you did mean!)

We live in a fallen world and things just are rarely perfect.

However, today was a near perfect day for us Evangelicals for Mitt.  Charles, David, and I (along with some dear friends) began this Romney adventure many years ago in 2006.  When we saw Santorum approaching the podium to suspend his campaign this afternoon, we all began e-mailing each other little snippets from the past seven years.  David reminisced about a time when we sat in my parents’ living room in Paris, Tennessee telling people from my hometown church about a guy a named Mitt. He’s going to be our President one day, we told them. Yes, M-i-t-t.   Mitt.  Like the catcher’s mitt.  And by the way, we need you to go vote for him in a straw poll in Memphis.

Charles reminded us of a term we developed at some point along the way.  I once described Charles as “unflappable,” and he was trying to protest.  Instead of finding the appropriately opposite word, he simply made one up.  Ever since then, we’ve described people as “flappable,” “flapped,” or “flappalicious.”

I reminded them of the time I told the Romneys – after Gov. Romney dropped out of the 2008 campaign and David was in Iraq – “sure, I’m a great skier!”  (If you don’t know that story, buy this book, or this one for the full, embarrassing tale.)

This afternoon, we went back and forth for several hours, savoring Santorum’s concession before the real fight against Obama begins.

Wait… but it wasn’t really a concession, was it?  Even though I was happy, I couldn’t help notice some glaring omissions from Santorum’s speech.

For one, he never mentioned Gov. Romney’s name.

He definitely didn’t ask his supporters to unite behind the nominee.

What about the fact that he didn’t “drop out,” he merely “suspended?”

Plus, when he was defeated in Pennsylvania by a Democrat in 2006, he graciously bowed out and conceded defeat to Bob Casey.  He even asked his supporters to give his opponent a round of applause, chastised them when they weren’t enthusiastic enough, and offered cooperation with Pennsylvanian’s new senator.  “Wouldn’t it be nice if he’d done that this time?” someone asked me on Facebook.

Well, it would’ve.  In a perfect world, he would’ve acted like Gov. Romney did when he conceded to Sen. McCain. Toby Harnden reminded us how that went down: “…when Romney dropped out, he not only endorsed his rival a week later but went to work for him.”

But here’s the thing, my Romney supporting friends.  We’ve been waiting for a long time for “the moment.”  You know what I’m talking about, don’t you?  That one moment when everyone must acknowledge that Gov. Romney is “the guy.”  That day when everyone unanimously looks at us, and says, “You were right.”  When news anchors report, “Gov. Romney is the GOP nominee.”  When we never hear the word “presumptive” again.  When we can finally breathe a sigh of relief after years of work.

Today was that day.  No, it wasn’t perfect, and there were no fireworks. (I gave you guys some in the above photo!) But this isn’t a perfect world, Rick Santorum isn’t the perfect candidate, and he’s not even a perfect man.  Guess what?  Neither is Mitt and neither are you.

Let’s don’t let the fact that Rick Santorum wasn’t as gracious as he should’ve been ruin it.  He’ll eventually get on board, after he tends to his family.  After he has a few days to calm down.  After he tends to his wounded pride.

None but the most politically attentive will remember his speech today.  Normal people will just remember that a good guy fought a hard battle, had major family issues, and dropped out before eventually coming around and supporting Gov. Romney.

Do you know what you’ll remember?  That today was the end of the end of the GOP race and the beginning of the end of President Obama’s first — and last! — term.  Even if it doesn’t feel like you’d hoped it would feel, don’t let anything ruin it for you!  Today is our day.  Let’s savor it for a few hours longer, before the general campaigning begins.

You might also enjoy:

Jon Stewart Discusses Rick Santorum’s Future

How does Tim Tebow Do Easter?

Santorum’s “Concession Speech” Wasn’t Perfect, But Neither Are We

What is up with this Easter sign?

Love, Marriage, Baby Carriage, Cancer?

If You’re an Evangelical, You Should be Outraged at MSNBC

Conservative Christian Parents Finally Say No to “The Bachelor”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,

Path for Romney Getting Clearer

April 9, 2012 By

The Wall Street Journal has a great article about Gov. Romney’s status as the frontrunner:

The fight for the Republican presidential nomination appeared closer to a conclusion as Newt Gingrich on Sunday all but conceded to Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum continued facing a money shortage in his home state of Pennsylvania, where he has two weeks to make a last stand before the primary.

Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, called Mr. Romney “far and away the most likely Republican nominee,” during a TV appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” adding he would throw his support behind the front-runner if Mr. Romney secured the requisite number of GOP convention delegates.

Mr. Gingrich, who early this year briefly held a lead over his Republican rivals in nationwide polls, spoke of his campaign in the past tense, saying, “I’m glad I did this,” but “it turned out to be much harder than I thought.”

Read the rest here.

You might also enjoy:

Jon Stewart Discusses Rick Santorum’s Future

How does Tim Tebow Do Easter?

What is up with this Easter sign?

Love, Marriage, Baby Carriage, Cancer?

If You’re an Evangelical, You Should be Outraged at MSNBC

Conservative Christian Parents Finally Say No to “The Bachelor”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

Jon Stewart Discusses Rick Santorum’s Plans Going Forward

April 5, 2012 By

You might also enjoy:

What is up with this Easter sign?

Love, Marriage, Baby Carriage, Cancer?

If You’re an Evangelical, You Should be Outraged at MSNBC

Conservative Christian Parents Finally Say No to “The Bachelor”

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,

Rick Santorum’s Pro-Choice Past

February 22, 2012 By

On Tuesday morning, Rick Santorum’s spokesman Hogan Gidley was interviewed by MSNBC.  He said something that we’ve all gotten quite used to on the campaign trail – yet another slam against Gov. Romney for becoming pro-life.  In extolling his own candidate, he said:

“I mean, that’s who he is,” Gidley said. “He doesn’t have to tack to the right on social issues like Mitt Romney because he actually firmly believes those things.”

However, this morning, I came across this interesting Huffington Post article which shows that Santorum apparently was pro-choice until he ran for public office:

In a December 1995 Philadelphia Magazine article — which the Huffington Post pulled from Temple University archives — Santorum conceded that he “was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress… But it had never been something I thought about.” Asked why he changed his mind, he said that he “sat down and read the literature. Scientific literature,” only to correct himself and note that religion was a part of it too.

So why does this matter?  Aren’t we glad when people change their minds?  Of course!  We have maintained for years that pro-lifers should be thrilled when we win converts from the pro-abortion mindset.  Is that why we’re having conversations across the country?  To convince people to change?  So why, when people do actually change their minds, do we wag our finger at them and say, “Well, that took you long enough.”

In other words, Santorum’s pride and arrogance towards Gov. Romney – a man much more qualified to run this country – is unjustified and offensive. You didn’t see this contempt towards Fred Thompson (who ran as a pro-choice candidate in 1994 in Tennessee) and you didn’t even see it towards Rick Perry (who endorsed the ONLY pro-choice candidate in 2008).

Gov. Romney had a pro-life conversion as did a lot of candidates – including Sen. Santorum. Let’s retire the condescension and be thankful that our message of life is resonating.

See also: Santorum is Running for Pastor-in-Chief

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

Rick Santorum: Running for President, Pastor, or Both?

February 21, 2012 By

For years — when questioned about Mitt Romney’s faith — Nancy and I have responded with some version of the following: “He’s running for commander-in-chief, not pastor-in-chief, and his core political values are your core political values.”

What we meant was clear.  Mitt wasn’t going to be spending time as president discussing Joseph Smith or any unique point of Mormon doctrine.  Instead, he was going to concentrate on shared values — supporting life, marriage, and religious liberty, for example — and focus on fixing our economy and defending our country.  These shared values stretch across religious lines and unite more than they divide.  Baptists and Catholics and Mormons may not agree on a number of theological fronts, but they are united in supporting life, supporting marriage, and preserving religious liberty.

Rick Santorum is testing the limits of this formula.  Yes, he shares the same broad political values as Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates — and no one questions his pro-life credentials — but he’s now doing something that I’m not sure I’ve seen from a mainstream Republican candidate: He’s going beyond the shared values of the Republican coalition to making narrow denominational arguments on hot-button social issues.

Let’s take contraception.  All of the GOP candidates agree that Obama’s HHS mandate, which requires Christian institutions to make free contraceptives (and abortifacients) available to their employees, represents a grotesque violation of religious liberty, but only Rick Santorum says this:

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

There’s a lot I agree with in that statement, but there’s a lot that I disagree with as well.  I don’t agree with the Catholic church on the theology of contraception.  I respect the Catholic view, but I don’t agree.  And I certainly don’t want my president wasting his limited political capital picking a theological fight on this issue.

And that’s not all, of course.  He’s talked about the “phony theology” of Barack Obama’s environmentalism, and he’s singled out certain kinds of pre-natal testing as especially offensive.  He’s also essentially written mainline denominations out of the Christian faith.

To be clear, there are ways of contesting radical environmentalism — including the more fanatical elements which (as Senator Santorum rightly noted) value the environment more than people — without making the kinds of arguments I’ve heard from the pulpit.  And you can certainly oppose mandates on free-market and liberty grounds without singling out amniocentesis for particular scorn.  As for the spiritual plight of mainline denominations . . . well, I’m just not sure that’s a matter of presidential concern.  (Nor are such sweeping statements helpful or accurate).

I like Rick Santorum.  He’s been a congressional hero of the pro-life movement, and he’s articulating the connection between the breakdown of the family and persistent economic distress better than anyone else in the race.  He was sounding the alarm on Iran years ago — when no one wanted to hear him.  But he’s on the verge of moving from the good Rick Santorum who won two senate elections as a conservative in a moderate state to bad Rick Santorum whose appeal became increasingly denominational and alienated potential allies.  Bad Rick Santorum seemed almost indifferent to winning over moderates, independents, libertarians, and even social conservatives who didn’t agree with everything he said.  Bad Rick Santorum lost in a landslide in 2006.

A presidential candidate simply cannot win a race (and likely can’t even win an extended primary contest) making in essence pastoral, denominational arguments when more ecumenical values and liberty-based arguments accomplish much the same purpose.

See also Rick Santorum’s Pro-Choice Past

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,

Santorum the Stingy?

February 21, 2012 By

When Rick Santorum released his income taxes, one thing became clear.

He gave only 2.2% of the more than $3.6 million in total income he earned since leaving the Senate.  Mark DeMoss is incredulous:

At best it shows political bad judgment and at worst it shows a lack of personal commitment to a principle that religious conservatives and political conservatives believe in, which is being generous with our money.”

“And so I just think it’s a mistake. And look, Santorum and (Newt) Gingrich, these two candidates, they’re not the first to appear on the low end of this spectrum. Every four years we see it. And im always surprised. I am always surprised that someone running for president or who actually becomes president doesn’t have a record of a higher percentage of giving.”

DeMoss stressed that he’s not brought up the topic of Santorum and Gingrich’s charitable giving with Romney headquarters. In his own life, DeMoss said he gives away 20 percent of his family income to charitable causes.

“This is just something I feel strongly about myself,” he said. “We’ve been blessed. I’ve been very fortunate in my life. And I’m not running for anything. But if I were running I’d make sure that number stayed up there because I think it looks good.”

For comparison,

Santorum gave just over 2 percent of his income to charity over the four years covered in the returns he released, reaching its lowest percentage in 2010 at 1.76 percent. For the same year, Romney gave 13.8 percent of his income to charity, and President Obama donated 14.2 percent. (Newt Gingrich, for comparison, gave away 2.6 percent)

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , ,

Going Positive on Mitt and Negative on Newt

February 1, 2012 By

I’ve slowed down slightly on posting, but that doesn’t mean I’ve slowed down on writing.  Today in the Washington Post, Jordan Sekulow, Matt Clark, and I make the positive case that conservative Christians and Tea Partiers are moving to Mitt:

Buried in the exit polls from Romney’s more than 15 point win over Newt Gingrich is the fact that Romney won Protestants, Catholics, and virtually tied among evangelicals. Tea Partiers too broke for Romney.

With this, Romney has won the conservative Christian vote in half of the primary contests so far This critical group makes up a plurality of the Republican primary vote in Florida, over 40 percent.

There are several key factors that have led conservative Christians to rally around Romney.  First, Romney stands for the values that evangelicals and social conservatives hold dear.  He is strongly pro-life. In addition to winning an award from a major pro-life organization in Massachusetts as governor after vetoing expanded access to the morning-after pill and expanded fetal stem-cell research, Romney pro-family, pro-life values are now touted by Florida’s pro-life advocates as well as those in other states across the country.

He has been steadfast in his defense of marriage and religious liberty.  After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage by judicial fiat, then-Gov. Romney went so far as to file a lawsuit to force the Massachusetts legislature to act on a citizen-initiated marriage amendment.  His defense of religious liberty earned him the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s coveted “Canterbury Medal,” an award given to leaders in the fight for freedom.

Yesterday on CNN.com, I made a strongly-worded case against Newt:

Many evangelicals are angry, and rightly so. They’re angry with a president who embraces abortion rights, who restricts religious liberty and who saddles their children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt. They understand the necessity of protecting life and the imperative of financial stewardship.

But they also understand that we don’t discard our core values for the sake of political victories. Fidelity, honesty, humility and charity matter.

No one doubts that God forgives, but only God knows Newt Gingrich’s heart.  We only know his actions, and we know that he has a history of deceiving even those who are closest to him.

Three other Republican candidates are anti-abortion. Three other Republican candidates have been faithful and honest in their personal and professional lives. With honest alternatives to choose from, evangelicals will soon abandon Gingrich.

I’ve gotten several messages from people who tell me that I’m too negative on Gingrich. Yet other Republican candidates have not only advanced the right values, they live them as well.  The values that Gingrich has lived have on many occasions been hypocritical and reprehensible, and I’m quite puzzled at the insistence of people who have never met him and will never meet him that he’s unquestionably sincere in his regrets.  You have no way of knowing that and many reasons not to trust him.

I have good friends who support Rick Santorum, and I understand why.  He’s a hero of the pro-life movement, a man with an exemplary personal reputation, and a person who is living the values we hold dear.  I simply don’t think he’s best-equipped to handle the economic crisis we face.  Mitt Romney is also a man with an exemplary personal reputation and is living the values we hold dear.  Why are so many people taking such a massive risk with Newt Gingrich?  Could it be that he channels the anger they feel and that anger is clouding their good judgment?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,

Santorum Endorses Romney… in 2008

January 10, 2012 By

My friend Tim Dalrymple asked if anyone had the full transcript of Rick Santorum’s endorsement of Gov. Romney during the last  Presidential cycle.  I found this release, which is interesting reading these days.  As you read it, realize that Gov. Romney hasn’t changed positions at all… but Santorum is certainly singing a different tune.

BOSTON, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced his endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney.

Senator Santorum served two terms in the United States Senate where he was also Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the third-ranking member of the Republican leadership.

“In a few short days, Republicans from across this country will decide
more than their party’s nominee. They will decide the very future of our party and the conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan built.
Conservatives can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines in this
election, and Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear,” said Senator Santorum.

“Governor Romney has a deep understanding of the important issues
confronting our country today, and he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united Republican party.”

Announcing Senator Santorum’s support, Governor Romney said, “I am honored to have Senator Santorum’s support. Throughout his career of public service, he has always led with a steadfast commitment to our party’s conservative principles. He has fought for life, marriage, tax cuts and a stronger national defense. In the coming days, I look forward to working with him as we fight for our party’s conservative foundations.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

Santorum Supported Individual Mandate Before He Was Morally Aghast By It

January 7, 2012 By

Rick Santorum is really against the individual mandate.  Watch any debate and you’ll see that he’s barely able to contain his contempt for Gov. Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusetts.

However, in 1994, he was singing a different tune.  Back then, he wanted to require people to buy health insurance. Here’s a 1994 LeHigh Valley article (this is page two, but I’m trying to draw your attention to the top sentence):

Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits.

I don’t doubt that people change and alter their views over the course of several years.  But this is what gets me: the absolute moral indignation candidates like Newt and Santorum show when they act as if they’d never consider such an “unconstitutional concept.”  Though this is no doubt a show for the red-meat conservatives who’d rather someone shake a fist in the air than propose actual solutions, it’s still disheartening.

Will it come up in the New Hampshire debate?

As Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha.”

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,

A Letter to Iowa Evangelicals

December 30, 2011 By

 

To my Iowa Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I get it.  You have people like Bob Vander Plaats who are trying to get you to vote for Rick Santorum, even though you know he has no chance to beat Obama.  (Though he’s a great Catholic guy, he was so intimidated by the Virginia ballot process that he simply slunk away without even trying to give Virginians the option of voting for him.)  You love Michele Bachmann’s personal story, her faith, and her great conservative ideas.  Yet, she too doesn’t seem up for the job.  You briefly flirted with Newt — that’s okay.   Who hasn’t?But after the news of all of his affairs, his ethical violations, and his incompetence, you can’t bring yourself to voting for the guy either.

The most competent candidate, by far, is Mitt Romney.  He’s more conservative than George W. Bush, he is a champion of traditional marriage, pro-life issues, and — oh yeah — he can turn an economy around.

There’s that one nagging little thing…

I’ll never forget the day when my husband David told me about the exciting Presidental candidate named Mitt.  “He’s a Mormon.”

“Oh,” I said.  “Too bad we can’t vote for him.”

“Why?” David asked innocently, though I was incredulous.   Wasn’t the answer obvious?

“I’ll never vote for a Mormon,” I said, flabbergasted he’d even consider it.  After all, I was raised in the Church of Christ, had attended the charismatic Times Square Church in New York City, and – at the time – went to the conservative Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia.  I tithed, had been baptized in a summer camp swimming pool when I was twelve, knew all the verses of How Great Thou Art, and had Pyrex dishes with my name written on the bottom in Sharpie specifically for benevolence casseroles.

Though I didn’t know many Mormons well, I was sure I wouldn’t like them.  After all, their commercials on television were ridiculously earnest.  Who runs in the back yard with their family while blowing bubbles in slow motion?  Please.

However, in a matter of days, I went from objecting to his candidacy to unabashedly supporting it, so I thought I would share how I went from being completely opposed to unabashedly supportive of this particular Presidential candidate.  Here’s what helped me:

1. In spite of our theological differences, evangelicals and Mormons are already political allies. In fact, if Mormons weren’t consistently more conservative than their evangelical neighbors, Al Gore would be America’s president now and California Proposition 8, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling that permitted gay marriage, would’ve failed. In fact, we owe them a great deal for their steadfast consistency on moral issues The sometimes squishy evangelical church, tossed by every trend, is responsible for electing Barack Obama.

2. Romney’s faith doesn’t indicate that he’s gullible. Let’s face it.  All religions require a leap of faith that appears silly to outsiders. If a reporter questioned me about my religion, he’d raise an eyebrow over my belief that Noah was a floating zookeeper, that Jesus was the best sommelier in Galilee, and that he paid taxes with coins from a fish’s mouth.  No one belongs to the Church of the Scientific Method, so religion falls outside normal reasoning. Gov. Romney’s beliefs certainly require faith – including his quite miraculous notion that Jesus is his personal Savior. In my experience, evangelicals loathe religious litmus tests.  That’s what Democrats do, when they try to disqualify Christian and Catholic judges because of their beliefs.  The same people who would disqualify a Mormon would disqualify me, citing the same list of “this person can’t be a serious thinker if she believes this miraculous stuff.”  And as far as gullible goes, don’t forget that Mitt Romney has two Harvard degrees.

3. Baptists don’t have the best track record, either.  John Mark Reynolds once wrote that “my faith in the holiness standards of Baptists survived Clinton and my belief in their sanity survived Carter, though that was a closer call.” In fact, should we taint all Baptist Presidential candidates with the legacy of recent Baptist leaders – i.e. Clinton’s moral failure, Carter’s weak foreign policy, Johnson’s social programs, and Gore’s use of the word “lock box.” Of course not.  Evangelicals should evaluate candidates on their own political merits.

4.  Evangelicals do not historically vote for the “most Christian” person on the ballot. When Jimmy Carter (a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher) ran against Ronald Reagan, evangelicals correctly voted for the divorced Hollywood actor.  After all, he was the one who would best represent their values.  Similarly, in 2012, we should look for the candidate who will most effectively represent our values by beating Obama and being a good advocate for our social positions.  Gov. Romney is that candidate.

5. Electing a Mormon will not create a surge of support for that religion.  My husband David put it best when he wrote:

I think it’s fair to say that Barack Obama hasn’t done much for Jeremiah Wright’s now-famous “black liberation theology,” and George Bush’s well-known evangelical beliefs likely repelled as many people as they attracted. In fact, I can’t think of a single president that had a discernible impact on the theological beliefs of our citizens. And that makes sense. Presidents aren’t pastors. We don’t look to presidents for pastoral guidance but instead for national leadership. We don’t think, “I like those Bush tax cuts. I think I’ll check out the Methodist church.”

Applying these same lessons to Mormons, does watching Harry Reid make you want to talk to a Mormon missionary? How about when you fly JetBlue? During a smooth, comfortable flight do you use the in-flight Wi-Fi to surf LDS.org? Does a particularly elegant turndown service at a high-end Marriottput you in the mood to download the Mormon Tabernacle Choir’s greatest hits? If you’re a sports fan, did watching Steve Young connect with Jerry Rice make you complete an application to BYU?

6.  You don’t have to agree with the LDS faith to support Gov. Romney.  If the Romneys agreed with my religion, they would be conservative Presbyterians.  If we believed theirs, we’d be Mormons.  There’s nothing wrong with definitively saying that there are religious differences between the two.  There obviously are, and you don’t have to defend Mormonism to pull the lever for Gov. Romney.

Reports show that Rick Santorum — the only candidate not to have experienced a surge so far — might be earning the evangelical votes in Iowa.

So, to all of my evangelical friends in Iowa, I know where you’re coming from. I understand that your hesitation comes from a well-meaning desire to protect the gospel and to honor God in all aspects of your life.  However, God has something to do with salvation, can safeguard the integrity of the gospel without our feeble, frequently self-righteous help, and wouldn’t hang the validity of Christianity on whether or not we voted for Mitt Romney for President.

If you still have questions, or are concerned about his track record on abortion, gay marriage, or Romneycare, please visit www.EvangelicalsforMitt.org, where we have sorted through the issues so you can make an informed decision in 2012.

Please, Iowa Evangelicals, let Bob Vander Plaats know that you can think for yourselves and that you aren’t going to let Iowa select a person who’ll guarantee another four years of Obama.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,