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://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzVmMzk0YWNiZjZiYzEyNDQ4MTM0ZmM0YTdhMGRmOTI= MORT KONDRACKE: I think [Giuliani's] got a shot. I wouldn’t say he’s favored by any means — I think McCain is favored.

BARNES: I think he has a good shot. I think, look, who draws the big crowds? I mean, he campaigned for everybody, so did McCain, so did Romney they were campaigning for Republican candidates all over the country. All I heard was . . . Giuliani was getting the big crowds, particularly in the South, where supposedly his social views, which are very liberal, would cause him trouble. . . . If they’re looking for some guy who’s a proven leader and someone who stood up during a crisis like 9/11, well then you have Giuliani.

HUME: How big a problem would Mitt Romney’s Mormonism be with that element of the Republican base?

KONDRACKE: Look, Richard Land who’s with the Southern Baptist Convention said all Mitt Romney has to do is have a Houston Council of Ministers session like John F. Kennedy did so explain that his Catholicism was not going to govern in his presidency and he does the same thing with the — a large Evangelical audience and he can get over this in the situation that they’re going to be tolerant of him.

MARA LIASSON: I think Romney has been, by all accounts, running an excellent campaign. He’s been out there, he’s developing all kinds of infrastructure that Giuliani is only now just beginning to do and he has a policy achievement under his belt, health care and he’s an executive . . .

Copied from: The Corner on National Review Online
Hat tip to: Evangelicals for Mitt

Kevin Davis Jr.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, 2008, Presidential Election, Election 2008.

[Read more →]

http://www.article6blog.com/2006/11/13/an-article-v-6-blog-interview-john-mcintyre-of-real-clear-politics/ The Article 6 Blog has an interesting interview with John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics. They discuss Mitt Romney and the possible “Mormon Issue”.

Here are a few excerpts from the interview:

McIntyre:I think the unknown here is the degree to which Mitt Romney’s opponents, maybe not openly but operatives and supporters of his opponents, may try to make the Mormon issue something that could move voters in Republican primary. I think it’s just an open question.

McIntyre:Well, not entirely, but I mean, I should clarify that. I mean, what I’m saying is social conservatives are out there thinking, who’s their guy, and for a while the thinking was maybe Senator Allen was going to be their guy. Well, he stumbled. Okay, so he’s not in the top tier right now, so who are they turning to? They don’t like McCain. They don’t trust McCain, they don’t like him. Giuliani is just liberal across the board on issues that are very important to social conservatives. I mean, in many ways, Romney’s the guy by default.

Kevin Davis Jr.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, 2008, Presidential Election, Election 2008.

[Read more →]

http://jeffhamrick.blogspot.com/2006/11/i-had-rare-opportunity-to-sit-down-with.html I had the rare opportunity to sit down with about a dozen other pastors in our area to meet and talk with Massachussetts Governor and hopeful 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.

He’s a level-headed conservative with an impressive track record in Massachussetts. He revolutionized health care in his state by - get this - removing government regulations and allowing the market to provide affordable products for individuals.

How a conservative Mormon even lives in Teddy Kennedy’s neck of the woods is impressive enough.

Romney shares many of our current president’s values, and at the same time, seems to have a better managerial philosophy - especially when it comes to the War on Terror.

I wonder if being a conservative person without the “evangelical” or “fundamentalist” labels will work to his advantage with people who vote conservatively when it comes to social and fiscal issues.

It will definitely be interesting to see how the next presidential election comes down.

Right now it seems like the Republican hopefuls are John McCain, Rudy Giulliani, George Allen, Mitt Romney, and possibly Mike Huckabee.

The problem is: half of these guys won’t ever have enough cash to campaign - especially against Hillary Clinton, who will have truckloads of money delivered to her from Hollywood and the Unions.

Thanks to Jeff Hamrick Online for his opinion!

Kevin

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney

[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://kutv.com/stories/local_story_292182853.html This should be enough to put this issue to bed…

Thanks Kevin for pointing it out…

Questions And Answers About Gov. Mitt Romney

SALT LAKE CITY 2New Reporter, Dan Rascone: Did Elder Holland meet with Governor Mitt Romney or his staff about his run for President?

LDS Church Spokeswoman, Kim Farah: No. Elder Holland’s secretary simply responded to a request from Kem Gardner to come by his office, and she set up an appointment. Kem Gardner asked if he could bring Mitt’s son Josh and Don Sterling, a Romney colleague dating back to Olympic days, for a handshake and a chat–literally a courtesy call. This was simply a response to an appointment requested by an old friend.

Rascone: Did Elder Holland suggest using BYU’s business school alumni organization as a way to generate money and support?

Farah: No.

Rascone: The Church’s reaction to the Boston Globe’s article?

Farah: In light of articles appearing in the media, we reaffirm the position of neutrality taken by the Church, and affirm the long-standing policy that no member occupying an official position in any organization of the Church is authorized to speak in behalf of the Church concerning the Church’s stand on political issues.

Rascone: The Boston Globe article makes it sound like President Hinckley was made aware of the effort by Elder Holland and made no opposition.

Farah: This is ridiculous. This was a casual visit with no declared agenda and so no one saw any need to tell the First Presidency beforehand. To characterize it as “the effort to help Romney” as if that’s a fact is completely wrong. Elder Holland re-emphasized the Church’s political neutrality rules. He also said, when the topic of BYU came up, that they would have to check with BYU on how the rules applied to these other entities like the management school. The same counsel would have been given to any other aspiring candidate who asked the same question, regardless of their politics.

Rascone: The IRS is warning Church’s not to endorse candidates or help fund their campaign…is this action by Elder Holland stepping over the line?

Farah: Absolutely not. Elder Holland did nothing to endorse the Romney campaign.

Rascone: Anything else you wanted to make clear or add to what is being said in the Boston Globe story?

Farah: It would be beneficial for you to read this blog. I think they got it exactly right: article6blog. I suspect that other bloggers and media will see this story in the same light.

Ann Marie

[Read more →]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391730/?postversion=2006101906 Former Democratic National Committee Chairman, Terry McCauliffe was asked by fortune magazine Washington Bureau cheif, Nina Easton, the following:

Terry, who do you predict is going to be the leading Republican alternative to McCain in 2008?

MCAULIFFE: Mitt Romney. I think he has a great business background [and] has done some great things on health-care initiatives in Massachusetts. You know, Ed and I have actually seen him on speaking engagements. He trudges around with his PowerPoint presentation. If he can deal with the religious issue [Romney's a Mormon], I think that he would be formidable.

Add one more to the list of political heavyweights that thinks that Romney’s looking strong.

Jeff

Addendum

Thanks to those who corrected my error.

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 →]

http://dawgandponyshow.blogspot.com/2006/10/political-rambling.html Another Evangelical for Romney…Who said that he had a “Mormon Problem”?

All that being said, when I vote in November’s elections, I will probably vote overwhelmingly Republican for the simple fact that there is an alignment of thought on the issues mentioned above. I could not vote in good conscious for someone who advocates abortion or any other sin in the name of “freedom”. This is not to say I endorse everything that the Republican candidates do or say. If Mitt Romney were the presidential candidate in 2008, I would probably vote for him because of his views on abortion and marriage, despite the fact that he’s a Mormon.

Ann Marie

[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.iowansforromney.blogspot.com/ Over at my blog, Iowans for Romney, I’ve put up a couple of less serious blog entries lately. This one is a great You Tube video that is a must see.

The other just has a couple of funny photos.

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 →]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008991 Hot off the Press with this one:

Romney Rides High
A Mormon from Massachusetts wows social conservatives.

John Fund

Monday, September 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

WASHINGTON–Right now John McCain is the front-runner for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. But everyone expects that a single major competitor will emerge to challenge him from the right. The question hung in the air of this past weekend’s Family Research Council summit in Washington: Who will that candidate be for the GOP’s powerful social conservative base?

FRC officials says they invited Mr. McCain to speak, but he declined. But another potential candidate benefited greatly from showing up. Surprisingly, it was Massachusetts’ Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon with a Harvard M.B.A who governs the nation’s most liberal state. The 1,800 delegates applauded him frequently during his Friday speech and gave him a standing ovation afterward. Mr. Romney detailed his efforts to block court-imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State and noted that the liberal Legislature has failed to place a citizen-initiated referendum on the ballot. He excoriated liberals for supporting democracy only when they think that the outcome is a foregone conclusion that favors their views. He certainly picked up fans at the summit. “I believe Mitt Romney may be the only hope social conservatives have in 2008,” says Maggie Gallagher, author of a book defending traditional marriage.

The tall barrier many see as blocking his acceptance by evangelical voters–the fact that many Americans view Mormonism with suspicion or worse–may prove to be a mirage. “Everyone I talked to said they didn’t have a problem with it,” one attendee told me. “If enough people say that to each other, Romney creates a virtuous circle in which evangelical activists decide he’s acceptable.”

Interesting . . . very interesting. One recent GOP activist who tried to take Romney’s Mormonism to task in South Carolina was viewed as very bad taste. Fund later continued.

[Romney] impressed three separate and distinct audiences in Washington last week in a 24-hour speaking blitz. On Thursday about one out of eight House Republicans came to hear him address a weekly luncheon hosted by Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia. Mr. Kingston told the Boston Globe that Mr. Romney made a very positive impression and was clearly positioning himself for the role opposite Mr. McCain that Mr. Allen once occupied.

Immediately afterward, Mr. Romney went across town to address a group of K Street lobbyists and economic conservatives. “He was impressive in explaining how he governed as a conservative in Ted Kennedy’s home state,” said columnist Robert Novak. The next morning, Mr. Romney appeared before the Family Research Council’s summit. “He won over a lot of people when he recalled how as a businessman he had rescued the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City,” says Chris Butler of Americans For Tax Reform.

That experience helped solidify Mr. Romney’s reputation as a can-do manager who knows how to delegate. “He is the only elected official I’ve met with who gave me a detailed power-point briefing on my area of expertise,” says Bob Moffit, a health-care expert at the Heritage Foundation who worked with Mr. Romney to craft a law mandating that everyone in Massachusetts buy health insurance.

I’ve seen that powerpoint presentation at the Heritage Foundation’s website. Romney quickly masters various areas of expertise (I also remember how he spoke and diagrammed like an engineer during the Big Dig crisis and how well versed he was in his press conferences during the Mass flooding a few months back)

But Mr. Romney also has many advantages. He is perhaps the only candidate who can plausibly claim a base in several states. He has a contributor base in Massachusetts; a large reservoir of political goodwill in Michigan, where he was born and his father served as governor in the 1960s; and the loyalty of many Mormons in Utah and neighboring states. He has a built-in corps of volunteers and contributors in any state where Mormons, the fastest-growing religion in America, have a real presence.

And then there is the charisma and poise that Mr. Romney seems to exude naturally. “Many people say he certainly looks like a president–sort of a cross between Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy,” says Genevieve Wood, who founded the conservative Center for a Just Society. Anyone who draws comparisons to those political genes merits further watching.

That’s not the first time I’ve heard the Reagan comparison. This WSJ writer has it right . . . Romney’s on the Rise!

Jeff

[Read more →]