comMITTed to Romney!

Though I provide analysis below, I do not suggest I have answers to the questions I raise. But I do raise questions that I think are of critical importance and consideration; not just to this current presidential contest, but more importantly to America. These are questions I think nobody wants to discuss (see photo below).

Tonight (1/29), I have heard the term “lick their wounds” several times. That is not at all how I feel about the loss in Florida. It is fair to say, I believe, that America as a nation, has matured in its history to a point in which a woman or a black man can be elected President by a majority of both sexes and a majority of those of the white or black races. I believe that America has come of age to the point that the bigotry we call sexism and racism, though still engrained in some people, has been marginalized.

What about the bigotry of religious intolerance? In an enlightened age, it is known by all that bigotry of any kind is not acceptable. In this modern day, we don’t generally hear statements of bigotry in common language in ways that were pervasive as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. Religious bigotry was even out in the open at that time as evidenced by evangelical ministers that routinely and publicly denounced the idea that Americans might vote for a Catholic. Today, bigotry of any kind, as a matter of common discussion in mixed company, is simply unacceptable in today’s diverse age. As a result, we do not hear public discussion about religious bigotry. Does that mean that this form of bigotry has also been marginalized to the point America can elect a Mormon? I do not believe it has. In fact, I think it is still pervasive, if now private.

In the states in which GMR won the Silver, by how much did he miss the Gold? Usually around 5%, maybe 10%. Today, he missed the Gold by 6% in a very large state. Since I began to seriously pay attention to presidential politics for 2008 back in 2006, I have seen poll results showing that a fair number of Americans are unwilling to ever vote for a Mormon; anywhere from about 20% of those surveyed to 40% recently. Since I have always concluded that America has matured to the point at which religious intolerance has been effectively marginalized, I more or less dismissed those poll numbers as based on simple ignorance, not bigotry.

Then, as the early state caucuses and primaries became history, I started to see a trend that I saw repeated today in Florida. It is fair to say that a majority of Americans do not find McCain acceptable as President as evidenced by his votes of 35% compared to 65% to all others. But to understand whether bigotry is at work against MR specifically, we need to drill down into the numbers. Is it not also fair to say that the most conservative voters of all would not be generally attracted to McCain, who is a well-known liberal Republican, or at least a Republican that cannot be trusted?

[In order to keep this commentary from becoming longer than it is, I use only the initials of candidates’ first and last names and any time there is a number, it represents a percentage]

In Florida, among evangelicals, the votes were JM(30), MR(29), MH(29). We can conclude that the 29 who voted for MR are not bigots. My presumption is that the reason MH’s 29 did not go to JM is because they consider him way too liberal to represent their values and principles. But if MH were not in the race, would all 29 go to MR? As you think about that answer, if they would not all go to MR, why would any significant portion of them go to JM? Incidentally, as MH keeps smiling and telling the world he can be the nominee, he knows he cannot. He won exactly 4 of all non-evangelical votes; that is par for the course for him. Since day one in Iowa, there has never been broad support for MH. Why does he stay in the race?

White evangelicals voted this way: MH(31), MR(31), JM(28). I think it is fair to say that those who voted for JM would be the more moderate or less orthodox evangelicals, simply because they could have chosen an orthodox evangelical in MH, and they did not. If true, and MH were not in the race, would MH’s 31 go to JM or MR and why? Why would an orthodox evangelical vote for the more liberal, twice married, untrustworthy Republican when they have MR, whose values and principles are much closer to theirs by comparison?

Of voters who think abortion should be illegal, the votes were MR(35), JM(29), MH (21). These are very conservative voters. We know 35 are not bigots and since MR won the majority here, we know that a very high percentage of voters know him to be strong pro-life. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 21 go to MR or JM and why? Of voters who think abortion should always be illegal, the votes were MH(32), MR(30), and JM(26). These voters are even more conservative overall. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 32 go to the more conservative candidate MR? If they would not, why not? Why would more than a handful go to JM instead of MR? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Voters that identified themselves as very conservative were MR(44), JM(21), MH(20). It is well known by now that MR is the most conservative of both JM and MH. That being the case, if MH were not in the race, would his ‘very conservative’ voters go to the known, more conservative MR or to the less conservative, more liberal JM? And why? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, both Steven Muscatello and Nancy French think MH should do “the honorable thing” and drop out. Read their excellent arguments here and here. But think of the context of my rhetorical questions above and consider this. If RG could so easily see the vanity of continuing the race, knowing he could never win, why can MH not see it? Or is it that he sees it and has ulterior motives? Think of the irony. RG, the person many have derided as ethically challenged, drops out seeing the reality; there are no ulterior motives really. MH, whose supporters consider the most ethical and upstanding man in the race, who would consider himself the most humble among them all, plans to “win the nomination” to quote him. Right. And pigs will fly for the first time in February. We now have resounding proof that MH cannot garner more than 10% of all non-evangelical votes and he has only nearly received 40% of all evangelical votes in one state. Clearly, he has no broad support, unlike GWB did as an evangelical. So, his decision to stay in the race is based on what? Ego? Vanity? Love of the sport? Is he lying to us when he says he is not running for Pastor in Chief? Or does he want to influence his voters away from MR and if so, why?

As many at this site have shown, MH revealed his stripes when he let slip his rhetorical Jesus/brother question in an interview. He also ardently campaigned in Salt Lake City to save the Mormons there from hell at the evangelical convention.

My opinion is that the frequent citing of 20 to 40 percent of all Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President, the bigots are at the low end of the range. I may be naïve, but I do not believe that 40% of all Americans are religious bigots. Now, we know that when MR loses the Gold, the margin of loss is only 5% to 10%. That margin of difference is well below the 20% conservative estimate. Where are those 20% or so aligned? Are they divided among RG, MH, and JM? Are they mostly with MH or JM?

My conclusion is that the margin of victory that JM has enjoyed in any state, is a direct correlation to the reported bigotry still pervasive in America. If so, how does MR overcome this obvious bigotry, to win? These less than 20% “unwilling voters” are currently aligned with RG, JM, and MH, in some unknown mix. But knowing this does not help, does it? By definition, if they are bigots, MR will never be their choice. It cannot be argued that all 20% of these “unwilling” voters are in JM’s camp. Yet, it is he that is the beneficiary of their unwillingness to ever vote for MR. And clearly not all of the supporters left in RG’s and MH’s camp are bigots; but some are. So it is fair to say that if both RG and MH were not in the race, a fair number of their non-bigoted supporters would back the most conservative candidate in the race — MR. And why are the voters not following Rush Limbaugh’s advice to not vote for JM and MH?

So again, what is the motivation of MH to remain in a race he knows he cannot and will not win? Is his primary motivation to steer as many evangelicals to the Protestant JM, away from MR? If so, is that reason enough to not drop out of the race?

I think this issue is the 900-pound gorilla in the room with which nobody wants to make eye contact.

~ Vic

[Source of exit poll information above: CNN Politics]
.
.
.
NOTE: Any comment left at this post that is primarily religious based or which contains vitriol, is antagonistic, or generally obnoxious, will be deleted without notice. Please set a standard of discussion that is productive and illuminating. If you have religious opinions, please leave them out of the discussion at this post.

.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I think that “hypocrisy” is one of the most overused words around, especially by the MSM and Liberals more broadly. Unfortunately, it’s the best description of this great catch by Nancy French over at Evangelicals for Mitt.

Interesting comments from Gov. Huckabee as he criticized the Bush administration’s destruction of tapes showing interrogation of terrorists.

“When we start destroying documents, what are we destroying them for? Are we doing it for security purposes or to cover somebody’s rear end?” the former Arkansas governor said on Fox News Sunday. “If we’re covering somebody’s rear end, we need to expose their rear end and kick their rear end for doing something that’s against the best interest of the United States and the responsibility and the respectability of this country.”

It brought this highly unusual behavior of Gov. Huckabee to mind, to be honest:

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee depleted the governor’s office emergency fund in the final weeks of his administration in part to pay for the destruction of computer hard drives in his office.
That left Gov. Mike Beebe, who replaced Huckabee on Jan. 9, with no emergency funds for the last half of fiscal 2007.

I’ve yet to hear the reason why Gov. Huckabee wasted half a million dollars of tax payer money, but I think it might have something to do with… how did he put it… covering somebody’s rear end.

Share on Facebook

Share This

It’s not everyday that you hear a politician talk about MORE faith in Government. That happened today when Governor Mitt Romney gave the speech of his life at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station Texas. As I’ve been thinking ever since hearing the speech this morning it comes right back to religious liberty and being a faithful people and country. Prior to his delivery of the speech those of us with Press Credentials were given an advance copy of it, and I knew from the moment I finished it that it was going to be an incredible day for the Governor. I don’t think he could have done even one ounce better than he did today.

This part is one that I think is absolutely awesome:

“These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me…‘

There were other awesome parts, but I’d be quoting the entire speech if I went into them more. I just really was moved by the one I just mentioned because it’s rare in politics that you hear scripture quoted like that. Also, I hold special fondness for the father Romney. Since his history is so warmly remembered in Michigan, it’s so awesome how he mentioned him marching with Martin Luther King.

I’ve already quoted Richard Land earlier, but his statement bears repeating, “America needed this more than Governor Romney”.

Others from Lou Sheldon, “Defining moment in American History”, “A speech that will be studied for time”.

I’m so glad that Governor Romney used his conviction to express the importance of religion in our life. It’s so refreshing to hear. Thank you Governor, we hear you loud and clear, and we thank you!

I’m very tired, this has been one heck of a whirlwind for me…I’ll add more later. Also, Victor took many awesome pictures today I’ll make sure to get them up as soon as I have them, he’s mailing them to me on a flash drive. Please be patient. Side Note: Vic, Kevin, Rebecca and I met up with Nancy French and Charles Mitchell from Evangelicals for Mitt, it was a very nice visit.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Laura Ingraham calls ‘em the way she sees ‘em. Gotta love it! (courtesy of Evangelicals for Mitt)

Share on Facebook

Share This

I know that we usually leave the religion-oriented posts to our colleagues at Evangelicals for Mitt, but here are a couple really great columns by Kathryn Jean Lopez (of National Review Online but via Townhall.com) and Steven Stark (of the Boston Phoenix, of whom I was not previously familiar, but a quick peruse of his blog suggests that he should be on our bookmarks).

First, K-Lo’s column is entitled “A Mormon Can Be President.” Full text after the jump, but here are some key excerpts:

Commentators suggest he give a speech on his religion, comparing it to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. However, Romney’s not likely to pull a Kennedy by defensively distancing himself from his religion. As Romney said to a colleague of mine in November, “I know there are some people hoping that I will simply declare in some way that my church is all well and good, but that I don’t really believe it and I don’t try to follow it. That’s not going to happen. I’m proud of my faith. I love my faith. It is the faith of my fathers and mothers. I do my best to live by its teachings. And it in every way would teach me to follow the Constitution and follow the rule of law and recognize that my duty is to my country.”

That is the American answer to the question about whether one’s religion indicates one’s fitness to lead this nation. We have no established religion, and we have no religious tests in our constitutional system. Romney’s religion is a topic for religious conferences, not for talk shows. And it certainly should not keep a man from the White House.

If you are not going to support Republican Mitt Romney for president because you don’t think he is the guy to win the war on terror, that is your call. If you are pro-life and you do not buy his abortion conversion story, it’s a free country. But if you are not going to support Mitt Romney for president because he is Mormon, or because you think he will not be elected president because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, say your prayers for America.

Next Steve Stark provides a really perceptive and poignant perspective on what all of the controversy over Mitt’s Mormonism says about the rest of the candidates. Again, full text after the jump, but some key excerpts:

But the real question is why another candidate hasn’t stepped forward to defend Romney against the religious bigotry he’s facing – not with an offhand comment or two – but with a major Mormon speech of his own. True, doing so might seem like a risky political maneuver, since it would aid a fellow contender. But it’s the right thing to do — and could even help the campaign of the candidate who rises to Romney’s defense.

It’s understandable why Romney has hesitated to give the speech up to this point. It’s odious that in 21st-century America a candidate has to defend his religion. And Romney’s faced with the difficult task of writing and delivering such a speech without sounding self-pitying. Then there’s the question of timing: should he give the speech now or wait for later in the campaign, when more voters will be paying attention? (For the record, JFK gave his Houston Ministers speech in September of the election year, after he had been nominated.) Of course, Romney will inevitably be compared with Kennedy, and that’s a comparison that’s hard to measure up to.

But none of the other candidates have these excuses — which makes one wonder exactly what kind of people we have seeking the nation’s highest office this year. As potential leaders of the nation, don’t they think religious prejudice is something they ought to confront, especially since the issues of religion and politics are currently so intertwined?

What’s most discouraging, of course, is that we don’t seem to have anyone in the field who views attacking religious prejudice as the proper — or, for that matter, a politically sensible — thing to do. An unfortunate consequence of this lengthy campaign — and its intensive press coverage — is that it’s turned most of the candidates into risk-averse robots, afraid of doing anything unconventional for fear of making a mistake. But great candidates and leaders — whether we’re talking about FDR or Reagan — always rewrite the rule book.

Needless to say, we’re going to need a leader like that in 2009. Too bad that on this key test — and it’s not a difficult one compared with what lies ahead for the eventual winner — the entire field gets a failing grade.

Read the entire articles after the jump…

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (nick-name: Mormon), I often hear fellow members of the church tell me they don’t think Governor Romney can be nominated, let alone win a general election, because evangelicals are so strident in their opposition to Mormons. This one line of thinking alone keeps some members of the church on the sidelines and out of the game. It’s a great thing so many other Americans think that is nonsense and ardently support and promote Governor Romney for President!

Since last Friday, I have been wanting to hi-light an exchange between Nancy French and Charles Mitchell at Evangelicals for Mitt that explains well that many evangelicals use their minds, hearts, and prayer to arrive at the decision to support Governor Romney when others may not, simply due to theological differences. Nancy quotes from an NRO article here and disagrees with one of its assertions as follows (emphasis is mine):

I would disagree with one aspect of the NRO article:

“Few people who oppose Romney because he is a Mormon are going to come around.”

In reality, we at EFM see this happen all the time! In fact, do Mormons believe confession is good for the soul? Because when David first told me about Gov. Romney’s religion, I was incredulous. We had long, impassioned discussions about his religion — over the course of weeks and months — that led me to change my mind. But now? Well, I’d have to become a stalker to be a more enthusiastic supporter of the Governor.

And I’m not alone. Steve, I believe, used to argue with Charles. Plus, we’ve gotten mea culpa e-mails from people who used to send us long Scriptural e-mail explanations about why we are wrong in supporting a Mormon, which now basically say, “You were right — after evaluating the candidates, he’s the guy. What can I do to help?”

So, I think there’s much hope in the process, even amongst the unenlightened. But, please, reason with us. Instead of trying to demystify or explain the faith, demonstrate our shared values, explain how Mormons and evangelicals are natural political allies, and tell us how your faith will positively affect your policies. We’ll come around.

And Nancy, “yes” to your question about Mormons and confession.

Growing up in California and living here my whole life, I have come to know and respect many evangelicals. I have met many recently who are going to enthusiastically support Romney in the primaries and general election because they know he is the candidate that will best represent them, their families, and their values. The paragraph that jumped out at me is Nancy’s second above. There are devout and serious evangelicals who have studied Governor Romney’s positions and life who have changed their minds. Not every evangelical will look beyond theological distinction, but many can and many will. We all need to be a little more optimistic, a little more patient with one another, and a little more open-minded.

Then in response to Nancy’s post, Charles Mitchell left this:

Nancy, I don’t want to speak for Steve — but I’ll speak for Steve. He was deeply skeptical of the idea of supporting Governor Romney, and it was on religious grounds. One of the things I threw at him was this post, and it worked.

Charles refers to his OUTSTANDING post of Sept 2006 as affecting the change in Steve; click here —-> “AN EXCRUCIATING DECISION”

Charles discusses the possibility of Gov. Romney giving “the speech” and concludes with this:

But I do think there is a values-based message that wavering evangelicals need to receive, that they haven’t received it in massive numbers, and that Governor Romney should send it by seizing the megaphone that only he — as opposed to EFM or any of his other backers — has.

And in conclusion, John and Lowell over at Article VI Blog provide excellent perspective on recent interviews of Gov. Romney. Excerpts here from Lowell (the Mormon) — read Gov. Romney’s response carefully — it is classic!

Byron York, who now seems to be realizing that Romney could well be the GOP nominee, writes at some length about The Speech. There’s much to say about York’s column, but one comment by Romney is probably the most important. York focuses (wrongly, I believe) on the now-tired question of whether Mormons are Christians, and apparently goaded Romney into an answer:

[Romney] “You know, the term ‘Christian’ means different things to different people,” Romney told me. “Jews aren’t Christian. That doesn’t preclude a Jew from being able to run for office and become president. I believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world and is the son of God. Now, some people say, well, that doesn’t necessarily make you a Christian because Christian refers to a certain group of evangelical Christian faiths. That’s fine. That’s their view. Others say, no, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God and the savior should be called Christian. That’s fine, too. I’ll just describe what I believe and not try to distinguish my faith from others. That’s really something for my faith to do and for the churches amongst themselves to consider.” (Emphasis added.)

How much more does the man need to say? The italicized [bold] portion accurately describes the essence of the debate: Theo-nerds (”Christian” means orthodox Christian, or “my faith, not yours”) versus the expansive, heterodox dictionary definition of “Christian” accepted by nearly everyone else.

My personal view is that the theo-nerd view is terribly destructive in this context. To insist that in order to call oneself “Christian,” one must believe in certain creeds and specific doctrines, beyond the divine sonship of Jesus and his status as Savior and the only name by which anyone can achieve salvation, is to walk down the path of a very semantic and potentially misleading discussion. It really borders on being a smear, intentional or not.

John (the Evangelical) carries the logic further:

Romney’s answer is a great answer, and really the only possible answer to the question itself. The problem is that it is becoming increasingly obvious that people do not really care about the question, “are Mormons Christians?” per se. What they are really asking is “Is he one of us?”

Any number of sources, including this blog, have addressed very specifically the term “Christian” - but no one seems to care. People who keep pushing this clearly want to hear something else. The only thing I can figure that will satisfy is for Mormons to deny what they believe. Mormons believe they are Christians, and it is in the great American tradition for them to be entitled to that belief, as much as I am entitled to my beliefs.

I think the people that keep asking this question fall into two camps. The first is the “blackmail” camp. These are people that seem to be withholding a vote for Romney until he somehow makes it clear that his claim to being a Christian is illegitimate. To these of my brethren , I say, what if you were required to repudiate some tenant of your faith to qualify for office?

The other camp are people that simply want Romney to emphasize Mormon distinctives in order to alienate some segment of those that might otherwise vote for him.

Either way you cut it, what we have here is an attempt to legitimize the politics of identity. America was founded in a fashion specifically designed to eliminate politics of this type. This is just despicable. The question “Are Mormons Christian?” is a great question for the seminaries of the world, but in this context it is simply despicable.

Incredible answer by Gov. Romney’s above! How could he have given a better reply? Amazing.

Evangelicals who live and die on theological principle, to the exclusion of all else, run the risk of further eroding our nation’s established values by either:

1. Not voting at all;
2. Promoting a pro-abortion candidate for the Republican nomination;
3. Supporting a moderate conservative candidate who shares their faith, but who has no chance to be elected, or
4. Backing a candidate who does not really want the job of President.

It is a good thing thinking evangelicals rejected a Baptist by not voting for Jimmy Carter for a second term. Of course it was not wrong for evangelicals to reject the more devout Christian between Carter and Reagan, but they chose Reagan instead.

Gov. Romney is not only the most qualified and superior leader of all candidates, he is the one among all electable candidates whose values more closely align with evangelicals.

And this from a Democrat on topic —–> TIME TO SET ASIDE ONE MORE PREJUDICE

~ Vic

I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I’m in a cabinet meeting.

– Ronald Reagan

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hurry over to Evangelicals for Mitt for a definite MUST READ from Nancy French. I won’t spoil the post, just go over and read it!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Thanks to Nancy French at Evangelicals for Mitt, here are the instructions on how to vote in the Family Research Council Straw Poll.

1. Go on-line to Family Research Council .
2. Once there, click on the large banner “Participate in the 2008 American Values Straw Poll.”
3. If you are not already a member of FRC Action, you can join by submitting an annual donation of any amount (minimum: $1.00). After joining, you will be taken directly to your on-line straw poll ballot where you can vote for Governor Romney.

Thanks to frofreak for suggesting that I make this it’s own individual post.

Share on Facebook

Share This