Hoekstra endorsed by controversial figures

With polls showing U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra holding a slight lead in the GOP gubernatorial race, and money tight, experts say he is turning to trusted — but controversial — conservative allies to shore up his bid to replace Gov. Granholm in the governor’s office.

Last week, Hoekstra’s campaign hosted campaign rallies featuring former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Michael Farris, head of the Home School Legal Defense Association and one of the most powerful and influential religious right leaders.

Both men have a long history of advocating provocative, and some say regressive, ideas.

Hoekstra’s relationship with Gingrich dates back to the 1994 Republican revolution and the Contract With America. Hoekstra writes on his House website that he “served a key role in the development of the Contract with America, which was instrumental in gaining a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.”

Gingrich, as a result of the Contract with America revolution, rose to become Speaker of the House. After leaving the House, Gingrich has served as a political commentator and caused a stir with the publication of his new book that compares President Obama to communist and fascist leaders.

In that book Gingrich wrote that “Obama’s secular-socialist machine” poses “as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did” — a claim that has brought condemnation even from some conservative media figures. Fox News’ Chris Wallace recently called that position “wildly over the top.”

Michael Farris, founder of Patrick Henry University and the Home School Legal Defense Fund, is not as widely known by the public as Gingrich but he is a major power broker on the religious right with a long history of advocating a muscular form of Christian theocracy.

For instance, Farris was a steering committee member of the Coalition on Revival (COR), an openly theocratic group that works to support policies that “practically implement the Biblical and Christian Worldview.”

In addition to Farris, the COR steering committee included people like R.J. Rushdoony, the deceased leader of Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates that the Constitution and the civil and criminal law of the United States be replaced by the Mosaic code from the Bible — including stoning to death homosexuals, unruly children and women who are not virgins on their wedding day. In fact, the steering committee was a virtual Who’s Who of Reconstructionists, including Gary North, Gary DeMar and Joseph Morecraft.

While Farris has publicly said that is not a Reconstructionist himself and that he is not a Reconstructionist himself and that he does not favor “should enact the Old Testament law right down to the rules for conducting trials,” he has advocated enforcing at least some types of Biblical law in the United States in his own writings.

In a book called “Where Do I Draw the Line?” Farris claimed that “the founders of this country believed that the principles of God’s word should be used in our nation.” But rather than citing the men who wrote the Constitution, he cited colonial laws that preceded the founding of the United States — and especially the First Amendment.

“The laws of Massachusetts once proclaimed that ‘The ordinances of Jesus Christ shall be enforced by the magistrate in every community,’” he wrote. Which is true, but that was when Massachusetts was a colony controlled by a king who claimed to rule by divine right. The U.S. Constitution, and the First Amendment in particular, outlawed such a religious establishment in this country.

Pointing to the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a model for enforcing religious law supports the idea that Farris advocates a theocracy rather than a free society. In that colony, only Puritans had religious freedom. Baptists, Quakers, Catholics and other dissenters were exiled, jailed and even put to death for preaching the wrong brand of Christianity.

Rhode Island was famously founded by Roger Williams after he was exiled from Massachusetts; he became a staunch advocate of separation of church and state and was highly influential on the Founding Fathers when writing the First Amendment.

Michigan Messenger emailed Hoekstra campaign spokesperson Sara Sendrek to ask if Farris’ and Gingrich’s views reflected the Congressman’s own views.

“Congressman Hoekstra has the support of a very diverse and bi-partisan group of individuals from Michigan and from across the country,” Sendrek responded. “He is grateful for the support of so many people from different backgrounds and beliefs. He is running this campaign on his record and on his experiences. His record and opinions speak volumes about what he believes.”

But proudly announcing the endorsements of Gingrich and Farris after they have taken such controversial positions has progressive leaders asking questions.

“We need to know what his position is and he needs to come out form behind this shield where he is trying to hide his narrow right wing political agenda,” says David Holtz, executive director of Progress Michigan.

But political watcher and pundit Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics and former Republican lawmaker, says that such endorsements are an accurate reflection of Hoekstra himself.

“He’s a Dutch Christian Reform conservative from West Michigan,” Ballenger said. “Even though he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve that much — he’s a nice guy and it doesn’t strike you as his being a member of the far right wing fringe — that is kind of his basic background and value system.”

And a look at Hoekstra’s voting record, as perceived by major conservative organizations, places Hoekstra among the most consistent social conservatives in Congress.

According to Ontheissues.org, Hoesktra has an A rating from the National Rifle Association and a 100 percent rating from each of the following: The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the United States Border Control, and the National Right to Life Committee. He scored 88 percent from the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Liberal groups hold a similar view. The Human Rights Campaign, a national group lobbying for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, has rated Hoekstra with a zero, while the NAACP has rated him 19 percent and the ACLU has rated him at 27 percent.

The National Education Association has rated him at nine percent, the League of Conservation Voters has rated Hoekstra at 10 percent, and the AFL-CIO gives him only 23 percent. As one would expect, he also was rated with a zero by NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In short, Hoekstra’s voting record shows a committed social conservative with a mostly fiscal conservative voting record.

For Ballenger, the in-state visits and endorsements by Gingrich and Farris are about political tactics in a tight Republican primary where all the candidates are desperate to raise funds. And while Hoekstra is top of the polls, GOP opponent Mike Cox has blasted him with commercials alleging Hoekstra is not fiscally conservative.

Businessman Rick Snyder used the grudge match between Cox and Hoekstra to take a swing at both through a television commercial and even Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, who has consistently trailed in the polls, has started buying TV ads. And despite his lead in the polls, Hoekstra has been trailing in the fundraising race and is having a difficult time responding in kind.

“I think he is looking for every edge and every advantage he can get that will send a message to likely Republican primary voters who are very conservative,” Ballenger said. “He doesn’t have a way to get this message out with money. So this is free media tactic. He is going to bring in people who have a real following and are known in socially and culturally conservative circles and are going to have some influence. They gotta help him where he can’t help himself in the way he wants to be helping himself.”

Hoekstra had planned on using state campaign matching funds, but that plan was destroyed when the state announced that it was unable to match funds at the planned levels.

That move by the state, Ballenger says, ought to be challenged in court. But, he notes, Republicans — particularly primary voters — don’t have a particular affinity for public financing of elections, preventing Hoekstra from leading the charge on the issue.