It was bound to happen — Mitt Romney’s evangelical fan club.

I should point out that conventional thinking is that Mitt will be be crucified by the evangelical community as they do not consider Mormons to be real Christians.

On the Why page they say “ a values-based governing strategy will result in a more humane, just, and compassionate society.”

My first question is, you guys have an evangelical president now, but I don’t see a more compassionate society as a result of this one (Bush). I see the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, unprecedented gov’t corruption (turns out Abramoff has made seven visits to the white house), rejection of an increase in the minimum wage, and God knows how many dead and injured innocent Iraqi children (short list).

If Mitt were just a nice guy, we’d have a more compassionate society than with this evangelical president.

I actually think Mitt would make a great president. His intelligence is undisputed. His business acumen and leadship skills are proven, and if he did nothing to inject compassion into his political leadership, we would be far better off than we are now.

They address the Momon issue this way:

Yes, Gov. Romney is a Mormon. We are not. According to the liberal media, this is an unbridgeable gap, and evangelicals will never turn out to support a faithful Mormon like Mitt Romney. As usual, the media have it wrong. And they root their error (as usual) in a fundamental misunderstanding about American evangelicals—seeing us as ignorant and intolerant simpletons who are incapable of making sophisticated political value judgments…. we disagree with him profoundly on theological issues. But we reject the notion that the president of the United States has to be in perfect harmony with our religious doctrine.

As for the fact that Romney supports a woman’s right to choose..

“Clearly, one can be a convert on the abortion issue. Witness Ronald Reagan,”

This is Mitt’s dilemma. If he switches his position, he’ll get nailed for it.

Interestingly, in their summary, they say “He, like us, is pro-life because he wants to support the weakest and most defenseless members of society.” (I asume they’re talking about the un-born as opposed to the living) This coming from the very same crowd that labels anyone who’s pro-choice, pro-abortion, which I have always resented. Nobody is pro-abortion. It’s encouraging to discover that at least some evangelicals are willing to comprise on fundamental theological issues and acknowledge that you can be both pro-choice and pro-life. Maybe one day they’ll respect a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health decisions and leave our gays friends alone.

My concern is the “values-based governing strategy” as described by the web site. I decided to google it to get a sense of what that means. I found nothing to contradict my assumption that “values-based governing strategy” is in this case, code for perpetuating the attack on the gay community women’s reproductive rights as opposed to say sustainable growth, protecting the environment etc. Nevertheless, I did find a few juicy nuggets worth reading, so I left it below the fold.

I couldn’t find any evidence of Mitt’ acknowledgement of these guys. I’m not sure they’re doing him any favors.
Some results from googling “governing strategy”

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/05/11/conservatives_abandon_bush.html

“Bush and Congress have suffered a decline in support from almost every part of the conservative coalition over the past year, a trend that has accelerated with alarming implications for Bush’s governing strategy.”

‘Moral Majority’ cofounder and conservative direct marketer Richard A. Viguerie

“Karl Rove and George Bush, when they came to the White House, they seemed to have a one-word strategy for governing and re-election: bribery. In other words, if you have votes, we have the money, let’s talk.”

From a blog post written Nov, 2 2004 (good article)

“Kerry, if he wins, would understand all the obstacles,” Mann said. “The question is, would he be able to craft a governing strategy that crosses party lines? That’s a formidable task. As for Bush, if he wins, he will feel affirmed. So he would aim big. But because of the climate of the last four years, he’d have a mess on his hands.”