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 wouldn’t vote for Romney in the general election if he is nominated by the Republican Party. But I’ll be damned if I can understand why he should be disqualified from seeking his party’s nomination because of his religion. This makes no logical sense in the world’s 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:
Pro-abortion
HillaryCare
Anti-Gun
Pro-Gay
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.
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.