Skip to comments.Romney Falling Victim to Voters' Religious Discrimination
Posted on 10/30/2007 12:08:40 PM PDT by delacoert
Sometimes things happen in American politics that make no sense at all. We are experiencing just one of those moments in the 2008 presidential campaign.
I thought that the concept of a religious test for public office in our country was put to bed once and for all when John Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected president in 1960 and Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, was nominated for vice president in 2000.
Now we have a candidate with a record of accomplishment, Mitt Romney, who is consistently lagging in the polls with the most credible reason being that significant numbers of Republican primary voters will not support him because of his Mormon religion.
When voters, particularly in the South, are asked to identify candidates that they would not support for president under any circumstances, Romney leads the list. Romney is rejected as a potential presidential candidate in this type polling more often than other polarizing figures such as Rudy Giuliani. It has become increasingly clear that many conservative voters will not support an otherwise qualified candidate who happens to be a Mormon.
As a Democrat, I wouldnt vote for Romney in the general election if he is nominated by the Republican Party. But Ill be damned if I can understand why he should be disqualified from seeking his partys nomination because of his religion. This makes no logical sense in the worlds greatest democracy in the 21st century.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Wow, we should really pay attention to this guy's views on Republican candidates.
Then you were really, really stupid, weren't you, Bud?
Kind of sad, really.
>>I thought that the concept of a religious test for public office in our country was put to bed once and for all when John Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected<<
That’s foolish thing to say in light of polls that say something like 80% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.
No joke, the problem with Romney is not that he’s a mormon, but that he, until 2 weeks before running for office was a:
liberal from Taxachussets.
His road-to-Damascus switch-a-roo is just too obviously a lie.
I’d choose Romney on his worst day over a democrat.
Of course, missing from this piece of awful analysis is the simple understanding that Romney was a hard leftwinger for 35 years, until he suddenly realized he needed conservative votes if he was ever going to win the Republican presidential nomination.
Romney is being rightfully rejected, not because of his membership in the LDS church, but because of his record as a liberal.
Disqualified? Since when? Last I saw, he is still in the race. Individual voters are free to choose who they will or will not support for any reason they choose. That is not "disqualifying". In order for Romney to be disqualified due to a religious test, the government would have to prevent him from running. That has not and will not happen.
Know what? People can vote, or not vote, for someone based on anything. If they think the space aliens from Pluto have replaced Candidate X’s brain, they’re free to not vote for him whether or not Candidate X’s brain is alien-free. If they don’t like the name he gives his pet aardvark, or the color of shoes he wears, or his underwear type.
It may or may not be a stupid reason but give up with these moronic “how dare voters make a decision based on factors that matter to them and not to me” articles already, drive by morons!
I know I’m convinced of that.
Hmmm, why would conservatives not want to vote for a guy who is not? Hmmm... hmmm... hmmm... oh I’ve got it. He’s Mormon.
What a blithering idiot. (idiot is my favorite word of the week) Next week it will be democrat, but then that’s cheating. The two words are interchangable.
His worst day? Like the day he signed a permanent assault weapons ban? Or the day he implemented gay marriage? Or the day he signed socialized medicine into law, complete with taxpayer-funded abortions? Or one of his other "worst" days?
Not even Hillary had so many "bad days."
Romney’s problem is not that he is a Mormon (I actually think for most conservatives that is a plus...not all but most). Mitt’s problem is that he has a record showing he is a big government moderate with a liberal social agenda.
When voters, particularly in the South, are asked to identify candidates that they would not support for president under any circumstances, Romney leads the list.
Romney supporters.... bwahahaha! It doesn't say just Republican voters, it doesn't say just Southern voters, it says voters. Period.
Ask Joe Lieberman what democrats were saying about his being jewish in 2004 when he ran.
The party of tolerance the democratic party was not.
Mitt is doing very nicely and I know of no person who won't support him because of his religion....at least he has one.
It's not about religion, it is about his liberal tendancies and flip-flopping on critical issues.
Oooooooho, one clever little Democrat is this Frost. Feel free to e-mail him about his propaganda piece.....firstname.lastname@example.org
Romney has more than one problem as a candidate. I don’t see how you can separate one from another. It may not be his religion, but if voters are not sure about him, and they are uncomfortable about his religion, that might tip them over to vote for someone else.
A candidate is the whole package, accomplishment and problems. If Romney was solid on issues, I doubt most voters would have a problem with his religion. If he has a problem, it is that people don’t see him as solid.
No, I don't think so. Look at #16.
People will not vote for him because he is a Mormon. People’s idea of being Christian if fairly limited to Protestant, Catholic and Jewish denominations and possibly Islam all before (well before) Latter Day Saints. The years have not been good in terms of PR for them.
I think his problem isn’t that he is Mormon, but rather that he isn’t Mormon enough. I tend to think of Mormons as socially conservative to a fault, but with Reid as the current Mormon of power, maybe I need to re-think things.
Or is it people that are wholly underwear have strange bed fellows!
Or is it people with holes in their underwear have strange bed fellows!
That is strange and a bit insincere that the Mormons are now attempting to pretend the symbols aren’t Masonic. Still, if he were a consistent conservative, I wouldn’t care that he has special drawers.
Martin Frost isn’t trying to help Republicans; he’s trying to paint Republicans as “intolerant” and “bigoted.”
1. He'll be the easiest Republican for Hillary to beat (probably carrying only the state of Utah).
2. Or, if he does happen to win, he's the most acceptable of the GOP slate of candidates (Dims seem to realize, like most of us, that he'll flip on all his conservative promises he's lied about).
I think you are on to something. It seems most posters agree.
I really wonder if people won’t vote for him because he’s Mormon. Maybe the problem is, he’s not Mormon enough...
Wow! Somebody got ahold of EVERY primary ballot & crossed his name off?
(Sometimes, what passes for "journalism" is exactly why FREEPERville has a steady dinosauer media drum beat)
“Id choose Romney on his worst day over a democrat.”
I totally agree! How about Romney/Hunter?
OK, beyond not being to point to anywhere that any formal "religious test" exists, this writer needs to "do the math."
I believe LDS doesn't have all that many more voters in the U.S. than say, Muslims. So say a Muslim runs for POTUS.
There's no "test" for Muslim candidates, either. Still, such a candidate would need to convince Christian voters that when his faith labels such Christian voters as "infidels," somehow he is not part of that infidel-labeling faith.
Likewise, any LDS candidate needs to convince Christian voters than when his faith labels all Christian voters as "apostates," somehow he is not part of that apostate-labeling faith.
You and EV must read the same BS - your statements are incorrect!!
First off, “discrimination” in anything is not a bad thing because it means simply being able to distinguish a significant difference — rather than a purely arbitrary one, which is prejudice.
People who cannot discriminate this essential difference between “discrimination” and “prejudice,” should not parade their ignorance on media programs as though they were somebody who should be listened to — on any matter requiring discernment and discrimination in these matters.
They just seem like pompous assholes repeating slogans somebody has fed into them, thinking they are thinking for themselves — or should be thinking for anybody else.
“Like the day he signed a permanent assault weapons ban?”
He never did that. He signed an NRA-supported bill that corrected flaws in the 1998 AWB. If he had not signed that bill, the AWB would have still been in place and worse.
” Or the day he implemented gay marriage?”
He never did that, it was the Massachusetts state supreme court that declared Massachusetts already allowed it (never mind the lack of reasoning for the ruling, but they did it).
Romney opposed gay marriage forcefully from the get go, worked to get the lege to act, and was prevented from resisting implementation by the lib Dem AG.
” Or the day he signed socialized medicine into law”
What he supported was designed by the conservative Heritage foundation. It’s a plan that puts universal coverage available via private insurers, not ‘socialized medicine’. He had to compromise w/ Mass libs on it, but his plan proposed now works on market and federalist principles.
In truth, Mitt Romney is one of our best chances to have a mainstream conservative Governance in the White House in 2009. There is a lot of hyperbole in the attacks on Mitt Romney based on selective distortion of his fiscal conservative and pro-family record as Mass Governor.Not a right winger, but hardly a Hillary either.
We’ve only been around this track about 50 times EV, but that is how I see it. Romney will make a good President.
Says the n00b romney supporter. There sure are a lot of them on FR these days.
Romney will beat Hillary like a rented mule.
“Or, if he does happen to win, he’s the most acceptable of the GOP slate of candidates” - No, that’s Rudy.
Frost wants to peg the GOP as bigots if they dont go for Romney, while stirring up a reason against him if he does. Waste of ink. The fact is that there very few people out there who are truly anti-mormon bigots who actually give a d*mn about it. He says Jesus Christ is his savior; his mormon theology aint sound, but neither is your average lesbian Episcopalian bishop who’s ready to worship St Gore and calls Christ rising a ‘metaphor’. This is an overrated issue. Romney is a decent family man with his values on course in Judeo-Christian tradition. That’s what matters and that is what most voters will vote on.
meandog, dont worry about Romney, you wont go for him anyway ... you just worry about stopping that flip-flopping tax-hiking socialist Hillary boy Mark Warner from becoming the next VA Senator. That vile man needs to be run out on a rail before he votes for Hillary’s pro-abort anti-2nd-A judicial nominees. WE need to get behind a real conservative like Gilmore.
There is no way in Hades I will ever vote for some slick, double talking, flip-flopping fake, whose personal religious practice is at best, this side of Satan worship — but enough about Rudy. I’ve got no problem with Romney.
Oh, boo hoo hoo. Who cares what a Democrat thinks about the GOP?
I want Mitt Romney to explain how he got elected in MAssachussets.
And what does he base that on other than his desire to suggest that Republicans are discriminating based on religion?
Romney's problem is that he has a history of being liberal, and is now professing to be a conservative. What he has done in the past, doesn't match what he is saying now.
The same is true for Rudy, but Rudy gets a boost from name recognition from his wonderful acting job following 9/11.
Romney has been courting the Evangelical leaders...
HOWEVER, Dr. Wilton had a change of heart...Romney Loses Evangelical Endorsement
Five days after the endorsement it was withdrawn.
One wonders if Dr. Wilton received a heated response from fellow Baptists.
Likewise, any LDS candidate needs to convince Christian voters than when his faith labels all Christian voters as “apostates,” somehow he is not part of that apostate-labeling faith.
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.