Posted on 12/13/2011 12:57:39 PM PST by Colofornian
Nancy and David French...are perhaps the most visible evangelical supporters of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. They started a group called Evangelicals for Mitt...
SNIP
Though David and Nancy French deny it, campaign finance experts say the couple’s group looks like a thinly disguised extension of the Romney campaign. “They appear to be able to spend lots of money, but won’t say where it comes from,” says Fred Wertheimer...“It is circumstantial evidence, but it suggests this is a shell group for a Romney operation.”
Indeed, what is perhaps most interesting about Evangelicals for Mitt is how apparent its links to Romney Central are. Nancy French worked for Romney’s 2008 campaign and partnered with Romney’s wife, Ann, on an unpublished book. The couple also served as steering committee vice chairs on Romney’s 2008 National Faith and Values Steering Committee.
The Frenchs are also quietly linked to two wealthy Romney donors in Massachusetts, John Kingston and Kurt Keilhacker, and all four have close ties to Romney’s campaign funding organization through a web of companies and nonprofits...the four operate a Christian nonprofit organization...
David and Nancy French come from modest means. Evangelicals for Mitt...made news by spending serious money. The group tipped the scales in favor of Romney at the April 2010 Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll in New Orleans by buying at least 200 tickets for Romney supporters at a total cost of nearly $40,000...
SNIP
...In key early primary states, Gingrich’s support among born-again Christians is nearly double or triple Romney’s. Last week’s TIME/CNN/ORC poll found Romney has only 13% of born-again support in Iowa, while Gingrich boasts 31% and Ron Paul claim 19%. In Florida, Gingrich outpaces the pack with fully 50% of born-again support; Romney is a distant second at 22%. South Carolina’s numbers tell a similar story...
(Excerpt) Read more at swampland.time.com ...
Only a non-Christian would call Christians “evangalicals”
Whats an “evangalical” anyway ???
Its not even a Biblical term..
Either youre a Christian or youre not...
Though David and Nancy French deny it, campaign finance experts say the couple’s group looks like a thinly disguised extension of the Romney campaign.You don't say.
Evangelical is the term that suplanted fundamentalist.
It is a legitimate tem used by theologically conservative Christians to describe themselves.
Evangalical is also used as a slur...
and can mean a range of things...
No thanks...
I’m a Christian..
and therefore I am a Conservative..
Romney knows all about lying to get what he wants and laundering money...he learned from the best.
I’ve never heard the term evangelical used as a slur, other than by a left-wing atheist.
Even Catholics don’t use it as a slur (at least not the ones I convers with).
I’m not sure where you get the idea the term has a negative connotation, but whatever...
After being a Christian for 55 years I’ll just stay with that term...
I have never heard Evangelical used as a slur either, except by liberals. I have no problem referring to myself as an Evangelical or Born-Again Christian.
When I was Mormon, we used to insult Evangelicals by calling them ‘reborns’ or ‘gracers’.
Check your Bible. Even the word “Christian” is not a Biblical term.
What version do you use? The Burkean one?
So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. (Acts 11:26)
Tell you what. If somebody told you that "rumor" and you merely "passed it on" without checking its veracity, run it back through where you heard it and tell 'em to stop exporting such ignorance.
Hmmm...you know, though, I don't think the word "Bible" is in the Bible! [But there is a Greek word that may be considered "close enough"]
I am a theological conservative Christian and I have never referred to myself as an “evangelical”. Nore anyone I know who is a theological conservative Christian has.
Check your Bible. Even the word “Christian” is not a Biblical term.
________________________________________
Check your Bible. The term Christian is in there several times...
I have. Sorry.
It’s ok. :-)
Though David and Nancy French deny it, campaign finance experts say the couple’s group looks like a thinly disguised extension of the Romney campaign. “They appear to be able to spend lots of money, but won’t say where it comes from,” says Fred Wertheimer, founder and President of Democracy 21. “It is circumstantial evidence, but it suggests this is a shell group for a Romney operation.”
Here is Democracy 21's profile on Discover the Networks:
- Pro-campaign-finance-reform organization
- Receives funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute
- Member organization of the anti-tax cut coalition Fair Taxes For All
Based in Washington, DC, Democracy 21 describes itself as a “nonpartisan” group that seeks to “eliminate the undue influence of big money in American politics and to ensure the integrity and fairness of government decisions and elections.” In practice, the organization has restricted citizen participation in the political process by limiting the ways in which constituents can give money to the party or candidate of their choice. Democracy 21 has also helped the network of George Soros-led Shadow Party groups gain immense influence within the Democratic Party.
Democracy 21 regularly produces reports and press releases that it disseminates to the public and the media. These items contain data analysis focusing chiefly on the following issues:
- BCRA and Other Campaign Finance Laws: Democracy 21 is a staunch supporter of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, which stipulated that political parties and candidates could only accept “hard money” contributions -- that is, donations given to a specific political party for a specific political campaign (limited to a $2,000 maximum per donor for each candidate, or $5,000 per donor if paid to a federally registered political action committee). "Soft money," by contrast, refers to political contributions which for one reason or another have been exempted from the limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission. Before McCain-Feingold outlawed such contributions, soft money donors could give as much money to political parties as they wished. Their contributions often numbered in the millions of dollars.
But the Shadow Party evaded McCain-Feingold’s limits by working through independent non-profit groups ("527 committees" -- named after Section 527 of the IRS code) that ostensibly had no connection to the Democratic Party, and which claimed to be soliciting funds not to defeat a particular candidate, but to promote “issues” and non-partisan get-out-the-vote drives. In this manner, they raised record sums of money for Democratic candidates in the 2004 and 2006 election cycles. Thus, with the aid of Democracy 21 and other organizations that supported McCain-Feingold with its built-in loophole, the rules governing the financing of political campaigns tilted in favor of the Democrats.
- 527 Groups: “In order to end the widespread practice of [Section] 527 groups spending soft money to influence federal elections," said Democracy 21 in 2007, "either the FEC must issue regulations, or legislation must be enacted that makes clear to all 527 groups that they are required to comply with federal campaign finance laws…”
- Presidential Public Financing: Democracy 21 advocates a public financing campaign system in which candidates receive a taxpayer-provided stipend if they reject private donations.
- Ethics: Democracy 21 supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s call for new ethics rules for Congress, and was one of the leading organizations rebuking Tom Delay for alleged ethics violations.
- Lobbying: Democracy 21 joined the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG in calling for lobbying reform legislation that would require lobbyists to disclose certain contributions made to members of Congress.
Democracy 21 was founded in 1997 by Fred Wertheimer, who continues to serve as the organization’s President and CEO. From 1981 to 1995, Wertheimer was President of Common Cause, an advocacy organization also dedicated to campaign finance reform.
A notable Democracy 21 Board member is Nick Ucci, the Executive Vice President and CFO of People For the American Way. Like Wertheimer, Ucci also worked for Common Cause, where he served as the organization’s Senior Vice President for Management and Financial Planning.
Democracy 21 is a member organization of Fair Taxes For All, an anti-tax cut coalition co-chaired by People For the American Way, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Women’s Law Center, AFSCME, Campaign for America’s Future, and USAction. Other member organizations include: ACORN; the American Friends Service Committee; the Center for Community Change; the Center For Women’s Policy Studies; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; the Children’s Defense Fund; Defenders of Wildlife; Democratic Socialists of America; Earthjustice; Friends of the Earth; the League of Women Voters; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; MoveOn; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the NAACP; the National Council for Research on Women; the National Council of La Raza; the National Council of Women’s Organizations; the National Organization for Women; the National Partnership for Women and Families; the National Urban League; the Older Women’s League; Public Citizen; the Service Employees International Union; the Shefa Fund; the Sierra Club; and the Wilderness Society.
Democracy 21 has received heavy funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Joyce Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Although this is intel favorable for us, the leaker’s apparent connection to Soros/Obama make it very suspect.
I didn't bite on them; but neither did I ignore them or defend Cain.
Yes. By all means consider the source.
But just as a dead clock is right at least once a day, the liberals are at about that rate.
In the Cain matters, what was troubling was the way he "countered" the charges -- or rather, didn't. His bumbling seemed to say they were true.
Likewise, my understanding is that "Evangelicals for Mitt" hasn't been on their feet ready to answer media queries after this broke.
Neither has the Romney campaign.
Laura Ingraham said on her program today that her staffers weren't able to raise any response from Romney's people. She said, hey if Mitt wants to reach Evangelicals, Evangelicals are listening to her show. And yet they weren't available.
I don't think Mitt's campaign wants to answer any specific questions about this group.
Besides, if Mitt's a true-believing Mormon, he thinks Evangelicals are "apostates" like his opinion of other Christians. There may be a few Evangelicals for Mitt; but Mitt's not for Evangelicals!
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.