DATE: Monday, September 22, 1997            TAG: 9709220044

SECTION: FRONT                   PAGE: A1   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: BY TONY WHARTON, STAFF WRITER 

                                            LENGTH:  378 lines

FOR COALITION, A SHIFT FROM THE MAINSTREAM? "I WANT A WINNER" IN THE 2000 ELECTION, ROBERTSON SAYS, AND APPEARS TO MOVE FOCUS BACK TO CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES

``Moderates lose.''

With those two words in Atlanta, Pat Robertson signaled an apparent shift in the Christian Coalition's strategy for the presidential election in 2000.

The coalition does not endorse candidates. But in 1996, it was widely perceived that Ralph Reed, then executive director, was trying to put his group's clout behind Bob Dole for the Republican presidential nomination. Candidate Pat Buchanan's staff publicly said so. Reed has denied that.

At the very least, Reed wanted to position the coalition in the mainstream of American politics, dealing with issues like taxes and the budget along with abortion and home schooling.

The tension for Christian conservatives is this:

One strategy, which many believe Reed pursued in 1996, is to support a candidate who already draws moderate voters and can also attract Christian conservatives.

The other, which Robertson is now clearly expressing, is to support a candidate who has enthusiastic support from Christian conservatives and will draw moderate voters to him with that message.

Now Reed has left the coalition to start his own consulting firm, Century Strategies, in Atlanta. And within months of his exit, Robertson, the coalition's founder, is telling coalition leaders how he wants to proceed.

``We have had a couple of so-called moderates,'' Robertson told a private gathering during the annual ``Road to Victory'' conference in Atlanta last weekend. ``And moderates lose. You know. They lose. And we've had two major losers and I don't want any more losers, I want a winner.''

Robertson said he wants the coalition to emphasize Christian conservative issues and unite behind ``somebody who reflects our values and has the stature to be president.''

Robertson's remarks were surreptitiously taped by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which released a transcript Wednesday and focused on what it meant for the coalition's tax-exempt status.

But his comments may tell more about the direction of the Chesapeake-based group in the next three years, approaching the presidential election.

``This is a tension that's existed in the Christian Coalition from the very beginning,'' said James Guth, a political science professor at Furman University in South Carolina who has studied the religious right for nearly 20 years. ``If you look at the rhetoric of Robertson and Reed, you saw this tension over candidates and platforms.

``Reed had kind of graduated to a pluralistic vision of conservative Christians as part of the ideological mix, where Robertson has stayed with the basic idea of returning to a Christian America.''

Reed could not be reached for comment.

Robertson said in Atlanta that he wants a gloves-off approach with the Republican Party: ``With an election year coming up, you don't have to be modest and timid the way you talk. . . . We're not going to be crazies and make everybody mad.

``But we're going to say, `Gentlemen, it's time. You know, our time has come. This is what we want and we're going to demand it.' I think we've been far too reluctant.''

And despite the coalition's protests that it does not endorse a candidate, Robertson said it must unite behind one person. Too often, he said, coalition votes have been split among too many candidates in a primary: ``We need to be like a united front. I know that all these laws say that we've got to be careful, but there's nothing that says we can't have a few informal discussions among ourselves.''

That would be good news for Dan Quayle, who seems likely to run, has solid Christian conservative credentials, and probably will woo the coalition. It would make it less likely that the coalition's members would back someone like Steve Forbes, whose message is primarily economic.

The coalition itself is unwilling to interpret Robertson's remarks. Asked whether they indicated a shift from Reed's philosophy, coalition spokesman Arne Owens said last week, ``I would let his words speak for themselves on that point. . . . He shared his personal views on the political landscape. He promoted his personal assessments of where we stand as an organization.''

Barry Lynn, director of Americans United, said it's important to remember that Robertson's audience was the people who run the coalition's state operations. That, he said, makes the speech something more than simply Robertson's personal assessment.

``He first wants someone who is ideologically pure, someone for whom there is no question the nominee's agenda is Robertson's agenda,'' Lynn said. ``Second, he's not going to let someone in Louisiana like Pat Buchanan and someone in Montana like Dan Quayle. It has to be whoever the coalition agrees upon.''

Mark Rozell, a political scientist at American University in Washington, said this issue isn't unique to the coalition.

``There's a lot of tension now in the Christian right after Dole's loss, over this pragmatic strategy and whether it really delivers the goods,'' said Rozell, who wrote a book on the movement in Virginia.

No one, he said, should conclude that Robertson wants an ideologically pure candidate more than he wants to win elections.

``Robertson's not saying, `Let's go out there on a quixotic crusade, let's dump pragmatism and commit political suicide,' '' Rozell said. ``He's smarter than that. He genuinely believes a more consistent Christian candidate, with a clear message, will fare better in the election.

``Pat Robertson cares deeply about winning elections. Sometimes critics don't give their opponents enough credit.''

Guth said he thinks the Christian conservative philosophy is swinging back:

``It's coming back in Robertson's direction and, frankly, the direction of many of the members. Reed always was facing accusations that he was accommodating too much.'' ************ ``Moderates lose.''

With those two words in Atlanta, Pat Robertson signaled an apparent shift in the Christian Coalition's strategy for the presidential election in 2000.

The coalition does not endorse candidates. But in 1996, it was widely perceived that Ralph Reed, then executive director, was trying to put his group's clout behind Bob Dole for the Republican presidential nomination. Candidate Pat Buchanan's staff publicly said so. Reed has denied that.

At the very least, Reed wanted to position the coalition in the mainstream of American politics, dealing with issues like taxes and the budget along with abortion and home schooling.

The tension for Christian conservatives is this:

One strategy, which many believe Reed pursued in 1996, is to support a candidate who already draws moderate voters and can also attract Christian conservatives.

The other, which Robertson is now clearly expressing, is to support a candidate who has enthusiastic support from Christian conservatives and will draw moderate voters to him with that message.

Now Reed has left the coalition to start his own consulting firm, Century Strategies, in Atlanta. And within months of his exit, Robertson, the coalition's founder, is telling coalition leaders how he wants to proceed.

``We have had a couple of so-called moderates,'' Robertson told a private gathering during the annual ``Road to Victory'' conference in Atlanta last weekend. ``And moderates lose. You know. They lose. And we've had two major losers and I don't want any more losers, I want a winner.''

Robertson said he wants the coalition to emphasize Christian conservative issues and unite behind ``somebody who reflects our values and has the stature to be president.''

Robertson's remarks were surreptitiously taped by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which released a transcript Wednesday and focused on what it meant for the coalition's tax-exempt status.

But his comments may tell more

about the direction of the Chesapeake-based group in the next three years, approaching the presidential election.

``This is a tension that's existed in the Christian Coalition from the very beginning,'' said James Guth, a political science professor at Furman University in South Carolina who has studied the religious right for nearly 20 years. ``If you look at the rhetoric of Robertson and Reed, you saw this tension over candidates and platforms.

``Reed had kind of graduated to a pluralistic vision of conservative Christians as part of the ideological mix, where Robertson has stayed with the basic idea of returning to a Christian America.''

Reed could not be reached for comment.

Robertson said in Atlanta that he wants a gloves-off approach with the Republican Party: ``With an election year coming up, you don't have to be modest and timid the way you talk. . . . We're not going to be crazies and make everybody mad.

``But we're going to say, `Gentlemen, it's time. You know, our time has come. This is what we want and we're going to demand it.' I think we've been far too reluctant.''

And despite the coalition's protests that it does not endorse a candidate, Robertson said it must unite behind one person. Too often, he said, coalition votes have been split among too many candidates in a primary: ``We need to be like a united front. I know that all these laws say that we've got to be careful, but there's nothing that says we can't have a few informal discussions among ourselves.''

That would be good news for Dan Quayle, who seems likely to run, has solid Christian conservative credentials, and probably will woo the coalition. It would make it less likely that the coalition's members would back someone like Steve Forbes, whose message is primarily economic.

The coalition itself is unwilling to interpret Robertson's remarks. Asked whether they indicated a shift from Reed's philosophy, coalition spokesman Arne Owens said last week, ``I would let his words speak for themselves on that point. . . . He shared his personal views on the political landscape. He promoted his personal assessments of where we stand as an organization.''

Barry Lynn, director of Americans United, said it's important to remember that Robertson's audience was the people who run the coalition's state operations. That, he said, makes the speech something more than simply Robertson's personal assessment.

``He first wants someone who is ideologically pure, someone for whom there is no question the nominee's agenda is Robertson's agenda,'' Lynn said. ``Second, he's not going to let someone in Louisiana like Pat Buchanan and someone in Montana like Dan Quayle. It has to be whoever the coalition agrees upon.''

Mark Rozell, a political scientist at American University in Washington, said this issue isn't unique to the coalition.

``There's a lot of tension now in the Christian right after Dole's loss, over this pragmatic strategy and whether it really delivers the goods,'' said Rozell, who wrote a book on the movement in Virginia.

No one, he said, should conclude that Robertson wants an ideologically pure candidate more than he wants to win elections.

``Robertson's not saying, `Let's go out there on a quixotic crusade, let's dump pragmatism and commit political suicide,' '' Rozell said. ``He's smarter than that. He genuinely believes a more consistent Christian candidate, with a clear message, will fare better in the election.

``Pat Robertson cares deeply about winning elections. Sometimes critics don't give their opponents enough credit.''

Guth said he thinks the Christian conservative philosophy is swinging back:

``It's coming back in Robertson's direction and, frankly, the direction of many of the members. Reed always was facing accusations that he was accommodating too much.''

``I want a winner'' in the 2000 election, Robertson says, and appears to move focus back to Christian conservative candidates.

``Moderates lose.''

With those two words in Atlanta, Pat Robertson signaled an apparent shift in the Christian Coalition's strategy for the presidential election in 2000.

The coalition does not endorse candidates. But in 1996, it was widely perceived that then-director Ralph Reed was trying to put his group's clout behind Bob Dole for the Republican presidential nomination. Candidate Pat Buchanan's staff publicly said so. Reed has denied that.

At the very least, Reed wanted to position the coalition in the mainstream of American politics, dealing with issues like taxes and the budget along with abortion and home schooling.

The tension for Christian conservatives is this:

One strategy, which many believe Reed pursued in 1996, is to support a candidate who already draws moderate voters and can also attract Christian conservatives.

The other, which Robertson is now clearly expressing, is to support a candidate who has enthusiastic support from Christian conservatives and will draw moderate voters to him with that message.

Now Reed has left the coalition to start his own consulting firm, Century Strategies, in Atlanta. And within months of his exit, Robertson, the coalition's founder, is telling coalition leaders how he wants to proceed.

``We have had a couple of so-called moderates,'' Robertson told a private gathering during the annual ``Road to Victory'' conference in Atlanta last weekend. ``And moderates lose. You know. They lose. And we've had two major losers and I don't want any more losers, I want a winner.''

Robertson said he wants the coalition to emphasize Christian conservative issues and unite behind ``somebody who reflects our values and has the stature to be president.''

Robertson's remarks were surreptitiously taped by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which released a transcript Wednesday and focused on what it meant for the coalition's tax-exempt status.

But his comments may tell more about the direction of the Chesapeake-based group in the next three years, approaching the presidential election.

``This is a tension that's existed in the Christian Coalition from the very beginning,'' said James Guth, a political science professor at Furman University in South Carolina who has studied the religious right for nearly 20 years. ``If you look at the rhetoric of Robertson and Reed, you saw this tension over candidates and platforms.

``Reed had kind of graduated to a pluralistic vision of conservative Christians as part of the ideological mix, where Robertson has stayed with the basic idea of returning to a Christian America.''

Reed could not be reached for comment.

Robertson said in Atlanta that he wants a gloves-off approach with the Republican Party: ``With an election year coming up, you don't have to be modest and timid the way you talk. . . . We're not going to be crazies and make everybody mad.

``But we're going to say, `Gentlemen, it's time. You know, our time has come. This is what we want and we're going to demand it.' I think we've been far too reluctant.''

And despite the coalition's protests that it does not endorse a candidate, Robertson said it must unite behind one person. Too often, he said, coalition votes have been split among too many candidates in a primary: ``We need to be like a united front. I know that all these laws say that we've got to be careful, but there's nothing that says we can't have a few informal discussions among ourselves.''

That would be good news for Dan Quayle, who seems likely to run, has solid Christian conservative credentials, and probably will woo the coalition. It would make it less likely that the coalition's members would back someone like Steve Forbes, whose message is primarily economic.

The coalition itself is unwilling to interpret Robertson's remarks. Asked whether they indicated a shift from Reed's philosophy, coalition spokesman Arne Owens said last week, ``I would let his words speak for themselves on that point. . . . He shared his personal views on the political landscape. He promoted his personal assessments of where we stand as an organization.''

Barry Lynn, director of Americans United, said it's important to remember that Robertson's audience was the people who run the coalition's state operations. That, he said, makes the speech something more than simply Robertson's personal assessment.

``He first wants someone who is ideologically pure, someone for whom there is no question the nominee's agenda is Robertson's agenda,'' Lynn said. ``Second, he's not going to let someone in Louisiana like Pat Buchanan and someone in Montana like Dan Quayle. It has to be whoever the coalition agrees upon.''

Mark Rozell, a political scientist at American University in Washington, said this issue isn't unique to the coalition.

``There's a lot of tension now in the Christian right after Dole's loss, over this pragmatic strategy and whether it really delivers the goods,'' said Rozell, who wrote a book on the movement in Virginia.

No one, he said, should conclude that Robertson wants an ideologically pure candidate more than he wants to win elections.

``Robertson's not saying, `Let's go out there on a quixotic crusade, let's dump pragmatism and commit political suicide,' '' Rozell said. ``He's smarter than that. He genuinely believes a more consistent Christian candidate, with a clear message, will fare better in the election.

``Pat Robertson cares deeply about winning elections. Sometimes critics don't give their opponents enough credit.''

Guth said he thinks the Christian conservative philosophy is swinging back:

``It's coming back in Robertson's direction and, frankly, the direction of many of the members. Reed always was facing accusations that he was accommodating too much.''

``Moderates lose.''

With those two words in Atlanta, Pat Robertson signaled an apparent shift in the Christian Coalition's strategy for the presidential election in 2000.

The coalition does not endorse candidates. But in 1996, it was widely perceived that Ralph Reed, then executive director, was trying to put his group's clout behind Bob Dole for the Republican presidential nomination. Candidate Pat Buchanan's staff publicly said so. Reed has denied that.

At the very least, Reed wanted to position the coalition in the mainstream of American politics, dealing with issues like taxes and the budget along with abortion and home schooling.

The tension for Christian conservatives is this:

One strategy, which many believe Reed pursued in 1996, is to support a candidate who already draws moderate voters and can also attract Christian conservatives.

The other, which Robertson is now clearly expressing, is to support a candidate who has enthusiastic support from Christian conservatives and will draw moderate voters to him with that message.

Now Reed has left the coalition to start his own consulting firm, Century Strategies, in Atlanta. And within months of his exit, Robertson, the coalition's founder, is telling coalition leaders how he wants to proceed.

``We have had a couple of so-called moderates,'' Robertson told a private gathering during the annual ``Road to Victory'' conference in Atlanta last weekend. ``And moderates lose. You know. They lose. And we've had two major losers and I don't want any more losers, I want a winner.''

Robertson said he wants the coalition to emphasize Christian conservative issues and unite behind ``somebody who reflects our values and has the stature to be president.''

Robertson's remarks were surreptitiously taped by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which released a transcript Wednesday and focused on what it meant for the coalition's tax-exempt status.

But his comments may tell more about the direction of the Chesapeake-based group in the next three years, approaching the presidential election.

``This is a tension that's existed in the Christian Coalition from the very beginning,'' said James Guth, a political science professor at Furman University in South Carolina who has studied the religious right for nearly 20 years. ``If you look at the rhetoric of Robertson and Reed, you saw this tension over candidates and platforms.

``Reed had kind of graduated to a pluralistic vision of conservative Christians as part of the ideological mix, where Robertson has stayed with the basic idea of returning to a Christian America.''

Reed could not be reached for comment.

Robertson said in Atlanta that he wants a gloves-off approach with the Republican Party: ``With an election year coming up, you don't have to be modest and timid the way you talk. . . . We're not going to be crazies and make everybody mad.

``But we're going to say, `Gentlemen, it's time. You know, our time has come. This is what we want and we're going to demand it.' I think we've been far too reluctant.''

And despite the coalition's protests that it does not endorse a candidate, Robertson said it must unite behind one person. Too often, he said, coalition votes have been split among too many candidates in a primary: ``We need to be like a united front. I know that all these laws say that we've got to be careful, but there's nothing that says we can't have a few informal discussions among ourselves.''

That would be good news for Dan Quayle, who seems likely to run, has solid Christian conservative credentials, and probably will woo the coalition. It would make it less likely that the coalition's members would back someone like Steve Forbes, whose message is primarily economic.

The coalition itself is unwilling to interpret Robertson's remarks. Asked whether they indicated a shift from Reed's philosophy, coalition spokesman Arne Owens said last week, ``I would let his words speak for themselves on that point. . . . He shared his personal views on the political landscape. He promoted his personal assessments of where we stand as an organization.''

Barry Lynn, director of Americans United, said it's important to remember that Robertson's audience was the people who run the coalition's state operations. That, he said, makes the speech something more than simply Robertson's personal assessment.

``He first wants someone who is ideologically pure, someone for whom there is no question the nominee's agenda is Robertson's agenda,'' Lynn said. ``Second, he's not going to let someone in Louisiana like Pat Buchanan and someone in Montana like Dan Quayle. It has to be whoever the coalition agrees upon.''

Mark Rozell, a political scientist at American University in Washington, said this issue isn't unique to the coalition.

``There's a lot of tension now in the Christian right after Dole's loss, over this pragmatic strategy and whether it really delivers the goods,'' said Rozell, who wrote a book on the movement in Virginia.

No one, he said, should conclude that Robertson wants an ideologically pure candidate more than he wants to win elections.

``Robertson's not saying, `Let's go out there on a quixotic crusade, let's dump pragmatism and commit political suicide,' '' Rozell said. ``He's smarter than that. He genuinely believes a more consistent Christian candidate, with a clear message, will fare better in the election.

``Pat Robertson cares deeply about winning elections. Sometimes critics don't give their opponents enough credit.''

Guth said he thinks the Christian conservative philosophy is swinging back:

``It's coming back in Robertson's direction and, frankly, the direction of many of the members. Reed always was facing accusations that he was accommodating too much.'' ILLUSTRATION: Color file photo

HUY NGUYEN/VIRGINIAN-PILOT

``Moderates lose. You know. They lose,'' Pat Robertson said. ``And

we've had two major losers and I don't want any more losers, I want

a winner.'' Now that Ralph Reed is no longer executive director,

Robertson is telling Coalition leaders how he wants to proceed.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu