Posted on 03/14/2012 6:37:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In state after state, evangelicals have sent Mitt Romney a clear message: We’re just not that into you.
Some evangelicals do pull the lever for Romney. But consistently there is a wide gap between Romney’s support among evangelicals and his support among other groups. On average, there is a 19-point difference between Romney’s support among non-evangelicals and his support among evangelicals in Republican primaries, according to ABC News’s survey of primary states with exit- or entrance-polling data available.
That’s a sizeable gap — and one that has complicated Romney’s path to the nomination.
Evangelical leaders are dismissive of the notion that Romney’s faith is alienating a significant chunk of evangelical voters, though they acknowledge that it may be influencing a small number. Gary Bauer, president of American Values and a Rick Santorum supporter, points out that Mormons are key political allies. “In the war over the kind of country we are, evangelicals and serious Catholics and Mormons tend to be all on the same side of the public-policy issues that are being debated in a campaign,” he says.
Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, thinks that the Mormon issue was already hashed out in 2008. “While Romney is not going to get some evangelicals’ votes as a result of it, I don’t think that it’s a significant factor at all,” he says, adding that Jon Huntsman’s run also helped. “The fact that you had two Mormons in the race just made it less of a novelty.”
Reed says other factors account for this gap. “I think the bigger issues have been his record as a governor of Massachusetts — especially Romneycare — and the fact that he’s running in a primary against candidates who have been much more identified with the issues and values of voters of faith,” he says.
Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent social-conservative activist in Iowa and head of the Family Leader, also highlights Romney’s record in Massachusetts. “We hear today that’s he pro-life, but we also hear that when he was governor he put in $50 co-pay abortions in the state,” he says. “We hear today that God’s design for marriage [is] one man, one woman, yet he basically presided over same-sex marriage in the state.”
The Romney campaign defends the ex-governor’s record on both matters, arguing that Massachusetts law and past court decisions made it illegal for a health-care plan not to fund abortions, and noting that Romney pushed for a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman after same-sex marriage was legalized by the Massachusetts supreme court. But it’s likely Vander Plaats is not alone in his view of Romney’s record on these issues.
“There’s a trust gap,” Vander Plaats adds. “I think a lot of us conservatives feel that he will morph into who you want him to be depending on which campaign he’s in.”
Bauer agrees that some may be concerned that Romney’s position switches aren’t authentic. However, he argues that the larger problem Romney faces is that even voters who are willing to believe he has sincerely changed his views are wary of his willingness to passionately fight on those issues. Evangelicals, Bauer observes, are doubtful that values issues “would play much of a role in the expenditure of political capital or energy in his administration.”
Referencing Mitch Daniels’s call for a “truce” on social issues, Bauer argues that it’s the Left, not the Right, that is more aggressively fighting the culture wars — and that Romney is having trouble persuading voters he has enough fire in his belly to fight back. “There’s this lack of confidence that he will make the case in these inevitable flare-ups persuasively and passionately — like he means it,” Bauer remarks.
But Romney’s biggest problem when it comes to wooing evangelicals may be something outside of his control: his rivals. “He’s got tough competition, particularly in Rick Santorum,” observes Richard Land, director of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “Rick Santorum’s a tremendously appealing candidate to evangelicals because of his uncompromising pro-life and pro-family stands for many, many years.”
Reed agrees that Santorum’s candidacy poses challenges to Romney’s quest for evangelical votes, noting that Santorum’s “deep and profound faith gives him an emotional connection” with such voters.
Nonetheless, while Romney may not be connecting with a majority of evangelical voters, he doesn’t usually need to. “Unless it’s Iowa or South Carolina or Oklahoma, Romney needs to get about a third of these voters to win these primaries. He doesn’t need to get a majority, he doesn’t need to get a plurality,” Reed notes, pointing to the fact that Romney won one out of every three evangelical voters in Michigan and Ohio. “If Rick gets half that vote or a little more, and Romney gets a third of that vote, Romney is eking out victory, which is what he did in Michigan and Ohio.”
But even if there is a path to Tampa that doesn’t involve gaining significantly more evangelical support, Romney will nevertheless need every vote he can get in the general election. Even a slight decrease in the evangelical turnout could be hugely problematic, says Bauer, who predicts 2012 will be a “base election” and notes that if even 1 to 3 percent of voters stay home on Election Day that could “throw one state or another in the wrong column.”
Vander Plaats raises a different concern: Evangelicals might vote, but not volunteer for the campaign. “There’s a big difference in having someone vote against Barack Obama versus voting enthusiastically for Mitt Romney,” he remarks. “Because if it’s an enthusiastic vote, they’ve done the door-knocking, the phone calls — [they’ve been] influencing their network.”
Other evangelical leaders disagree, arguing that evangelical voters will be energized by their determination to prevent a second Obama term. “Whatever concerns they may have about Mormonism are trumped by their heightening fears of what may lay in store in a second Obama administration,” Land says.
Reed agrees. “I don’t think you can underestimate the extent to which millions of evangelicals believe that preventing a second Obama term is a moral imperative,” he says. “There has never been an administration in U.S. history more hostile to the values held by conservative people of faith than the Obama administration”
What Romney can do, say faith leaders, is try harder to woo evangelicals. “He could help himself a lot if he would get into a fight with the president or somebody on the Left over a values issue,” says Bauer. “He says the right thing when he’s asked about these things, but it’s almost always when he’s asked.”
If Romney becomes the nominee, there are additional steps he could take, including picking a running mate who appeals to evangelicals. He could opt to highlight issues dear to evangelicals in his convention speech: Reed thinks Romney should include more of the kind of talk that he had in his CPAC speech, in which he talked about his opposition to embryo harvesting and his efforts to fight for the restoration of traditional marriage in Massachusetts.
The fact that Santorum will have had his moment could also boost Romney’s standing among evangelicals in the general election. “I actually think that Santorum particularly getting a chance to have a full shot at it may actually benefit Romney, because social conservatives will feel like they had a fair shot, and they lost,” Land says. “And that will make it easier for them to unite around Romney than if they felt like they were double dealt out of a fair chance.”
There are signs, too, that evangelicals aren’t so much opposed to a Romney presidency as they simply prefer his rivals. In Virginia, for instance, where neither Santorum nor Gingrich was on the ballot, Romney won 62 percent of the evangelical vote.
And for Romney, the last general election carries a hopeful precedent.
“McCain similarly did very poorly among evangelicals throughout the primary,” remarks Reed, pointing out that evangelicals preferred Mike Huckabee. And McCain had done himself no favors with evangelicals by calling Jerry Falwell one of “the agents of intolerance” in the United States in 2000.
“Going into the general against Obama, you would have thought this was going to be a problem,” Reed says of McCain’s difficulties. Instead, McCain — who had apologized to Falwell in 2006 — won evangelicals more handily than one of the most religious candidates in recent history. “By the time we got to November,” says Reed, “McCain won a higher percentage of the evangelical vote than George W. Bush did in 2000.”
— Katrina Trinko is an NRO reporter.
Sounds like it is time for you to leave Mormonism.
Like it or not both Reid and Romney are considered ‘worthy priesthood holders’. Yet, LDS historian Grant Palmer was disciplined and threatened not to promote his book, when he was a faithful member. Why the disconnect? Could it be that the GA’s are NOT lead by the Lord?
I’m being completely honest when I say I understand the draw of Mormonism, but life in Christ outside of Mormonism is SOOOO much better. Shed the religion and come to the Christ of the Bible. You will be set free.
Those talking head evangelicals don’t speak for me at all. Romney could stand on his head and quote the bible and it won’t impress me.
He is a liberal.
Some little gesture like arguing with Obama or picking a conservative VP matters not at all. It’s just more “grit’s and y’all” posturing.
I know it. Everyone knows it.
He is NOT getting my vote, GOP. Period.
Interesting.
Both Reid and Romney have received awards for being “good mormons” from BYU.
There is nothing with either of them has done that violates mormonism.
They are who they are because of mormonism.
If you find yourself at odds with them, maybe mormonism isn’t for you and you should find a Bible believing Sprint filled church group.
Because Reid and Romney are mormonism.
As far as Romney using missionaries and BYU students at his rallies, why would that surprise you?
As far as any decent mormon respecting Romney the vote of lds to Romney is 94-98% depending on the exit poll.
Romney from the moment he was born has been propelled to this point in time by his family (mostly his father) and SLC lds corporation, all you have to do is go back through his life and see how stories about him have been spun to give him an almost god like status.
My lds family beleive he is the answer to the white horse prophecy.
The Romney Campaign? When will it ever be able to tell the full truth? They are still uttering the lame line that "Massachusetts law and past court decisions made it illegal for a health-care plan not to fund abortions," but what's the full story behind that?
When Mittbots were uttering this line back in '08, I said even back then: Under normal circumstances, this would be a half truth they were telling. But since abortions due to rape & incest are significantly less than 1% of all abortions, their truth telling in this instance was of an equal percentage.
So let's explain the Romney Campaign referencing the courts: Since Medicaid-funded abortions included rape & incest, the Bay State had to pay for those abortions involving rape & incest. That's it. Not 100% of all abortions.
So what kind of practical impact did RomneyCare have upon taxpayer-funded abortions in the Bay State?
When we go back to the '08 campaign debates, Mitt Romney was on record saying:
(A) "Commonwealth Care" mandated insurance for the 7% of Bay State residents who did not have insurance.
(B) One-fourth of those who lacked insurance in the Bay State--almost 2% of the population--were earning $75,000 or more.
So, then, RomneyCare came along and offered $50 abortions by subsidizing almost 2% of the female population who were earning $75,000 or more (women who were NOT covered by the court mandate -- as it dealt with Medicaid funded abortions)...
...and another 2% to almost 3% of the female population were likely women above or around the Medicaid border for receiving such assistance.
Translation: 4-5% of the female population in MA can thank RomneyCare for getting cheap abortions for which they were not eligible under Medicaid-provisions pre-RomneyCare.
Bottom line: Even excluding abortions in MA tied to rape and incest, RomneyCare's been the likely DIRECT ties "sponsor" of 1 out of every 20-25 abortions in the Bay State for these almost six years.
So pro-abortionists can tout: Mitt Romney, the deep-coffers DI-rect source of dismembering 1 in 20-25 babies in the Bay State.
And, of course, that all = guilt by actual association: Even pro-life Massachusetts taxpayers have been funding a fair number of abortions! (All thanks to Mitt Romney!)
I am descended from a Mormon leader & have MANY Lds relatives whom I love.
I am disgusted with the General Authorities hiding under their desks with respect to Romney and Reid. Neither of them should be considered to be members in good standing for a number of positions that they have taken as politicians...By the way, on a recent visit, I discussed the problems I have with Reid as regards his worthiness with the Home Teachers. Their response was that the entire Ward was up in arms that Reid had not already been excommunicated!!!
I appreciate your forthrightness.
I also think its a disgrace for Romney to use groups of missionaries and BYU students to “populate” his rallies. There is just nothing about Romney that any decent Mormon should respect
(Yet we see with great consistency -- Western States' Mormons voting 88% to 95% for Romney ... looking @ exit polls both in '08 & '12...For these past 5 yrs., I've supported the right of Lds voters to vote as they please...but doesn't this then reflect upon the "identity politics" & the "gumbyness" even with Mormon voters?)
The idea that Romney is destined to be “called” to be a member of the Twelve causes me to shudder. He personifies the biblical passage: “though they draw near to me with their lips, their hearts, they are far from Me.”
Well, again, I appreciate your frankness. I guess my first response upon reading this last phrase is that what you are citing is a paraphrase of both Isaiah 29:13 and Matthew 15:8 -- YET the wording you actually cite isn't "biblical" but an almost word-for-word quote from another source -- Joseph Smith and his first vision, which is Lds "scripture" (Joseph Smith - History - Pearl of Great Price, v. 19)
You can see the distinctions below...but I'm not going "technical" on you. I have another responsive point to make...You don't have a very good response to Romney, as we can see...and yet to "size up" your response to him, you cite an almost word-for-word phrase (v. 19 of the First Vision) which happens to describe the bottom-line Mormon response to how they view US as Christians in Christian sects.
IOW, just as you are not describing Romney in any kind of "flattering" way, yet Mormons as the bottom-line foundation of their faith (the "First Vision") describe us Christians in exactly -- precisely -- the same way. So how are we supposed to respond to Mormons' less-than-flattering description of us?
Source: Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith - History: Chapter 1 vv. 18-19
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)÷and which I should join. 19 I was answered that I must join NONE of them, for they were ALL wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were ALL corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me"...
You can see, Smith was paraphrasing Isaiah 29:13 and Matthew 15:8:
* ...this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me... (Isaiah 29:13)
* This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. (Matt. 15:8)
While I am no fan of Mormonism, I respect you for taking a stand and pointing out Reid and Romney and the duplicity of your Church’s leadership. In that regard you are not alone we have that in many other faiths.
I really could not respond to all the doctrinal issues you raise. My concern with Romney (and Reid) is that they are (or have been at one time or another) pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. Mormons joined with Catholics here in California to fund and pass the “Defense of Marriage” Proposition that was just tossed by a Gay Federal Judge. So how does that square with the actions of these two men? Mormons are as close as can be to Catholics when it comes to then sanctity of human life. Having children is one of the major tenets of Mormonism. So how could any “good Mormon” support abortion as did Romney as governor of MA? Of the two, Romney is the one who has no value system (or probably his “value system” is money). He will twist in the wind and pander to become president, so you have no assurances as to how he will govern. Reid is, in my opinion, (again from Mormon Doctrine) one of the Sons of Perdition. This is the man who bankrolled his first campaign with money from Joe Conforti, the then owner of the Mustang Ranch Brothel, and now wants to make prostitution in Nevada illegal. In very real terms, Reid has been much more destructive than his counterpart in the House, Nancy Pelosi. He will twist and turn rules and process to such an extent as to make them unrecognizable. He is an out and out Marxist and I don’t believe Marxism is compatible with Mormonism.
Sorry, but Mitt's not POTUS "marriage material." Doesn't matter what kind of "courtin'" he trots out; the issue isn't what he does or doesn't do political campaign-wise...the issue is who he is -- and all that he stands for (abortion; waffling; wishy-washy; flip-flop; "I am a god"; idolatry; cultic; occultic; superstitious -- magic underwear; a poor role model -- advocating that people "do all they can do" to trigger God's grace -- 2 Nephi 25:23, Book of Mormon; etc.)
Well, Ralph Reed fumbled on his homework...here Romney was talking about embryonic harvesting, yet what did Romney tell Katie Couric in early December 2007 a full year into his so-called "pro-life campaigning"???
Dec. 5, 2007:
Couric: So what kind of embryos - embryos that are created for procreation and then would be discarded? Are those the ones that you feel are perfectly fine from which to cull cells for stem cell research?
Romney: Yes, those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. Those EMBRYOS, I hope, could be available for ADOPTION for people who would like to ADOPT embryos. But if a PARENT DECIDES they would want to DONATE ONE OF THOSE EMBRYOS FOR PURPOSES OF RESEARCH, IN MY VIEW, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. IT SHOULD NOT BE MADE AGAINST THE LAW.
Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes
So here we have Ralph Reed, advocating that Romney should stress his schizophrenic "pro-life" views on embryos
-- where one sentence Romney is pro-adoption of embryos...
...something that can occur via the Snowflake process [Google "Snowflake" and embryos]...
...and the very next sentence Romney is advocating that "PARENTS decide" -- "decide" being another word for "choose" or "pro-choice"
-- "donating" [euphemism]...
...embryos for "purposes of research"...
Hmmm... Mitt...do you want to "donate" one of YOUR sons for "purposes of research"???
What utter gall!
And how bad does it have to get for us to allow Ralph Reed to continue to be a conservative spokesman when he makes absolutely critical errors in judgment as to what he advocates!
(Yes & I have complimented Lds for that...In fact, it wasn't only Prop 8...but there was a Prop in CA in 2000 that defined Marriage as between one man & one woman...and Mormons were at the forefront of supporting that as well)
So how does that square with the actions of these two men? Mormons are as close as can be to Catholics when it comes to then sanctity of human life. Having children is one of the major tenets of Mormonism. So how could any “good Mormon” support abortion as did Romney as governor of MA? Of the two, Romney is the one who has no value system (or probably his “value system” is money). He will twist in the wind and pander to become president, so you have no assurances as to how he will govern. Reid is, in my opinion, (again from Mormon Doctrine) one of the Sons of Perdition. This is the man who bankrolled his first campaign with money from Joe Conforti, the then owner of the Mustang Ranch Brothel, and now wants to make prostitution in Nevada illegal. In very real terms, Reid has been much more destructive than his counterpart in the House, Nancy Pelosi. He will twist and turn rules and process to such an extent as to make them unrecognizable. He is an out and out Marxist and I don’t believe Marxism is compatible with Mormonism.
Well, I appreciate your outspokenness here...rare among Lds FREEPERS. I still think I've seen too much "sanctity of life" ambiguity amongst Lds...on the one hand, you would think the doctrine of the pre-existence would make them THE most "pro-life" people on the planet...yet Lds Hierarchy allow for exceptions such as...
...protecting the incest perpetrator,
...if the baby is disabled,
...if mom's health -- not just life -- is at risk [a huge gap you can drive a truck thru]...
...if the abortionist says it's "OK"...
...and if the Mormon god says it's "OK"...which brings God into the equation via subjective prayer response as a party to violent dismemberment...
Therefore, all Romney & Reid have done is to expand upon these huge exceptions [and those last three are the BIGGEST open-ended exceptions]
Well, I find it interesting that -- even apart from a heavy "doctrinal" discussion -- that your "gut-check" response to Romney is to cite Mormon "scripture"...the very SAME Mormon "scripture" that Mormons use to describe us Christians.
And this very verse that you quoted -- v. 19 of the Pearl of Great Price -- claims that we Christians are are "ALL corrupt."
So the very parallel here is that you see Romney as "corrupt"; and if you buy into that passage, YOU and all Mormons see us ALL Christians as "corrupt." [Unless you reject your own "scripture"...which I doubt, since you just cited it in post #18!]
Likewise, you see Romney's lack of convictions as having a heart far from God; yet if you buy into the passage you quoted -- and I assume you do...otherwise you wouldn't be quoting it here in this thread -- YOU and all Mormons see us Christians as having a heart far from the Mormon gods.
And thirdly, you see Romney's lack of bedrock formal convictions as perhaps being abominable; and the passage you cited on this thread tells us that ALL of the creeds we Christians embrace are likewise "abominable."
What I'm saying Vette is that you can't cite a Mormon "scripture" that applies to us Christians -- and apply it to Romney -- without the hammer coming down on us Christians as well as Romney!
You are the one who opened the "doctrinal" discussion here by citing verse 19 of Joseph Smith - History -- Pearl of Great Price.
And not only did Joseph Smith not "flatter us..." in v. 19...
...but you don't flatter us as well by describing Mitt Romney with the exact same phrase you Mormons tithe with [printing/translating] to spread all over the world as a description of us Christians worldwide.
Can you see why -- from v. 19 alone -- that there can NEVER be unity of Mormons & Christians as "brothers in Christ"...until my Lord brings men and women out of Mormonism?
he doesn’t subscribe to the most basic tenets of Mormonism.
___________________________________________
Oh yes he does...
Hes got his magic undies on...24/7
several times on the stump Mormon bishop and high priest Willard Mitt Romney has said “I believe in my Mormon faith” and “I believe in the faith of my fathers”
He has never denounced polygamy which is the basic tenet of Mormonism...
and is “the faith” which his fathers practiced..
a couple had 12 “wives”
Romney is a temple Mormon from a “royal” Mormon family...
They dont come much more Mormon than the Romneys...
Why do you think the Mormon hierarchy are pushing and supporting his campaign ???
Salt Lake City has very deep pockets Hundreds of BILLIONS
Theyre throwing money at Romneys campaign like theres no tomorrow...
I laugh every time I read “Romneys short of money” “Romney only has ...left”
LOL
I heard through the grapevine that Grant Palmer has officially resigned about two weeks ago. I’m not sure if the paperwork has been completed yet. I hope to receive confirmation of this soon. It was posted on NOM http://www.newordermormon.org/
Yeah, he did resign but only because he was told he needed to come to another ‘court of love’ and would be excommunicated because he gave an interview and the show promoted his book “Insiders view of Mormon Origins”. I heard the interview where he announced his resignation. I can find a link for you if you want it.
. “He could help himself a lot if he would get into a fight with the president or somebody on the Left over a values issue,” says Bauer. “He says the right thing when he’s asked about these things, but it’s almost always when he’s asked.”
If your Aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle.
Mormons are as close as can be to Catholics when it comes to then sanctity of human life. Having children is one of the major tenets of Mormonism. So how could any “good Mormon” support abortion as did Romney as governor of MA?
- - - - -
Why does the church handbook of instructions say that abortion is ok if it is prayed about if they are truly pro=life?
And why has the LDS church softened their language about homosexuality in the CoI, given an openly gay man the calling of Stake Secretary, and promoted pro gay policies in SLC?
One last thing, I was on the front lines of the prop 8 fight in Palm Springs (high gay area), and it was the Catholics and Evangelicals (a group you didn’t mention) who where working hard and funding it. The LDS weren’t involved or supporting it in that area anywhere I saw. I also know one LDS couple who are temple worthy who support gay marriage because they see it as opening up the return of polygamy.
The LDS church is changing and becoming more liberal which poses a problem for a church that claims it is the restoration of ‘true Christianity’. Why are they caving?
The problem with Romney is that he's not trusted because his rhetoric doesn't match his record.
It's okay, I just didn't know if you knew.
Individual mormons maybe prolife, mormonism is not prolife at best it is antiabortion.
All you have to do is read the official stance, and the last line in essence says if you pray about it and god (lds god) says its ok, its ok.
That V is not prolife.
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.