Posted on 04/18/2012 6:23:36 AM PDT by Wolf13
It's often taken for granted that Christian conservatives' uneasiness with Mormonism best explains why Mitt Romney has struggled to win-over those voters.
In Inside the Circus, a new e-book about the 2012 campaign by Politico's Mike Allen and Evan Thomas, the Romney campaign is depicted as so consumed with worry that the candidate's faith would hurt him with the evangelicals that dominated the Iowa caucuses that it failed to anticipate Rick Santorum's rise. "Part of the reason for the ceiling [of support], quite frankly, is the Mormon thing," a Romney aide told the authors. "If he was even an Episcopalian, he'd be better off today."
Negative perceptions of Mormonism so worried Romney's 2008 presidential team that, according to Politico, "the dilemma had its own acronym in campaign power point presentations: TMT (That Mormon Thing)."
Of course, Romney's ideologically malleability and political opportunism -- not his faith -- has always been his biggest liability with conservatives. But the Mormon angle allowed the media to portray conservatives as bigoted theocrats.
The media's preoccupation with anti-Mormon sentiment on the right has distracted from what is arguably a much more pervasive anti-Mormonism on the secular left.
Reams of polling data make clear that anti-Mormonism is not exclusively, or even predominantly, a problem on the right. A 2011 Gallup poll found that 27% of Democrats said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon of their own party for president, 50% more than the 18% of Republicans who felt that way. In a Quinnipiac survey, 46% of Democrats said they wouldn't be comfortable with a Mormon president, while 29% of Republican respondents felt similarly.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Good for them!
I refuse to be taken in by theater. Any disagreement between Romney and the left is only a show.
I will decide for myself who’s right and who’s wrong, based on the reality of what they’ve done.
Not based on something made into a show by the elitist RINOs for the purpose of controlling the vote.
If only he were a Moslem, everything would be fine.
I’m joking - if a politically-conservative Moslem candidate emerged, suddenly his religion would be anathema to the left, too. But then they might be beheaded and stuff, and that would be a fun game.
You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.....but it’s too late now for the GOP, they’re stuck.
Does this mean that the Liberals are helping us get Newt (or Palin) installed in the White House?
So they would rather have a closet Muslim than a Morman in the white house. Funny I don't remember any Morman terrorists flying airplanes into buildings.
There's the money quote.
Funny, because Free Republic is probably one of the most anti-Romney sites on the right. I can count on one hand the number of anti-Romney posts based on the man’s religion. My disgust for Romney and his moderate sycophants is probably the same as other FReepers. It has nothing to do with Mitt’s Mormonism and a whole lot to do with his support for big government and social liberalism. The man is a freaking Democrat posing as a Republican.
It simply proves that Obama’s folk hate religion.
Sound it from the rooftops.
It means there are liberals who think they need to campaign against Romney for Obama’s sake, and that the RINO elitists want to use this as a way to stir up conservative support for Romney.
We obviously need to wrest Senate control away from the Mormon.
OTOH the Dems love the Mormonism of Harry Reid.
And to think, Harry Reid’s Mormonism has somehow gone under the radar all these years.
That whole crowd of otherwise smart people simply have no idea how to be Republicans. It's like they just flew in from Mexico or something.
Obama isn’t an Imam. Mitt is a morman bishop. Similar in rank to a Catholic Cardinal.
Also, Islam isn’t a multi-theistic belief.
The GOP is being punked.
Mountain Meadows defines todays Mormanism like the Inquisition defines Catholicism
Romney simply isn't a Conservative, nor a very good Republican. That's his first two or three problems.
Exactly. We have a very small number of anti-Mormon trolls, and I often wonder if those few posters are plants to make us look like bigots. Anti-LDS bigotry is the opposite of valuing individualism, a trait that characterizes real conservatism. I am not LDS, but it's Romney's big government liberal political beliefs that make him unacceptable, not his worship practices.
No argument here
And that matters to liberals why?
“Anti-LDS bigotry “
I believe that is commonly referred to as the “truth”.
Bigotry is when you restrict people because of the way they are, not because you disagree with their beliefs.
Otherwise, we are all guilty of anti-Democrat and anti-liberal bigotry.
Besides, if he's as devout a Mormon as he wants us to believe his Conservatism is, there's nothing for Libs to worry about.
..and like the Thirty Years War defines Protestantism.
Romnutz is a Saul Alinsky acolyte, as was his Daddy.
Note Romnutz is anti-gun, pro queer marriage (He’s the legal father of Gay marriage).
Did I mention he is the inspiration for ObamaCare?
The problem is that there are a whole buch of things to dislike about Mormon theology that impinge on a President’s judgment, but that were wept under the table by the GOPe. There are reasons presidential candidate Joseph Smith got whacked that are important even today. Now the chickens will come home to roost.
Why did they wait until after he was the presumptive nominee to make an issue of it?
</sarcasm>
But....
all the lds/mitt defenders here on FR told us the mitt’s peculiar religion would never be brought up by the dems/media
Is Romney even Mormon in the first place? Seriously. Do Mormons believe public and private behaviors are governed by a completely separate set of standards? Do Mormons believe in gay rights and abortion? As far as I can tell, Mitt Romney has a wonderful family life, but his public policies are all about creating an anti-family environment for the rest of us. Again, is that even good Mormonism?
Wow, the ignorance about the LDS faith on even the most basic issues, from “freepers” supposedly knowledgeable about it never ceases to amaze me. A Mormon Bishop is on the same level as the minister of a local congregation. If you are going to trash us, at least get your facts straight.
What are the LDS policies on homosexuality and abortion? Is it OK to completely separate private and public behavior, i.e. compromise with evil in public so long as you live a moral life privately?
Right on. I’m getting pretty sick of people on FR accusing people of bigotry, like the lefties do, in order to silence opinions they disagree with. I guess they’ll say I’m bigoted against bigotry-accusers now.
Romney doesn’t have to be the President, he just has to be the Republican nominee. He can be very liberal as a government official. Most of us aren’t mormon, and thus, are enemies or non-persons. He won’t be tolerant with other Mormons. OBEY AND PAY OR GET OUT OF THE WAY.
Re; The Romney sons.
With their big east coast smiles, they look quite handsome, don’t they?
In 2008, word was that there were no nastier campaigners than the Romney boys and their elitist friends. That’s why Guiliani, McCain, Thompson and Huck were united in their disgust for the underhanded tactics and rude behavior the “boys” elicited toward all who didn’t have the last name of Romney.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree...
Funny how a dose of Rino-ism and a few undercover promises can make these former candidates “quick forgetters”...ie, McCain and Huck now doing their slobbering act over Mittens.
Not this bishop. He is a prime mover in his organization, not a local minister.
It might be a bigger issue here (though not necessarily a deal breaker) if Mitt were actually something vaguely resembling a conservative, rather than a flaming, Liberal, Socialist.
Mormonism has some very strange beliefs, which would have to be considered. But until such time as a truly, conservative, Mormon candidate emerges, it is a moot point. Most FReepers wouldn’t vote for a lying Liberal, if he sat next to them in church every Sunday.
BTW, how long until the left starts the rumor that Bishop Mitt will ban coffee, tea, cola and all other products that contain caffeine, in accordance with Mormon beliefs?
Nonsense. This tripe that always gets served up about FReepers being trolls if their views happen to conflict with someone’s pet electoral theory, well, its getting stale. It’s demonization, not reasoned argument. It basically means you’ve got an empty chamber, no response to the real argument, which here is that for many of us, me included, Mittens’s religion is a factor and with good cause.
Bigotry you say? Define bigotry. I understand it to mean an uncritical rejection of something or someone, not based on reason but on pure animal impulse. Christian rejection of Mormonism is no more bigotry than rejection of global warming and the tooth fairy. Reason, augmented by history, suggests that Mormonism is incompatible, not only with the most basic elements of Christian theology, but with the principles of natural law that govern this Republic, and nonchristians as well as Christians are right to be concerned over making President a high bishop of a religion based on self-deification. As someone else said, making Romney the Republican nominee puts us in the unhappy condition of having to choose between someone who thinks they are God and someone who thinks he can become God.
Bottom line, you cannot ask voters to surrender their First Amendment right to express their beliefs at the polls, even if those beliefs are religious in nature. And you will not succeed in tarring and gathering fellow FReepers who share those beliefs, because too many of us recognize The Mormon Thing as a real and rational vulnerability to Romney’s candidacy.
You stated a bishop is the same as a Cardinal, I was clarifying to you that you are completely wrong in that regard. A bishop is over a local congregation, similar to a priest or pastor. And to state he is a “mover and shaker” in the church is also inaccurate. He has served as a bishop and stake president, and 99% of the members of the church in the US know him not from his church membership, but from his running for office.
If Romney believed in whatever aspect of Mormonism you find offensive but also believed in a constitutionally limited federal government bound by the enumerated powers that do not extend to ObamaCare/RomneyCare, in the legal and moral authority of the Second Amendment, in a balanced budget with government staying within its means, and in other conservative practices, would you still object to his religious quirks enough that you could not vote for him?
My objection to Romney is exactly the same as my objection to Obama - both are big government liberals who will inflict exceptionally grave damage on a country that I love. Obama claims to be Christian, although I have grave doubts. Romney claims to be LDS, although I find little in common between the tenets of his alleged faith and the actual decisions he makes when in power. I’ll vote based on their governmental actions, not their claimed religious beliefs. The bottom line though is that we reach the same final decision - Romney is unacceptable (in my case because of how he will govern, and in your case because of how he prays???).
LOL
Good point.
One word answer to that, “no.” Do I believe there are members of the church who are more liberal than I think is acceptable? Absolutely. Would I feel comfortable saying I am a member of the LDS Church if I supported homosexual rights and abortion? Absolutely not. Is Romney my first choice for president, or even my second or third? Nope! But you better believe that that if he wins the nomination (or ANYONE else) I will be working to get him elected, because if Obama is a lame duck president for the next four years this country is done.
Sounds like you're intolerant about this.
Which, btw, makes you a "bigot" (by your own standards) about those who express that they take issue with multi-gods, necro-baptism, and baptizing holocaust victims.
Anti-LDS bigotry is the opposite of valuing individualism, a trait that characterizes real conservatism.
Well, you've managed to refute yourself on this thread. Because if you truly valued the "individual" religious expressions that highlighted concerns about Mormonism -- and if you truly valued those people who made those expressions, then you wouldn't go around engaging in liberal progressive tactics like calling people "bigots."
You would be more tolerant of them. You're obviously not.
Which makes you -- by your own standard -- less appreciative of their individualism...which, again, by your own measure, makes you less of a "conservative" as you define a "conservative."
If Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, George Bush -- or, when he was running, Ronald Reagan -- if ANY of them announced that they were "a god in embryo" (a fave Mormon "prophet" term to describe Lds)...
...who were eternally progressing toward godhood...
...and would one day receive worship, glory, adulation, adoration, appeal prayers from people, and have the Same creative abilities as God...
...you would 100% ignore that?
Seems to me that if any non-Mormon candidates claimed the above, it'd raise quite a rucus on FR & most media venues...for months on end...
But because a Mormon believes it, ho-hum.
Sorry...but the belief that somebody is god-bound on his way to running his own world raises some key questions for voters...
#1: If this wannabe leader of the free world is so readily vulnerable to deception in the supposed most important area of his life, how can we trust him with other highly important matters? Gullibility is a character & POTUS "job description" issue!
#2: If Hillary Clinton declared she was a goddess and would one day receive worship & glory as a goddess, I would call it out for what it is: A glory-hound whose pride knows no boundaries. That kind of arrogance is a severe character issue. And character is a key thing upon which to measure a candidate.
You? Sounds like you become an apologist for Mormonism...because you give their worldviews...their character...their gullibility...a pass...a pass that you likely wouldn't give others (especially Democrats) if they adhered to them.
In addition to serving as bishop and stake president, Romney has been: Mitt…held…offices of…Missionary, Missionary Zone Leader, assistant to…Mission President…,…Bishop and Stake President…
Source: Tricia Erickson: 'An indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President'
The cousin of Mitt's father, Marion Romney, served as one of three highest-ranking Mormons in their hierarchy.
Mitt is a direct descendent of two Pratt brothers who were both "apostles."
The Romneys are deemed as one of those "hierarchical" Mormon legacy families.
What part of his religious beliefs do you feel is relevant to a discussion about selecting a politician to be President?
That’s the point. It makes FR look foolish to have people on here “exposing” Mormon beliefs.
You’re a bigot if someone’s religion is a deciding factor in whether you support them.
You're not one of those "hermetically sealed" people who think you can parcel out within a candidate character, worldviews, core values, etc. as being "religious" vs. "non-religious" are you? [What? Inside of us is there "Door #1" ... "Door #2"... "Door #3" and none of the above interacts???]
Please explain where you would even try to start and where you end with character, worldviews, core values, eect???
You see, the majority of the American populace doesn't think the way you do...In fact, with your comment, "You’re a bigot if someone’s religion is a deciding factor in whether you support them." -- you think & act more culturally like a liberal...Not only in the labeling tactics, but you (& Pollster1) wind up calling the majority of Americans "bigots!"
On what basis do I make this claim?
A Late 2006 Rasmussen poll revealed:
The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.
So…what percent of the following groups found that a candidate’s faith and religious beliefs are an important consideration for voting?
(1) Americans: 62%
(2) Evangelical Christians: 92%
(3) Republicans: 78%
(4) Minority Democrats 71%
(5) Democrats: 55% [still a majority]
Obviously, I think those % have dropped in the past 5+ years...Still...most voters now were also represented in those same 2006 polls...
If the other-worldly worldviews of a POTUS candidate doesn't phase your trust in their character, gullibility, level of discernment, etc...So be it. (It's a Free Republic)
But for those voters who do integrate such considerations amongst other criteria such as social issues' stances, candidate viability, scandal-free past, economic policies, and the like, this included dimension of religious evaluation describes a majority of voters!
So stop labeling a majority of us Americans as "bigots!"
It shows that you quite the intolerant lot that has to impose your worldview by crass progressive tactics...and worse, acting like liberals (who while preaching "tolerance" are quite intolerant of a lot about us conservatives!)
My post #1 at this thread (read the thread excerpt also) provides a good summation: Does Romney's Mormonism Matter?
There, I mention
(1) how a candidate's soteriology does intersect with leadership skills & character
and (2) How discernment is a VERY important character trait that people usually fail to think of when it comes to their incomplete A-B-C list within a POTUS job description.
I don't question Mitt Romney's intelligence. I question his level of discernment.
Another area of exploration -- one in which Romney will need to answer questions on -- is how his "prophet" can manipulate him as a POTUS.
At the same link I just gave you, I posted a chart @ post #32 which explains disturbing Mormon leader comments (in detail)...which DO pertain to the socio-political realm of an Lds leader potentially puppeteering Mormons in the political arena.
Romney needs to address those questions. (He won't; which just ups the degree of suspicion we should all have of Mormon "prophets." A Mormon "prophet" carries 100x more authority than a given Pope these days...that wasn't always true in Roman Catholicism)
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.