Skip to comments.Romney pal takes blame for dust-up</p><p>LDS Church denies claim it backs Mitt
Posted on 10/23/2006 5:53:17 AM PDT by Utah Binger
Romney pal takes blame for dust-up LDS Church denies claim it backs Mitt
A longtime friend and major campaign contributor of Mitt Romney took the blame Sunday for a politically damaging controversy about the Massachusetts governor reportedly seeking LDS Church help setting up a nationwide network of Mormons to advance his expected 2008 presidential bid. "I'm to blame for this whole mess," Romney confidant Kem Gardner told The Salt Lake Tribune, saying characterizations of what were "innocent" discussions between the governor, who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and church officials were "unfortunate."
The Boston Globe printed e-mails Sunday from a Romney political adviser, recounting a meeting with Gardner and Romney's son, Josh, about efforts to garner church support for a program to organize Mormons in support of a Romney campaign. In the e-mails, Don Stirling, a paid consultant for Romney's political action committee, told Sheri Dew, the chief executive officer of LDS Church-owned Deseret Book Co., that church President Gordon B. Hinckley and a top lieutenant, James E. Faust, were aware of the effort and raised no objections - a claim strongly denied by the LDS Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Anyone with a brain knows that the LDS church and its leaders want Mitt Romney to be president.
And they will do what they can to help that effort.
Next time they will just be more secretive about it.
The Globe then clearly annuciates their opinion on relgion and politics: "Non-Catholics were unduly fearful that the worldly Kennedy would take orders from the Vatican." In other words, he was Catholic in name only, so it was OK. Heaven forbid that any Presidential candidate actually believes this religion stuff! Ewwww!
How would you know what the LDS church and its leaders want? If you really knew anything about these matters you would know that the LDS Church does not endorse particular political candidates.
Silly questions deserve no answers.
I agree. Why should anyone care if the LDS faithful support one of their own and would like to see him succeed? Any other religious or ethnic group would behave no differently. It's embarassing to watch people deny the obvious, but I do understand the sensitivity issues the LDS church faces if it's accused of throwing its substantial weight around in the primaries.
I've met with high level leaders of the church. So what? President Clinton met with high level leaders of the church during campaigns. But Utah is the only place in the nation where Clinton came in third, behind Perot. The church leaders allow lots of courtesy calls.
The governor of Utah is a stalwart member of the Church. His grandfather was a general authority. He has endorsed McCain.
Stories like these are all nasty innuendo.
PS. I have been against Romney's candidacy for this very reason. I don't think he can win because the evangelical base will either oppose him or stay home. But, in the meantime, the church will take all kinds of undeserved shots.
I don't support Gov. Romney for the presidency, and if he's the Republican nominee, it is unlikely that I'll vote for him.
That being said, I just don't see what's such a big deal about this. If the folks of the Latter Day Saints want to organize and support his candidacy, well gee whiz, that's what politics is about.
This is ridiculous. There is no need for any "secret" or underhanded meetings with mormon officials. Given the choice, mormons will support mormons without any influence or urging from leaders.
Because this isn't about reason. This is about gut-level, ignorant religious bigotry.
I am LDS and do not care much for Mitt Romney, since he seems to Left leaning. On the other hand we have people in Arizona complaining that the LDS church isn't political enough. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1719323/posts Just can't win.
Could you clarify what the "undeserved shot" is?
I don't think we have "substantial weight" anywhere but Utah and Idaho. And Mitt wouldn't need a special organization in either of those states. Everybody knows he is Mormon. If the Mormons are inclined to vote for him because of religion, they will do that without any special organization. And, whoever is the ultimate Republican nominee will carry those states without any special organization.
This series of articles, trying to paint the Church as some kind of dark political conspiracy.
Plus, all the stupid things people say about our theology.
Yeah, don't you get it!? It's a vast Mormon conspiracy, man!
I would say the emails tend to show that the senior members of the church were involved in plans to help Romney's election.
The church can't publically endose anyone, unless they are willing to give up their tax-exempt status.
I don't understand why they would do that. Mormons will vote for Mitt.
I suspect it's more about "rainmaking" campaign funds than motivating voters.
I dare say that 90% of Mormons in good standing who are older than 25 have, at one point in their lives, met with a "high-level" person in the LDS Church.
I think you are paranoid.
And what difference would it make if some of the leaders of the Mormon Church supported Romney? Is that a crime?
"And what difference would it make if some of the leaders of the Mormon Church supported Romney? Is that a crime?"
Umm, no. No crime.
Why deny it? I fully expect his son to support him! But to deny the reasons for the meeting is silly. Whats wrong with the truth?
Jeff Holland granted a courtesy meeting with some Romney staffers. The staffers ran the idea of contacting BYU Management Society members past him, probably to see if would cause problems for the Church. I suspect that Mitt is a member of the BYU Management Society, or that his backers in Utah are. Everyone who is running for office uses the networks they belong to.
I suspect that the Mitt backers were being deferential to the Church's concerns because they know how adamant the Church is about political neutrality. We've had the neutrality statement read to us in church before every election for years now. We're not even supposed to use our ward lists for campaigning.
Once in a while, the Church gets involved in a political issue when an important moral issue is at stake, like gay marriage. I also know a law professor at BYU who has been involved for years in emerging democracies in Eastern Europe and in the Third World, where constitutions are being drafted, trying to make sure that guarantees of religious freedom are included. When the Church gets involved in political matters, they do it openly.
But to suggest that somehow the Church, as an institution, is going to "secretly" mobilize for Mitt Romney is just ridiculous.
Thanks for the clarification. You're right. Even where there are not a lot of us, we can usually mobilize a fair number of people who know how to work and who are interested in protecting constitutional liberties.
I fully expect the Church to support Mitt as much as possible!
And I don't think there is anything wrong with that!
I tend to think the emails were accurate. Unless someone can prove that they weren't.
My problem is the denials.
I don't think the church leaders are lying about what was said, to whom.
Shhhhhhh before the romney brigade calls you a bigot.
LOL. Why would they call me a bigot? I'm a Mormon. I just don't want to get all the anti-Mormon bigots riled up for what I see as a lost cause.
Mormons have not always been in the Republican camp. During the 30's and 40's the majority of members and their non-member neighbors were Democrats and voted that way. My parents and grandparents thought FDR was a minor deity. In the 70' and 80's many members saw the light and went right. Now they are solid conservatives, but no one in authority told them to go in that direction. They simply learned the facts and chose correctly. Would that the rest of the nation were as well informed about the real issues and the political facts of life.
Some will, some won't. It all depends on (1) what kind of campaign he runs and (2) who else is running.
I am a "Mormon" who is not especially impressed by Mitt Romney. I certainly would not vote for him merely because he belongs to the same church as I do. (Harry Reid purports to be a "Mormon" too, and I would not vote for him.)
If Romney is the most conservative choice, I will support him. Otherwise, I will not.
Well this "brainless" person disagrees with you. I can't imagine why in the world the LDS church leadership would want a Mormon in the white house...or even the long path to get him/her there.
I can tell you this. Salt Lake is a hot bed of wanna-be liberals. They mostly are that as a measure of being against the church plus the idiot Rocky Anderson has them "Hood-Winked". (pun intended) I really do not understand their thinking. I met Mitt last winter at a speech he was doing there. While I wouldn't vote for him if he were running against a Reagan or Goldwater Republican, I would certainly vote for him against Hitlery or Obama.
He's very smooth...maybe too smooth, however in a debate he would massacre almost any opponent. And no, I'm not a member of the church. I made the post as a slight tease to a couple of my Mormon friends. I hope nobody was offended.
Dear top 2 toe red,
"Does this mean you'll vote for Hillary or Obama instead, or you are staying home? Just curious."
No. The likelihood is that if both major parties nominate a liberal, I'll vote third-party.
But that bridge is a bit of a ways from having to be crossed.
For now, I'll just see who runs, and push the person I think is the best person for the nomination. I'm a little skeptical that a liberal could get the Republican nomination.
Most Mormons I know are more conservative than Romney. They are Republican usually by default... or the more enlightened among us... Constitutionalist... ;-)
Biggest minus: A smarmy New England image.
Biggest plus: He's actually shown he can run a business, make a payroll and balance a budget. Something very few candidates have shown in the last few years.
Another plus: Ties to the bluest of the blue states and the reddest of the red states. I think he is electable if he picks a solid conservative, preferably a governor and preferably from the south, as veep.
Oh, and were you in attendance?
How do you know this to be true? Lots of Mormons in Nevada did not support or vote for Reid for the Senate and he's a Mormon (although a weird one, to be sure)..
Oh, and what's it to you Mr. bigshot?
Just trying to figure out how you know what happens in Mormon meetings, that's all, but I'm not a "big shot" yet.
I have a brain, and I am very well acqainted with Utah politics and the LDS Chruch.
The LDS Church is scrupulously and thoroughly neutral on political candidacies.
Individual members of the LDS Church are another matter. They are overwhelmingly Republican and will likely support Romney by margins of 9 to 1--not because he is LDS but because he honestly reflects their values.
They supported the non-LDS George W. Bush by similar margins and for similar reasons.
Only Democrats would dare to imply that's a crime against nature.
Really? I'm in one of the most politically attuned and well-connected stakes and wards in the entire LDS Church and absolutely nothing of a political nature was brought up in priesthood meeting in our ward yesterday.
Guess you had to be there.
My Parents and Grand Parents thought that FDR had the Mark of the Beast.
They are not going to help him behind the scenes.
I've been involved in enough political campaigns in Utah to know first-hand that the LDS Church does NOT assist partisan candidates whether directly or indirectly.
RINO? No question, but better for us than Hitlery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.