Elections Blog

http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies/MormanMittRomney.htm Pollsters at “Rasmussen Reports” have just released the latest in the string of many “would you ever vote for a Mormon?” polls. This one puts the figure at 43% and the report plays up the apparent story with the headline “Election 2008: 43% Would Never Vote for Mormon Candidate”.

Well, that number is just a tad higher than the 37% figure that was reported by the LA Times/Bloomberg poll a few months back. I blogged about that one here. In a nutshell, these figures in NO WAY translate into the picture (AKA “implied headline”) that some people are trying to paint . . . that “43% Would Never Vote for Romney”.

Why? Well, first off, this poll was of all likely voters (R’s, D’s, and I’s). . . obviously liberals and those aware of and uncomfortable with the fact that nearly all Mormon’s are strong social conservatives would never vote for one.

Also, some great signs for Romney are hidden in this poll:

Among the 41% with no opinion of Romney, just 27% say they would consider voting for a Mormon.

That shows that Romney has lots of room for improved name recognition. But even more to the point of this whole Mormon issue is that only about one quarter of the likely voters surveyed who don’t know Romney would vote for a Mormon. That confirms the theory that people are just more uncomfortable with a “different” religion–espeicially when they cannot put a name/face with it.

How do I come to that? Well, since 38% of all respondants said they’d consider voting for a Mormon, if we subtract out the 41% who had no opinion of Romney (along with their 27% “consider voting for a Momron” figure)—that leaves us with 59% of folks who DO have an opinion of Romney (be it good or bad). My quick calculation of these figures shows that nearly 47% of people with ANY opinion of Romney would consider voting for a Mormon. Counting out those with unfavorable views of Romney (many/most of which will be liberals/Democrats who will not vote in the GOP primary) and the figure gets up to nearly 100%.

The article then helps confirm what I’ve been saying all along: That these polls about Mormonism are not directly translatable to Romney himself.

It is possible, of course, that these perceptions might change as Romney becomes better known and his faith is considered in the context of his campaign. Currently, just 19% of Likely Voters are able to identify Romney as the Mormon candidate from a list of six potential Presidential candidates.

This shows that Romney may have a pretty “open slate” to work with and I’m convinced he’ll shine through and dispel any qualms about his religious affiliation.

However, should this following part be worrisome?

Half (53%) of all Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate.

Again, I just think that this unmasks a lack of information/education of Mormonism by Evangelicals in general, and how that relates to Romney in specific.

On the brighter side, at least the American populus is more intolerant of some other religions than Mormonism . . .
The response to a theoretical Mormon candidate is far less negative than the response to a Muslim candidate or an atheist. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Likely Voters say they would never consider voting for a Muslim Presidential candidate. Sixty percent (60%) say the same about an atheist.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650208386,00.html The Deseret News (out of SLC, Utah) has recently highlighted our friends at E4M (Evangelicals for Mitt).

They’re getting over 5,000 hits per day and it will be surging as things heat up. The article concludes with:

Meanwhile, blogs like EvangelicalsforMitt.org, are going to play a bigger role in the 2008 election than ever before, Corrado said.
“You can’t simply put them aside,” Corrado said. “They have become part of the culture.”

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://mfile.akamai.com/9682/wmv/www.mass.gov/Agov2/streaming/7.6.06.WMR.faith.lan.wmv Click on the title to watch the Video

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/10/23/romneys_mormon_allies?mode=PF The Globe has gone too far with this editorial–”Romney’s Mormon Allies”.

I know that Ann Marie linked to the NewsBusters story previously which highlights the Globes utter hypocrisy here, but there was no link to the actual editorial from this site or NewsBusters.

Some of the Globe’s “High and Mighty” statements:

After quoting Jesus (huge red flag when the Globe editorial staff is quoting the Bible!) saying the “Give unto Ceaser . . .” line as evidence of the importance of the seperation of church and state; obviously selectively using the Bible (I’m guessing the whole homosexual-acts-are-”an abomination” part of the Bible weren’t quoted by the Globe as they supported the same sex marriage ruling by the SJC.) The Globe then sternly warns:

“The Mormon church and Mitt Romney should make sure that the church stays out of his nascent presidential campaign.”

Also,

The church also ought to make sure that all its leaders, including Jeffrey R. Holland, who organized the meeting, stop helping the campaign. As one of the 12 Apostles, advisers to church president Gordon B. Hinckley, Holland’s involvement is tantamount to a Mormon endorsement of the candidacy.

In light of church statements denying Holland’s presumed actions during this whole affair and prior to the publication of this editorial the Globe is effectively calling Holland and the Church liars. That’s just infuriating to me . . . but I guess it just makes the Globe look desperate and dishonest in the end.

Romney defended his campaign, saying: “Clearly I’m going to raise money from people I know, and that includes BYU alums, people of my church, people of other churches.” His lack of concern about the issue raises doubts about his ability to keep church and state separate should he move to the White House.

“Lack of concern”? How about Romney’s rights as a politician. Is he precluded from raising money from fellow church members? This has gone too far and the Globe has reared it’s anti-religious head too strongly. I wonder if they feel the same about the church of secularism . . . should liberal candidates not be able to take money from environmental groups, Move-on.org, trial lawyers, etc . . . ?

They finish . . .

But Romney appears all too willing to entangle religion and politics. Voters who practice a different faith, or none at all, deserve assurances that he can separate the demands of public life from the urgings of Salt Lake City.

“Urgings of SLC?” What in the world are they referring to? I’d like to hear what urgings Romney has been following. This could be the most inappropriate and outlandish editorial I’ve ever read from the Globe. I think they must be convinced that Romney will win the GOP nomination because they’re already attacking him for a general election run.

I can only feel that this kind of religious discrimination against Romney will elevate his status among faith-based individuals of all denominations to nearly “martyr” level . . . especially when he did nothing wrong in this whole matter. Ironically, the Globe may end up being Romney’s biggest ally in the end. Ya never know.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/10/22/consultants_e_mails_show_mormon_plan_for_romney/?page=full Trying to “save face” from their poorly reported stories . . . the Boston Globe writers have now come forth with their “Documents” that they were claiming showed the link between Romney operatives and the LDS church. They’ve even stooped to the level of publishing personal e-mails (how they were obtained is not mentioned, but I bet that is more scandalous than the “expose” that they are trying to push).

Obviously, Romney, personally is 100% clean on this one. In fact, the dubious nature of the documents makes it hard to pin anything on anyone.

However, assuming the “documents” are real, lets put this in a little perspective:

Don Stirling is NOT a staff member of Romney’s PAC; he’s just a consultant. His email was to Sherri Dew . . . a prominent woman in the LDS community and CEO of Desert Book (and has been on the record before as being VERY pro-Romney). In trying to tie this to President Hinckley there are just too many “degrees of seperation.” The e-mail says that Don Sterling said he heard Kem Gardner say he heard that Elder Holland said that he heard that Elder Faust and Pres. Hinckley (get the picture) “voiced no objections” to the MVP program and use of the BYU Management Society to promote it. Kem Gardner is a long-time friend to Romney (and major donor) and he (or Stirling himself) may have either 1) misunderstood, 2) exaggerated, or 3) took out of context Holland’s meaning. This is all assuming that the emails are legit.

I’m sorry, but this kind of poorly founded journalism is what I expect from Hollywood tabloids, not from the Boston Globe.

I’m interested in seeing the Church’s response on this one.

Jeff

Addendum:

Another point that crossed my mind is that all of these people are well known to eachoter. Dew, Stirling, Gardner, Holland etc . . . they’re all among the “elite” of the Salt Lake City crowd. It’s not a huge city and being a member/leader in the church makes that that much smaller. What I’m getting at is that this is not some targeted scheme by Romney’s people to “get in good” with the church heirarchy. More likely this could just be some in the “Salt Lake Elite” excited about one of “their own” becoming POTUS (Romney’s stint as SLOC chair made him an adopted member of that crowd.) Again, Romney and his PAC are 100% clean on this one. This episode just sends up a warning flare to people who personally support Romney but happen to hold positions of power in the Church/Utah/BYU to be more careful in their personal communications–you never know who may break into your system.

Jeff

Addendum #2:

Great coverage of this by Guy Murray at Bloggernacle Times.

Jeff

[Read more →]

Fledgling Romney Blogs continue to pop up! There’s now North Carolinians for Mitt (run by Peter Wiscombe) , Nuttmeggers for Mitt (A nickname for people from Connecticut; this quippy entry from today is worth a read), President Mitt Romney (looks to be a good source of thoughtful analysis and commentary), and Mothers for Mitt.

Nathan Burd from Americans for Mitt has informed us that there are now people signed on to the Americans for Mitt from all 50 states! Great work Nathan!

Texans for Mitt Romney keeps going strong with NINE different bloggers and some great entries like “Evangelicals Need Not Fear Romney” Parts One and Two, and “Romney is Articulate”

Washingtonians for Mitt also continues to keep going strong as well.

Nancy French is taking Evangelicals for Mitt in a whole different direction the last couple of days.

Sarcastic commentary is running strong at the Run Mitt Run Blog

Andru at South Carolinians for Romney had a great blog entry about the dangers of mixing religion and politics . . . it puts a new perspective about why Romney may not activly seek to discuss the details of his personal faith in a public setting. Also, there’s a link to a piece claiming that Newt Gingrich is not going to be running for President, but is positioning himself to take over as the RNC chairman in 2008–could be (probably is) just speculation.

Jason at Illinoisians for Mitt has a couple of interesting blog entries recently. These two (here and here) are about him meeting Romney at the Chicago event (Cool shirt Jason . . . where have I heard of that before?). Also, he reports that Laura Ingraham was giving Mitt “some love” again (don’t take that the wrong way) on her radio show and even seemed to bring Pat Buchanan along a bit. Jason also runs My Man Mitt.

Romney was on CNN’s “The Situation Room” hosted by Wolf Blitzer last week and you can read the transcript here (scroll down about halfway). My favorit quote after Blitzer tried to grill Romney on the Gay marriage issue:

BLITZER: You know, Mary Cheney, when she was here — and she is a lesbian…

ROMNEY: Yes.

BLITZER: … she said that you — she didn’t know what your position was, but those who support what you — you want a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage — are on the wrong side of history, sort of like the old laws that would prevent African-Americans from marrying white people.

ROMNEY: I’m afraid that’s not quite a good comparison.

It’s not the wrong side of history, because, actually, in the whole history of the world, from the very beginning of recorded history, marriage has always meant a relationship between a man and a woman.

Look, if two people of the same gender want to live together and enter into a contract with each other, so be it. But don’t pretend that it’s marriage. And society, as a whole, will benefit by having its children, on the average, raised by moms and dads.

Blitzer, defeated, then changed the subject. Great stuff from Romney!

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/10/20/romney_defends_mormon_strategy?mode=PF The Globe writers have made an unwise maneuver . . . instead of dropping a poorly reported supposed “expose” about Romney’s Mormon Political Network after clear evidence that the picture they were painting was highly erroneous, they instead dig their heels in and come out with this follow-up piece today that tries to escalate the level of “scandal.” It’s actually pretty funny to read . . . even a bit sad that these reporters work for one of the “top” newspapers in the nation and this is the best they can get on Romney. They are getting desperate to pin something on Romney.

They start off . . .

Governor Mitt Romney vigorously defended a plan yesterday by his political advisers to develop a network of Mormon supporters for his potential presidential bid,

What is this “vigorous defense” that they refer to? Romney said:

“Clearly, I’m going to raise money from people I know, and that includes BYU alums, people of my church, people of other churches, Harvard Business School graduates,”

So Romney essentially admitted to being a politician (real big story) . . . but I see no where that he defended any “plan” to specifically and exclusively develop this so-called “Mormon network” (unless their definition of a “Mormon network” is “two or more individual Mormons who decide to support Romney for President” . . . if that’s the case, then we have a “Romney Mormon Network” right here in my own home!)

Romney’s comments suggest that the fund-raising initiative, which his political advisers dubbed Mutual Values and Priorities, or MVP, remained an active effort.

Oh really? Where did they come up with that? Talk about hearing what you want to hear! A Romney spokesman even stated that the MVP program had been abandoned (that it never really took off). I guess these reporters see their big “expose” of the MVP program disintegrating and they’re trying to breathe life back into it?

But they get even more desperate:

They quote a statement of Otterson, a church spokesman, about the LDS strong history of political neutrality and then mention that he “declined to elaborate” . . . like the church has something to hide about it’s history with politics. Well, I guess they missed Otterson’s response to the Globe article they wrote . . . looks like plenty of “elaboration” to me.

Then they line up some IRS “experts” to strengthen their “scandal story” that the LDS church is in violation of non-profit tax codes.

Donald C. Alexander, who headed the IRS from 1973 to 1977, said yesterday that the collaboration among Romney’s political team and leaders of the church and school could run afoul of federal law.

“The massive effort described in your article is, if not over the line, I think much too close to the line,” he said. “I think individual Mormons can and probably will support the governor, but they should support the governor as individuals, not in their capacities as having responsibilities for a church or for a university.”

That last sentence is true and is the lesson all church organizations should take away from this ordeal. However, what is this “massive effort” he speaks of? I’m offended I wasn’t included. Funny stuff, eh?

Finally they bring in a voice of reason:

Milton Cerny, a retired lawyer who formerly oversaw tax-exempt groups for the IRS, had a different take, saying the actions of the church and BYU did not appear to violate federal law, because Romney is not officially running for president.

“You don’t have an announced candidate,” said Cerny, who lives in Virginia. “These are committees being formed to see whether the individual could be a viable candidate or not.”

So, even if the “spirit of the law” was violated (which it was not, IMO), all parties involved are completely in no violation of the “letter of the law”.

This article redeems itself near the end with some entertaining coverage of Romney visit to Florida.

In Daytona Beach yesterday, Romney, speaking to about 50 Republicans outside a GOP campaign office, cracked a joke about the Massachusetts media.

“There are two factions of reporters where I come from in Massachusetts,” he said. “We have the Hillary-loving, Ted Kennedy apologists — and we have the liberals.”

The audience erupted in laughter and applause. Romney also heaped praise on Jeb Bush, calling him the best governor in America. “There’s no question about that,” he said.

Later in the day, when Romney appeared with Bush at an event for congressional candidate Vern Buchanan, at an airplane hangar in Venice, Fla., he received a standing ovation from about 200 Republicans.

Romney mingled, signed autographs, posed for photographs, and sang an impromptu Irish blessing with a barbershop quartet before refusing to answer any more questions from the Massachusetts reporter.

“Hi, on our way,” he said as he brushed past to a waiting van.

Of course they had to end with an insinuation that Romney was avoiding any more discussion about his huge “MVP-scandal.” However, I’d love to hear more about him singing that impromptu Irish blessing with a barbershop quartet . . . Anyone know if he’s got pipes?

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.article6blog.com/2006/10/19/the-boston-globe I know this link is available below . . . but the coverage of the article6blog. today was excellent and deserved it’s own entry.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/19/romney_camp_consulted_with_mormon_leaders?mode=PF The Boston Globe (ever the friend to Romney) ran a story that tries to tie Romney to an endorsement by the church (or at least that’s the headline and picture they’re trying to paint). This isn’t a major scandal, but it’s not good press either.

My quick take . . . the tie to BYU and the action of the associate dean were unwise maneuvers. There will be plenty of support for Romney among members of the church. Patience is required to let it happen the right way. However, being LDS and knowing our incredibly strong record of political neutrality and following the rules (we don’t do “voter guides” like other churches/Christian organizations), it is sort of bothersome that the Globe would paint the church in this light.

A companion article is here which, just by it’s subject matter/title, seems to suggest that the LDS church “better watch out” or else we’ll lose our non-profit tax status. Pretty annoying.

Hotline’s coverage is here.

Part of their disscussion . . .

Fact: the Globe story, read closely, does not suggest that anyone in the church did anything wrong or illegal, or that Romney’s aides acted improperly. Fact: Bishops of Mormon churches are forbidden from using church directories for politics, which means that Romney needs to find other ways to collect LDS church membership lists across the country.

Since Hotline is big on McCain (and therefore not too hot on Romney) it’s interesting that they don’t seem to see much of a scandal here.

Jeff

[Read more →]

What are the correct terms for homosexual couples and their family members? Somebody tell us. I, and perhaps you, have struggled with this one for a long time. I am so behind the times that I still struggle with how to refer to unmarried heterosexual couples, much less gay ones. (See side bar) In an [...]

[Read more →]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=74332 Yesterday it was announced that Gov. Romney will appear in person on the Family Research Council’s “Liberty Sunday” simulcast this weekend (including a webcast at www.libertysunday.com).

No word on future First Lady Ann Romney’s scheduled appearance, but it appears she’s been bumped off the list in favor of her husband.

Y’know, I’m mildly disappointed. It’s great that another audience will get to see Gov. Romney in action, but I personally (and selfishly) would have liked to have seen Mrs. Romney. Usually we only see her introducing the governor.

~~~Thomas

[Read more →]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mitt10oct10,1,6805742.story?coll=la-headlines-nation (Apologies to Paul Harvey for stealing his line.)

It wasn’t enough for the LA Times to sponsor and publicize a misleading poll thay many have thought casts doubts on Romney’s chances of becoming POTUS because he’s LDS (That’s the one that says that 37% don’t want a Mormon POTUS–see the link above for why I think that’s a poorly conducted and highly misleading poll).

Well, now the LA Times has run another story titled “Romney’s 2008 Bid Faces Issue of Faith: Massachusetts’ GOP governor has political promise, but voters may not embrace a Mormon.”.

As is becoming a common theme with articles about Romney they essentially say that he’s the PERFECT candidate . . . except for that darn religion that he ascribes to.

DES MOINES — In seeking a presidential candidate for 2008, why would Republicans look further than the governor of Massachusetts?

Tall and urbane, Mitt Romney has a prime political pedigree, an unblemished personal life and the cool confidence of a CEO. He is a conservative Republican who won easy election in a fiercely liberal state — then streamlined Massachusetts’ government and enacted the country’s most sweeping healthcare overhaul.

He is a passionate defender of states’ rights and recently has embraced strong views against stem cell research and abortion — a reversal of earlier positions. He never swears, and his sole vice is Diet Coke. Not incidentally, the 59-year-old governor boasts Ivy League credentials and movie-star looks.

OK . . . they could have stopped the article there; but they go on to quote folks who seem to think Romney’s Mormonism will be a BIG hurdle (some even think insurmountable).

As a devout Mormon — and a onetime bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — Romney adheres to a faith that makes many Americans uncomfortable.

They quote their own lousy poll as evidence of their point and then quote a Poli Sci prof from Emory, Merel Black:

“He starts out with a deck stacked against him,”

Then it gets interesting:

[Romney's] reluctance to delve deeper into his beliefs, only add to the mystery of a faith that many Americans associate with polygamy — although that practice has long been outlawed by the church — and with customs such as marrying people after they have died and converting the dead.

“Evangelicals are appalled by all that,” said Pastor Ted Haggard, president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals in Colorado Springs, Colo. “We evangelicals view Mormons as a Christian cult group. A cult group is a group that claims exclusive revelation. And typically, it’s hard to get out of these cult groups. And so Mormonism qualifies as that.”

In addition, Haggard said, evangelicals do not accept Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith as a prophet. “And we do not believe that the Book of Mormon has the same level of authority as the Bible,” he said.

Boy, sounds like this Haggard guy is going to be leading the charge against a Romney presidency, right?

WRONG!

That same Pastor Ted Haggard, just one month ago spoke with a reporter from the Salt Lake Tribune and he didn’t seem to be such an obstacle to a President Romney:

The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said Friday he would have no problem voting for a Mormon for U.S. president. . . .

“We rejected an Evangelical [Harriet Meiers] for the Supreme Court and accepted a Catholic [Samuel Alito],” said Haggard, who was in Salt Lake City to address the Religion Newswriters Association’s annual convention. “It’s a question of competence.” Evangelical Christians are more interested “in good government,” than in religious affiliation, . . .
But it’s not all so rosy for Haggard:
“We believe Mormonism is a Christian cult,” [Haggard] said after his speech. “But we have the same positions on many social issues, pro-life and so on.” He said that Evangelicals and Catholics have long joined forces on these social issues and a similar dialogue about them between Evangelicals and Mormons is “in the early stages.” “We are in search for areas where we can stand together,” Haggard said.

At least the Salt Lake Tribune carried both sides of Haggard’s comments . . . The LA Times wasn’t quite so honest, eh?

But it’s not just Haggard that they hold up as an obstacle to Romney. They quote a South Carolinian GOP County Chairman, Rick Beltram, about how much work Romney has to do to make any headway in that Bible Belt State:

But as he campaigns in South Carolina, “the biggest weakness for Romney is that he is a Mormon,” said Spartanburg County Republican Party Chairman Rick Beltram.

“He’s got to convince the rank and file that Mormonism isn’t some strange cult religion, and persuade people that the beliefs he holds are very much mainstream USA.”

Starting with Romney’s first exploratory trip to Spartanburg, S.C., in February 2005, Beltram said, “Everyone said, ‘Oh boy, what does a Mormon believe in?’ ”

Wait though, this the same Rick Beltram who was quoted just a few days ago in a South Carolina paper, The State:

“Romney has moved up the fastest,” said Spartanburg County Republican chairman Rick Beltram.

Obviously, Beltram isn’t painting a picture of an insurmountable challenge (which seems to be the whole point of the LA Times article.) Very shady journalism, if you ask me.

Well, I just thought every one deserved to hear . . . “The Rest of the Story.” One sided reporting of issues is something we’ve come to expect from liberal rags like the LA Times. But that doesn’t mean that we have to take the trash they’re trying to shove down our throats.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.slate.com/id/2151140 Click the link to read the entire article. Slate goes in depth into the reasons why Evangelical Christians are joining the Romney camp.

Polls may show Rudy Giuliani in the lead for the Republican nomination in 2008. John McCain may appear to have the political clout to serve as President Bush’s anointed successor. But it is Gov. Mitt Romney, the Mormon from Massachusetts, who has captured the imagination of the religious right.

It’s counterintuitive, to say the least, for social conservatives to treat a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a fitting successor to George W. Bush. The president is an evangelical Protestant, as is the bulk of the religious right. And conventional wisdom holds that evangelicals are a pretty judgmental bunch. They don’t like homosexuals. They’ll tolerate Jews, but only because they think Israel is hastening the Second Coming of Christ. Their disputes about Catholicism center on whether the pope is best described as the Antichrist or the Whore of Babylon. And Mormons? Well, the last thing you’d expect evangelicals to do is support a candidate whose religion many of them consider to be a polygamous cult with practices and beliefs that derive from Freemasonry, not the New Testament.

Yet this is precisely what’s happening. Which goes to show how broad-based the religious right has become, inviting participation and support by culturally alienated members of nearly any faith. During the last 25 years, the religious right has undergone an ecumenical transformation.
And yet Mitt Romney’s undeclared candidacy has so far managed to inspire a remarkable degree of enthusiasm among right-wing Christians. Conservative Catholics have a proven track record of voting for non-Catholic candidates who support the issues they care about. Among evangelicals, some clearly admire the stands Romney has taken against gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research in liberal Massachusetts and hope that he’ll come to be seen as a viable alternative to McCain and Giuliani, both of whom fall to Romney’s left on social issues. Even Falwell has admitted that it’s the issues that will matter in the next presidential contest: “If he’s pro-life, pro-family, I don’t think he’ll have any trouble getting the support of evangelical Christians,” he told the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Miss., earlier this year. Romney has good reason to hope that, faced with the prospect of a pro-choice Republican nominee, conservative believers will adopt the pragmatic view of evangelical blogger Charles Mitchell: “The 2008 election is for president, not for pastor.”

Ann Marie

[Read more →]

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/15705299.htm An article at The State.com is the latest installment of the McCain vs. Romney ongoing behind the scenes battle for party activists support.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is emerging as the favorite of hard-core conservative Republicans in South Carolina who want to derail John McCain’s straight talk express.

Their first pick, U.S. Sen. George Allen of Virginia, lost standing when he made highly publicized racial slurs during a heated re-election campaign.

That left conservatives — mostly evangelical Christians — with one real challenger to McCain.

“Social conservatives are absolutely going to line up behind Romney,” said Dee Benedict of Greenville, a prominent activist. “What I’ve found in talking with pastors and activists is that a number of them are already committed to Romney — to my surprise.”

Also,

Barring a major event, South Carolina appears headed toward a showdown between McCain supporters and a band of Christian right activists who are counting on Romney.

Religious conservatives remember McCain attacking their leaders in the 2000 campaign. He branded them intolerant and “evil,” and accused them of conducting a smear campaign against him.

“Romney has moved up the fastest,” said Spartanburg County Republican chairman Rick Beltram.

I really didn’t think Romney would have much of a chance at winning S.C. (thought it would be Allen’s or another southern conservative), but things are changing and every early state may end up being “in play” for Romney.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.sltrib.com/portal/opinion/ci_4423953?_loopback=1 Remember the LA Times/Bloomberg poll about 37% not wanting a Mormon POTUS? I picked a lot of that apart in a previous blog entry. Bruce Wilson wrote an opinion piece “Mitt Romney’s faith is an asset for 2008 race” about that same topic and we make many of the same points.

No, this poll isn’t about Mormon theology. It’s about the political views held by the vast majority of Mormons. And that’s actually very good news for Romney.

Many of his points thereafter hold water but I still think it’s going a little far to say that “Romney’s Faith” will be more of an asset than a liability. We just don’t know that yet . . . but Bruce may be right in the long run.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://www.article6blog.com/2006/09/24/the-gloves-come-off-in-south-carolina-and-the-low-blow-comes-from-mccains-camp/ Romney apparently got religiously accosted by a political activist last week in South Carolina. Read Andru’s take at South Carolinians for Romney here and here.

Also, the Article 6 Blog has fairly conprehensive coverage (that blog is dedicated to Article 6 in the constitution which prohibits a “religious test” being applied to those seeking office . . . this is right up their alley).

Also, Evangelicals for Mitt has some great coverage and confirms the McCain tie beyond dispute.

Are the McCain folks getting scared and going on the offensive this early? Sure seems that way.

Things are heating up!

Jeff

[Read more →]

Jerry Falwell is just another religious right conservative who spews hate now towards Hillary Clinton.  The GOP is shaking in their boots afraid of a woman.  We will hear so much hate toward her it will top any Swift Boat Campaign they have done so far.  I always thought Church was supposed to make you [...]

[Read more →]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1907074 I don’t generally quote and entire article . . . but this is a big one from ABC News. See the link here for the original article:

‘Know Thine Enemy,’ Romney Says of ‘Jihadists’
Republican Presidential Hopeful Warns of Religious-Tinged Threat
By TEDDY DAVIS
April 30, 2006 — - Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., has sought to confront the religious element of terrorism.

“They are terrorists, yes, but more directly they are Jihadists,” the White House hopeful told ABC News. “That has broad implications.”

Romney’s determination to avoid referring to America’s enemies solely by the tactics that they use is earning praise from some foreign policy specialists.

“I think it could change the entire center of the conversation,” said Mary Habeck, a professor of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.

By identifying America’s enemies as Jihadists, Habeck thinks the United States would be better positioned to wage an ideological campaign to “portray these people as the extremists that they really are” and to “drive a wedge between them and the vast majority of the Islamic world.”

In her new book, “Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror,” Habeck argues that Jihadists are not merely angry about U.S. policies. In Habeck’s view, Jihadists are at war with the United States because they view America as the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate.

She told ABC News that if you refer to them as terrorists, “you have no idea what holds them together as a group or what gets them to join up as a group.”

Romney’s determination to go beyond the “terrorist” label has also met with approval by a Democratic member of the 9/11 Commission.

“The governor is on the right track,” former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., told ABC News. “I continue to believe very strongly that a war against a military tactic is not likely to be very satisfying in the end.”

Kerrey is concerned, however, that the root word jihad has multiple implications.

“I would not use the word jihad because there is a peaceful jihad,” said Kerrey.

The former Navy SEAL, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam, would prefer to see the United States declare war on al Qaeda.

Romney acknowledges that there has been a “big debate” in academic circles about the meaning of jihad, with some people believing that a spiritual jihad was never intended in the world of Islam to be militaristic.

He says, however, that “there is no question” about what jihad means to the Islamic militants fighting the United States. Nor does Romney think there is any question that Osama bin Laden would like the world to see him as a potential caliph.

“The old statement ‘know thine enemy’ is appropriate,” Romney told ABC News.

Romney wants the public to know that Jihadists are not an “armed group of crazed maniacs in the hills of Afghanistan.” Rather, Romney says the United States is facing a “far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction” with a “very 8th century view of the world.”

Based on his reading of books such as “American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us,” by Steven Emerson, and “Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America” by Walid Phares, Romney believes the Jihadists want to “retake the ancient Muslim lands and unify umma, or the world of Islam, under a caliphate.”

To support his views, Romney points to a memo that Ayman al-Zawahiri is believed to have written to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on July 9, 2005, in which Al Qaeda’s number two tells Al Qaeda’s top agent in Iraq that their mission must not end with the expulsion of Americans from Iraq.

The letter, Arabic and English versions of which were posted in October to the Web site of the director of national intelligence, lays out a four-part plan that begins with expelling the Americans from Iraq but also includes establishing an Islamic authority over the Sunni areas of Iraq, extending the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, and clashing with Israel since Israel, in Zawahiri’s view, “was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.”

Romney believes Jihadists are just a “very narrow and very extreme sector” of Islam. But given that there are more than one billion Muslims in the world, he warns that “a small percentage of a very large number is still a large number.”

One outgrowth of Romney’s focus on Jihadism is his support for increased surveillance in the United States.

In a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation last year, Romney posed a series of rhetorical questions about domestic intelligence gathering.

“We have 120 colleges and universities in Massachusetts, roughly,” he said. “How many individuals are coming to our state and going to those institutions who come from terror sponsored states? Do we know where they are? Are we tracking them? How about people who are in settings — mosques, for instance — that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror? Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what’s going on? Are we seeing who’s coming in, who’s coming out?”

The comments drew fire from Muslims and advocates of civil liberties in Massachusetts while being praised by some conservatives.

Romney told ABC News that it was not his intent to suggest wiretapping mosques, but he has not backed away from wanting to wiretap extremist individuals.

“I would wiretap individuals wherever they are who are preaching doctrines of hate,” he said.

“It’s important for as many of us as possible to understand the nature of those who are our enemies in this war,” Romney told ABC News. “They are Jihadists — an extreme and tiny slice of the world of Islam. They will be defeated by military might and by the forces of modernity and moderation within the world of Islam.”

ABC News’ Mike Westling contributed to this report

Awesome stuff by our man Romney!

[Read more →]

http://www.nysun.com/article/39232 This interesting editorial from the New York Sun praises Romney and Giuliani for their strong stands against terrorist visits to our soil and compares their actions to Teddy Rooseveldt’s humorous handling of another Anti-Semite, Rector Ahlwardt.

They then continue:

Mr. Romney faced a slightly different situation than Commissioner Roosevelt, for we are now in a war and anti-Semitism isn’t looking so ridiculous. Mr. Khatemi is not just an itinerant preacher. He’s the front man for a nation that is actively fighting against us, that is levying a war against the Jewish state, that has played a role in killing hundreds of Americans. His motives in coming here are patently disingenuous, as are those of the Kennedy School in hosting him. Our government has allowed Mr. Khatemi in as a private person, but the mission on which he is here is to carry out hostile state purposes — and his speech at Harvard has been timed to mock the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mr. Romney put out a long and exceptionally thoughtful statement explaining his decision. By our lights Mr. Khatemi’s visit is more like ,. . . [a] calculated insult

They have it right like Romney does.

Also, Romney has spent at least some of the last two days speaking to media outlets. I saw him on the “Personal Story” segment of the “O’Reiley Factor” tonight and he seemed to convince a skeptical Bill O’Reiley toward his point of view. I heard he was on Sean Hannity’s, Laura Ingraham’s, and Hugh Hewitt’s Radio shows recently too. When I find links . . . I’ll get them posted.

Jeff

Edit:

The Political Pit Bull has the video of Gov. Romney’s appearance on O’Reilly.

Click me!.

[Read more →]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0814azindc14.html A recent “focus group” of 30 or so Republicans in New Hampshire and Iowa dealt with potential 2008 presidential nominees (McCain, Allen, Romney, Giuliani, Frist, and Newt).

The results are presented as McCain and Newt coming out on top. I’d love to have seen the real results and not the spin. I’m very suspicious of the headline and the subsequent spin for a few reasons: 1) this was only released to an Arizona newspaper, 2) that it was quickly picked up by a paid McCain blogger and 3) that Luntz is tightly tied to the current GOP power structure and a documented McCain fan (even titled his GOP strategy confidential memo “Straight Talk”. . . that got leaked–surprise, surprise! Interestingly, going further back, Luntz was also a key player in the formulation of “The Contract with America”)

Now, are we surprised that the results are presented in favor of McCain and Newt? (Do they think we’re not going to look into this stuff?)

Of Romney the focus group leader said:

Mitt Romney: “Romney looks and sounds presidential,” Luntz said of the Massachusetts governor.

He is viewed as “the smoothest” of the candidates, even by those who don’t particularly warm to him. But Romney’s toughest hurdle may be how well he responds to questions about his Mormon religion.

In New Hampshire, Luntz noted, “Voters appreciated how he dodged details about his faith, focusing on ‘values that we share.’ ”

But Iowa has a significant Christian conservative population, and Luntz said his response to the religious question there raised more questions than it answered.

So, the only “knock” on Romney from the focus group is among Iowan Christian Conservatives? I think that is a great sign! It’s here in Iowa that Romney is looking the strongest and where he’s gotten the best reviews from crowds. He got great reviews a couple of months ago at an Iowa Christian Alliance House Party that I was able to attend (see reports here, here and here)

Romney’s sitting pretty from my vantage point! Keep an eye out for the spin though . . .

Jeff

[Read more →]