Posted on 07/17/2011 12:39:29 PM PDT by Kaslin
The evidence suggests otherwise — but for the wrong reason.
There’s a long list of reasons why Mitt Romney might not be our best choice to go up against Obama, and some of them are really good reasons. One reason is Romney’s part in creating the Massachusetts health system that Democrats claim (perhaps rightly) was the blueprint for ObamaCare. Another is that as governor of a very liberal state, Romney signed into law all sorts of bills that are going to be used by Democrats to persuade many middle of the road and even conservative voters that there really is not that much difference. On some issues, Governor Romney was arguably to the left of Obama.
There is one reason why Romney is going to be a poor choice to take on Obama that I just hate: the Democrats are going to play the religion card (at least, once Romney has the nomination), and they are going to play it hard. As you are doubtless aware, Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). There is a lot of very strong disapproval of Mormonism in the United States. A recent Gallup Poll found that 27% of Democrats would not vote for a Mormon, nor would 18% of Republicans, and 19% of independents.
Now, if you are one of those people that does not understand why there is such strong sentiment on this, let me say that Mormon beliefs are more than a bit out of the mainstream of Christianity. Baptists and Lutherans have doctrinal differences; Protestants and Catholics have doctrinal differences; Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have doctrinal differences. This is beyond doctrinal differences.
Should being Mormon disqualify someone from being president of the United States? I don’t think it should — the particulars of the Mormon creed are not relevant to the operation of the federal government. Some conservative evangelical Christians even argue that if Governor Romney had taken his marching orders from the Mormon Church, he would at least be a real conservative worthy of serious consideration. Nonetheless, there are a lot of Americans who are seriously freaked out by Mormon belief — and you will notice from those Gallup Poll results, Democrats are substantially more ready to discriminate based on religion than the rest of the population.
We need every vote to defeat Obama in 2012: conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans, evangelical Christians, libertarians. I can guarantee you that once Romney has the Republican nomination, Obama’s people will play the Mormon card. They may be subtle about it, and make documentaries and television programs about the “weird” Mormon beliefs. They may focus on polygamist breakaway sects, such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and hope that many Americans will not realize that the FLDS is not part of the same church as Romney. They might be really clever, and spend a bit of money “helping” the various Christian organizations that expose Mormon theology get the word out, hoping that it will enhance the negative perceptions of the Mormons that are already present in the United States.
You may think I am being a bit too suspicious of what Obama’s campaign is prepared to do. Surely, the Democrats would not encourage direct religious bigotry! (Excuse me while I laugh.) I have a strong memory of 1980. I was going through my petulant Libertarian phase — still upset at Richard Nixon’s abandonment of free market policies — and I could not in good conscience vote for Republicans. It was a few days before the general election. CBS Evening News ran a story about Ron Reagan, Jr., showing his premiere with the Joffrey Ballet Company. It was not a few seconds — it was several minutes long, on a 30 minute evening newscast.
What do you think: was CBS showing everyone how wonderful it was that the Republican candidate was such a good father that his son was going to be a ballet dancer? Was the Joffrey Ballet getting a new dancer really important to justify several minutes of news coverage? Or was CBS, in a subtle sort of way, delivering the message to Middle America that Reagan’s son was probably swishy?
Those of you under 40 may have trouble believing this, but in 1980, homosexuality was still regarded with considerable horror in most of America. Even where I lived in Southern California, liberals I knew would make insulting and vulgar jokes about homosexuals. CBS News back then, like today, was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, and I am sure that Carter’s people played some behind-the-scenes role in making sure that Reagan’s son twirling across the stage received this disproportionate coverage.
There are limits to how directly Obama’s people will be able to attack the beliefs of any of the evangelical Christians in the race, because evangelical Christians are still a sizeable fraction of the American electorate. They may attack Bachmann or Palin for inconsistency in not being meek little wives, but they can’t directly attack them for being Christians. Count on it: all the long knives will come out from the Democrats to attack Mormonism if that is required to win the election for Obama.
I say this with considerable regret, because while I am not happy with the prospect of another moderate Republican being our nominee, I do recognize that Romney brings a number of strengths to the race that would otherwise make him a very strong candidate. Knowing what the Democrats will do to play the religion card, however, makes me quite sure that Romney is going to be a loser in the general election — and for the wrong reason.
OTOH, Pubs in Congress will fight liberal proposals when they come from a Democrat. They will go along when they come from a Republican (see the Bush medicare prescription plan). The big problem with Obama was the RATS controlled both houses at the same time. Better gridlock than a RINO president.
If he gets nominated, how I vote will matter little. The resulting third party will guarantee Obama’s reelection.
Only if he gets the nomination, that is why we must never listen to the LSM and let them dictate who we should vote for. On the other had we must not forget that one third of the Senate up for reelection and we must make sure to get the majority (preferable the super majority back. Plus add more seats to the House
Oh the Dems and MSM would LOVE nothing better than Romney being the nominee so that Obama can be re-elected.
The “powers that be” plan is to get Romney nominated, and then turn on him like hungry wolves on a steak. They will be relentless, all the while talking about the resurgence, accomplishments and wonder of Saint Obama.
BINGO!
SOS. We are supposed choose a candidate based on his so called electability, not on the candidate himself? As in "I hate the guy, I hate his policies, but want him as a candidate because the leftist press says he is electable" Principles aside, that's worked well in the past (sarc).
The Republican Party lets the leftist media choose our candidate and then acts dumbfounded when we get creamed.
Truly the party of stoopid.
McCain was a better choice than Romney! If Romney gets the nomination, Obama gets reelected.
H.N.= hell no.
I’m too sick of the question to type I guess.
“He may not be the best choice but he has magic underpants.”
I’ve never seen them. Is it because they are magic, or just under his pants?
Here he is, admiring a painting of himself fondling them:
Back in 1964, Barry Goldwater was running on a slogan like “A Choice, Not an Echo”. Mitt Romney is a resounding echo of - something, I know not what.
A reverb chamber for the wobbly and untrustworthy “middle”.
When you are running “Democrat-Lite”, why not just go for the real thing, the REAL Democrat in the race?
He may be better than Zero when looked at next to each other.
Problem is, it is way too late in the socialization of America for a RINO to do us any long term good, probably very little in the short term.
We go for broke and win with a conservative or we capitulate to the left forever. Romney is capitulation disguised as hope.
He would only be better if America wasn’t already teetering on complete collapse.
Second best choice.....for the Democrats
NEVER!
Given the McQueeg experience you cite, why should we repeat it?
It re-enforces the idea Establshment GOP RINOIsm idea we’ll always
take what they and the MSM scheme to give us for a ‘choice’.
That thinking is self destructive. It assures the death of thIs country.
ROMNEY 2012....Hell NO!!!! Not under ANY circumstance!
They do look...special...but magic? Hmmmmmm...I’ll need proof before I would vote for him. Proof and Hell frozen over...no, proof, Hell frozen over and no other choice but Ded Kennedy (D-Hell) risen from the dead.
Yep. That might do it.
You are obviously a heretic and will never become a god like Romney will.
Yep, a god. Of his own planet. With "Spirit Wives" by the dozen.
THAT is the price of your heresy. Deal with that.
I will never vote for Romney, even if he gets the nomination.
I will only vote for a constitutional CONSERVATIVE, regardless of the outcome.
I will NEVER hold my nose and vote again.
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.