Redstate

While I noted that an assertion in the post before mine was "debatable," I tried to stay away from getting into the merits of the debate. I certainly agree that a debate on what constitutes a true Christian, or whether the LDS church is truly a Christian church, would serve no positive purpose here. I assure you I will not get into such a doctrinal debate.

My point, most simply, was that Romney and his supporters also need to have to have the discipline to stay away from that debate, which means not inviting the debate by claiming that LDS is a Christian religion (and by staying away, I don't so much mean here, where we can all be reasonable, as I mean in the context of the larger campaign process). When that claim is made, it invites a response from other folks who take very seriously - in many cases, as the most serious issue possible in their lives - the issue of what it means to be a Christian. It has the potential to polarize them, and to invite refutation or at least disagreement, which I don't think Romney wants or needs.

I think Romney should simply state that he is a man of faith, that he believes in God and Jesus Christ, but that he recognizes that on many points of doctrine he disagrees with many mainstream Christians. He should then stress that 1) on social and cultural issues, he's a friend, not a foe, to the kinds of folks who do worry about doctrinal details, and 2) that he brings assets to the table other than his personal religion.

I doubt I will vote for Romney, but then there is no one else in the current group of early contenders that impresses me either, so I'm still in a wait and watch phase on all of them.

So your telling me that almost ¼ of the voting population wouldn't vote for Bush solely because he is an evangelical?

1.    either the poll is grossly wrong

2.    its not really an issue people care about

3.    Bush won despite an initial handicap of ¼ of the population

I think it's mostly 2.

...but if it is reliable polling data, it should be taken into account.

...but if it is reliable polling data, it should be taken into account.

1.  I hope this helps.  If looking for an old thread click on the name of the person(s) posting and then "comments".  If you haven't used that technique it sometimes helps.
   
2.  I can better agree now that you have clarified your position.  The law does not require individual voters to disconsider religion.

I still don't believe it should be dismissed in personal considerations however.  As I stated, I can easily vote for a Mormon, just not Mitt.  To clarify, I won't vote for Mitt in the primaries, but I can vote half heartedly for him if he is the eventual GOP candidate.  I am still open to persuasion.  I have read points at RS that have changed my opinions on a few issues, and raised concerns on others.

I could also vote for several candidates that may be considered "fringe", such as Jehova's Witnesses.  But I reserve the right to consider it as a factor.  For example, my faith outright prevents me from voting for an avowed Satanist (though the odds are against one running, it still makes my point).  While I am tolerant of Muslims I might be forgiven if I viewed a Muslim for president with some reservations.

Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.

until they have two human beings in front of them, at which point they realize they're not choosing a favored religion but a President.  As a catholic, I would much prefer to vote for someone who shares my pro-life values than someone who is nominally catholic but pro-death (Kerry, Kennedy, Cuomo, etc.).  

It would be interesting to see a similar poll from before the 1960 election cycle and then again after the cycle.  The change from before to after would be very revealing about how  JFK's campaign (leadership/charisma/ideas) impacted the public's perception about catholics in the WH.  Leaders change perceptions.  

If the anti-Mormon number is at 35% now, I'll bet it would be at least 10 points lower after Americans got to hear from Romney on the campaign trail.  At that point, it would be in the same neighborhood as the anti-evangelical number (which, as the above posters pointed out, also deserves a lot of skepticsim after 2000 and '04).  

There is a lot of intolerance on the left against evangelicals.  Of course, I'm also not sure Methodists are generally considered evangelicals.

You have made these comments so many times before, only to have them refuted.

Since you only repeat the same stuff when your poor arguments are brought to task, you really show an inability to support any of your points with rational logic.

Unfortunatly for you, there is alot more to Romney than your one or two quotes you use from the Boston Globe.

Additionaly your love of twisting facts (I consider it lying) to help your anti-Romney agenda has been exposed in other threads.

Most Americans don't know anything about the Mormon faith. They probably confuse it with Scientology. When more come to understand that Mormons accept Jesus as Christ and see that Governor Romney is a normal, but outstanding, person, very few will eschew Mitt for his faith.

What's most interesting--though not at all surprising--about the poll is that Democrats and liberals are more religiously bigoted than Republicans and conservatives.

I had similar thoughts.  Compare this to the polls where "generic democrats" always do very well, but when it comes down to actual specific democrats the picture becomes much different.

Sorry, I should have made this point in an older post/thread.

At one time you stated that Article 6 was not applicable to voting against a specific religion since it applies to the goverment or something of that nature. You said this in response to my citing the article as a point that might dissuade people from voting based on religion.

Actually what I was saying, and I have tried to find the original thread but can't, was that when people come to understand article 6 along with the first ammendment they will realize voting based on religion is not a good idea. Not that it is illegal or violated the constitution.

While you were probably correct to state the letter of the law does not apply to an individual in this instance

(I am not a constitutional scholar!), I was reffering to the spirit of the law.

Anyway, sorry for the late reply.

I mostly dismissed the "never-vote-for-a-Mormon" as "3, maybe 4%". I'll say that anonymity of candidates plays a factor here for some people, though, and on the other hand, I'll venture that some of the Democratic down votes had Romney in mind.

This is almost absurd in practice though. Let's say the Democrats run Dodd or Daschle or Richardson, and the Republicans run Guiliani or Brownback or Santorum. Are you telling me nine percent of Americans are going to stay home or vote for independent candidates just to avoid a Papist? Please.

(And Richardson v. Guiliani is not impossible)

The last line of the quote says it all. Most when asked this question, are really thinking in general terms. With a specific candidate, like Romney, perceptions will change as they get to know a candidate.

I did a straw poll for this on a previous thread, only 9% said they would not vote for a mormon. But that was probably after reading the article.

http://jbonham76.redstate.com/story/2006/6/9/225349/1175

My point was that every religion is the subject of debate so it's not really fair nor worth it to sit here and debate a single religion's authenticity on a site such as this.

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough or if I came off too strong.

So probably at least 22% of the 35% is on the left?  The reason I classified him as evangelical is because evangelicals claim him.

I can promise you that you have as much chance retaining your posting priviledges on RedState as John Kerry or Al Gore.

You've blown through your first four (no, now five) rants without showing any signs of intelligence. Crawl back to your echo chamber on Daily Kos. They appreciate rants of your caliber and depth over there.

I can promise you that Romney has as much chance down here as John Kerry or Al Gore.

I don't think Romney's faith will be a big deal in the race. If he has any weakness at all, it's that he lacks a certain common-man vibe that would help with some male GOP voters. Reagan had this, and George W. Bush has it (and Bill Clinton--barf--does as well). In the GOP field, Allen is the one who has the personality to appeal to the "common" man. Maybe Huckabee, too, but he doesn't have the fundraising ability or connections to be a major contestant.

On the other hand, I think Romney will have considerably more appeal than any other likely GOP candidate to female voters, especially married ones. He seems like the "perfect" husband and father. My wife, who does not consider herself a Republican, melted when she heard Romney talk about his wife and marriage on TV a while back, and any woman would have to be impressed by his competence and accomplishments. His appearance will also help with women.

If Romney wins the general election, the Democrats will smear him like nothing you've ever seen. They probably won't mention his faith outwardly, but you can be darn sure they'll try to say how "different" and "out of touch" he is. They will use coded language, jokes and insults to try to instill the belief in folks that Romney is weird. And they will comb over his business background to find any instance when he was advising a company to restructure, outsource or just lay off some employees.

My main question about Romney is: is he tough enough to fight through all the evil crap the Democrats will throw at him? In other words, is Romney too nice to win?

I think that you're right on with most of what you say.  I'm pretty darn confident in Romney's ability to not mess up on this issue.  I think he's smart and wise and will do a great job at diffusing the Mormon issue.  

He may be able to pull a Reagan and use his humor to turn a "touchy issue" into something funny.  

To be sure, he does need to play his cards right . . . but in everything I've seen so far, he should be able to do that.

Interesting paragraph in the linked article states Gov. Romney is quite popular with Mass.'s citizens.

"His religion apparently was no detriment in Massachusetts in 2002, when he easily won election as governor. Massachusetts is one of the most heavily Catholic states in the country, and also one of the most Democratic."

Where I come from, "evangelical" is a bad word normally used as an insult.

That's the north-east.  I would assume most of that 25% comes from around there.

Good thing we need precisely zero electoral votes from that area to win elections, huh?

I never saw it myself, but I heard there was a campaign ad that featured him playing with his family at the beach.  There was a little tif in the media about Romney being shirtless, and that his campaign was trying to woo female voters with Romney's good looks.  I heard that Romney's communication director responded that good looks were only half of the ad's appeal to women voters.  The other, more important half, was a father who spent time with his children.  Thus the "perfect" husband.

Which makes sense if women voters think that good husband/father material makes good Governor material, (and the same for Presidents).

Reagan had the whole: "Man from the West", "Man who rides in on a horse," hero image.  He conjurs up in your head the image of the cowboy wearing a white hat.  While he came across as relating and understanding the common man, I could never see him as common himself.

Bill Clinton and Bush have had a more "common" touch I think.  Both come across as one of your neighbors.

So there are other ways to attract male votes, and connect with the "common" man other than being folksy.

I think Romnay should stay with his "father" image.  It has the power to move men as well as women.

...admitting that there is no problem with the facts that I've reported, all of which are both "factual" and "true," as you admitted in earlier posts.

Which is obviously at odds with your unsubstantiated, baseless, and apparently conscience-free allegations of "lying."

I suspect that the majority of people know nothing at all about the Mormon faith other than that the early Mormons were polygamists. They only got that much from television and movies.

It doesn't help any with nuts like Warren Jeffs running loose out there, proclaiming himself the Prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This kook fringe group, by using the LdS in their name only confuse an already ignorant public.

since a cranky guy like me was in the mix.

I think you are right in comparing this to the generic polls of Republican / Democrat. When the rubber meets the road, the actual election results never closely approximate what those polls say will happen, if you apply them literally.

That doesn't make these polls completely worthless. They have value in a vague which way the wind is blowing sort of way. If the Democrat over Republican numbers get high enough, marginal Republican candidates will have to scramble to pull out a win.

Here, while in no way really meaning that Romney has lost 35% of the voters before the race opens, it does mean that this is an issue he will have to address, and that he needs a good strategy for holding. He's got a big problem if he really loses five percent of the voters on this one issue, in either the primaries or the general. On the flip side, you can bet that both his Republican and potential Democratic opponents are looking at this, and trying to figure out how they can make use of this issue without looking like bad guys themselves.

My guess is that in the primaries you will have surrogates - probably well known religious leaders - raising the issue rather than any candidate directly. If he gets to the general, you will be hearing either code words or themes such as "openness" and "less secrecy in government" that are legitimate in themselves but that remind people that the LDS leadership is a fairly secretive operation that they know very little about. Americans love conspiracy theories, and the LDS works just as well as Opus Dei or the Masonic orders as a hook to hang the good old "old men in panelled rooms really run this country" kind of stuff.

Only time will tell whether this is a real issue for Romney. I think a lot depends on how the raising of the issue plays out.

OK, maybe that's just the claim of an avid supporter trying to make Lemonade from the Lemons.

Another article addressing this polling data is found in the LA Times (though I hate to give them any more business than they havel already . . . and I'm even from L.A. origianally) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mormonpoll3jul03,0,480
6405.story?coll=la-home-headlines

I've commented on these results at my blogsite http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/07/here-we-go-again-many-voters-wo
uldnt.html

Essentially this will help Romney's poor name recognition factor and will make him an "innocent bystander" amid the religious fury that the press will fuel on an issue like this (they love to see conservative religious types beat on eachother).

Interestingly, the LA Times article dug up some old polling data that showed a similar number (35%) of people didn't want a Catholic as their president JUST 6 MONTHS BEFORE JFK was elected president.

In a Roper poll from June 1960, 35 percent of respondents said either that it might be better not to have a Catholic president, or that they would be against it. Then-Sen. John F. Kennedy addressed the Southern Leadership Conference on the subject of his religion that September, and was elected presidenttwo months later.

I am no fan of Romney, and no fan of his faith.  But I could vote for a Mormon, just not this one.

That said, I think Romney may have an advantage that serves to offset the bias some have against him based on his religion.  Romney will be seen as a victim if people use his religion against him, and the attackers will seem mean spirited for bringing it up (rightly so).  Remember Ted Kennedy (in their senate race) saying MA had no place for exotic religions that bar women from leadership (this coming from a Catholic who doesn't know many women priests!).  Kennedy took some heat for that idiocy.

I also think that if he clears the primary it will be hard for many (not all) people who are either conservative or don't trust the dems to stay home.

I'd rather focus on his "evolving" positions on issues.  The debate has changed my mind about Romney on some points, and hardened my position on other points, so it is helpful.  The discussion of his faith is not as important to me.  The diary is helpful though, as it goes to issues of electibility.

Romney is too smart to use his faith as a major point in his campaign.  If he did it would hurt him with the public.  If his opponent (or the lefty haters at sites like KOS) bring it up it will help him because of the victim idea I brought up earlier.  

The real way to hurt Romney will be the lefty press (if they play it right).  They could write pieces sounding like they intend to introduce people to his church, and to educate people about its many accomplishments.  By acting like they are trying to be nice about introducing us to his faith they would be doing what Romney doesn't want to have, a friendly reminder to the voters what his affiliation is.  Only harsh reminders (ironicaly) help him.

Clinton wasn't on anyone's radar in 1991.  He wasn't expected to get the nomination let alone the presidency.

But political types regard Clinton's "Sista Souljah" moment as being exhibit A in Clinton's political genius.  Clinton distanced himself from racist comments made by the black rapper, thus convincing many moderate Republicans and independents that he had the backbone to take on a sacred cow of the left: the African American vote.

If the Republicans nominate Mitt for the presidency, it will show that the GOP is united around principles, not merely a small slice of Christianity.  However, I can understand why many Evangelicals are concerned.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Mormon Church") has been falsely linked with paganism, Satanism, and all sorts of other blasphemy.

Do your own research.  Use wikipedia, the encyclopedia, or whatever you trust.  The Church is a Christian church, and is no more Satanic than any other Christian denomination.

To fully agree to that statement despite falling into that category.

Living here in Feinstein/Boxer land...

My wife and I are Jewish. I am a big Romney supporter for 2008, and I'm working on convincing her. Both of us believe that the LDS church is definitely Christian, but with some stuff added on. (I hope this doesn't insult anyone.) I fear that many others know even less about LDS and just lump it in with Jehovah's Witnesses and the like--basically, nicely dressed polite young folks who knock on your door from time to time and want to spread their religious beliefs.

But Romney can overcome any lingering sense of religious difference by talking about his life and work over the past 40 years. He exudes great values and a life well-lived. The good folks in America will see that and respond positively to it.

In other words, the 40% of Dems weren't going to vote for Romney even if he was an athiest.

I'm a bit surprised at the 1/3 unless there is some anti-Romney GOP types tossing thrown in who are just trying to push back on Romney.

Try asking the question as Hillary versus a Morman and see if that 33% GOP drops a bit.

Mo Udall, who got the silver prize in the Democratic primaries against Jimmy Carter in 1976, was a lifelong member of the LDS church. While a lot of noise was made about Carter's Christianity in that race, I don't recall boo being said about Udall's religion.

I also don't recall the religion issue coming up in George Romney's brief flirtation in 1968 with running for President, before he blew it by getting brainwashed in Vietnam.

This poll is just one data point. It's also a binary data point, giving just a yes no option, and not measuring of degrees of attachment to the issue.

My guess is that most people don't care diddly about a candidate's religion, so long as he doesn't appear at the debates reeking of sulphur and drawing upside down pentagrams on the stage, but that a small number - which may happen to be a small number that is very active and very vocal in the GOP primary process - care a very great deal.

may be against Mormons because of such things as clean living and self-reliance, the sort of values they don't want anybody promoting.

1. You are right that the LDS church being christian is debatable. Of course any definition of what defines a christian is open to debate. Different persons have far more strict definitions than others, and some of those definitions contradict each other. IMO it's up to the individual to decide if they are christian not a group of people.

I personally believe that Jesus Christ will make the final decision concerning how closely my faith follows his life- no one else.

2. You are also completely right to say that Romney should not get bogged down on the details of his religion. While I am of the same faith, I will admit it is strange or foreign to the majority of people. In the end though I hope people will come to see the many virtues his religion will bring to segment of society that is clearly in need of more virtues- U.S. politics- and not see his candidacy as a proselytizing effort.

We don't need a debate here about which Christian churches count and which don't.  Not here.  Not ever.

Please, from one Red State reader to another, don't bring that up ever again.  Both of you.  This sort of thing just can't end well on a Republican site that contains Christians of most every type imaginable.

Considering how many creeds were written even in ancient times, this just can't end up productive for this site.

Explaining the 37% . . . Religious Bigots? The Uninformed/Uneducated? or Politically Calculating Liberal Democrats?

Yesterday, there were two articles here (Bloomberg) and here (LA Times) reporting on a poll gauging what religions Americans feel least comfortable about in hypothetical presidential candidates.  I linked to these articles and gave some opinions on the results a couple of blog entries ago.  However, further thought, discussion, and reading on the matter has brought some other interesting findings to the surface.

If there's one thing I know, it's to NOT trust the conclusions (or even impressions) of journalists when they are analyzing data (sure, there are some really bright ones . . . but it's well established that, among educated adults, they aren't the bastion of brains that many would have you believe).  Also, I always look at the source of information when gauging it's possible "agenda", and the L.A. Times is well recognized as one of the most liberal news sources in the nation; that they would want to cast doubt on a prominent GOP candidate who stands to draw significant support moderate voters is not surprising.

Also, to reach sound conclusions one must start with sound premises . . . in this case, a poll must ask the right questions and to the right people (I think that the actual questions asked should be made public if they are going to publicly publish the "results.")  This poll, unfortunately, neither ask the right questions nor did it ask the right people; the resulting incorrect conclusions may discourage some potential Romney supporters.

First off, the explanation of how the poll was conducted states " The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll contacted 1,321 adults nationwide by telephone June 24 through 27. . . . Results were weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education and region."  Conforming with census figures is a bad way to gauge what "likely voters" would do in at the ballot box.  The number opposed to a hypothetical Mormon candidate dropped to 35% among registered voters and, I would guess, would drop even more among those that actually would make the effort to get to the polls (AKA "likely voters").

"Support for a Mormon candidate tends to rise with education and income levels, the poll shows. Sixty-six percent of college graduates and 70 percent of those with incomes of more than $100,000 a year say they could vote for a Mormon presidential candidate."

So the number drops to 34 % for college graduates and 30% for high income earners.  So, who are these 30% of high income earners that are opposed to a hypothetical LDS presidential candidate? I propose that nearly all of these are Democrats, mostly coming from self-described "liberal Democrats" who, as a political group, are the most intolerant to the idea of a Mormon president at 50%.  They know that Mormons are, almost invariably, the antithesis of their  pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, socially and fiscally liberal platform and policies.  Obviously, this large block of voters won't matter in the GOP primary, and I don't think Romney would be expecting to get their vote in a general election anyways.  So I count them as a non-factor.

As the articles describe, there is as much political ideology represented in the 37% figure as possibly, anything else.  How else do you explain the following?

" . . . 22 percent of registered voters say they wouldn't support an evangelical Christian . . ."

The same group of liberal Democrats are rearing their heads here.   One alternative explanation is that there is a proportion of moderate or fiscally conservative Republicans that are opposed to strongly religious hypothetical candidates (still wary of the sometimes radical "religious Right").

So, in an attempt to exclude these politically calculating liberal Democrats simple subtraction between the "registered voters" opposed to Mormons (35%) and Evangelicals (22%) is only 13% (I will address this remaining 13% below.)  These two religious groups are as near to "block voters" for Republicans as any of the other religious designations and so the opposition to them is understandable.

"14 percent wouldn't back a Jewish candidate, and 9 percent say no to a Catholic. Fifty-three percent say they wouldn't vote for a Muslim."

Catholics are definitely more politically diverse as evidenced by prominent politicians on both sided of the aisle; Sam Brownback and Jeb Bush for the Republicans/John Kerry and the Kennedy's for the Democrats.  Most people have either already voted for a Catholic for president (Democrats/Independents) or know they would support someone like Jeb Bush.

The Jewish number can be ascribed, in part, to the fact that people are hesitant to fulfill the stereotype of being an anti-Semite.  Also, the popularity of Joe Lieberman comes into play . . . again, because nearly all Democrats have recently already voted for a Jew on a presidential ticket.  I don't completely buy the conclusion from the articles that Americans are really that much more tolerant of Catholic or Jewish religions than the other religions listed.

This highlights a major point, that we are all creatures of habit and generally fear to tread into the unknown.  Who can say that they've already voted for a Mormon for a high office?  The percentage has to be somewhere in the low single digits.  This is part of the reason that their implication that Mormonism is a major obstacle for Romney is vastly overblown.

So, back to the 13% difference between Mormons and Evangelicals . . . this is the only percentage that I think potentially relates to a religious/doctrinal objection to a hypothetical LDS presidential candidate and the only percentage that would matter in a GOP primary or among the "swing vote" in a general election.  This fits pretty closely with the 1998-9 figure from the fledgling Orrin Hatch campaign where 17% of Evangelicals said that they wouldn't vote for a Mormon (I think I'm quoting that one right . . . I've heard it lots, but if anyone could point me to the source I would appreciate it!)

Turning those two figures on their head, we could stretch to say that 83% of Evangelicals would vote for a Mormon and 87% of people from the recent poll do not have a religious/doctrinal objection to a hypothetical LDS candidate.  Any viable candidate could work with those numbers!

But wait, there's more! (Is this reading link an "infomercial" yet?).  The religious objection will assuredly abate as the campaign wears on.   Much of the objection is based on misinformation or lack of information altogether.  As people realize that Mormons haven't practiced polygamy for over 100 years, that Mormons believe all that Christ taught and view him as the Savior, and that Mormons are pretty darn normal people in day to day life who usually try to live what they believe, there will be less and less concern about having one as a Chief Executive.

However, the majority of any remaining objection will disappear as people evaluate Romney as a candidate and are impressed with his candor, accomplishments, and policies.  In the end, I see the fact that Romney is LDS being the deciding factor for maybe 3-7% in a GOP primary and definitely less than 5% in a general election.  This handicap will be offset by the strong grassroots movement and financial support that individual mormons will give to Romney, especially in a swing state like here in Iowa.

History tends to repeat itself . . . the LA Times article says:

Indeed, in a Roper poll from June 1960, 35% of respondents said either that it might be better not to have a Catholic president or that they would be against it. Then-Sen. John F. Kennedy gave a speech on the subject of his religion that September, and he was elected president two months later.

 So, the answer to the question in my title about what factor is responsible for the 37% is, not surprisingly, "All of the above."

Actually, I'm probably just goint to post this as my own diary.

He exudes great values and a life well-lived.

Bravo.  I wrote earlier that leaders alter perceptions, and you've hit the nail on the head as to why Romney can alter the negative perceptions some have about Mormons (not to make them become Mormons, per se, but to feel comfortable enough to pull the lever for one).  Most people will see his family, see the way he interacts with them, and think to themselves, "this man is authentic."  Let's face it, most securlarists aren't having families with 5 kids.  It makes sense that he would be pro-life when you see what he has valued in his own life.  

When the chips are down, the options will be:

McCain: nobody trusts him, no idea where he'll end up on any given issue

Giuliani: who probably won't even be giving lip service to the idea of a pro-life agenda, and his life story is far different from Romney's

Allen: who hasn't even managed to be a leader in the Senate and has all the charisma of drying paint (this is of course subjective, but it is my opinion after watching several of his speeches on RttWH)

Romney: who has the total package--charisma, business and economic expertise, proven results-oriented leadership, and a pro-life agenda.  He's not the perfect candidate because he hasn't been a pro-life lion his entire career, out of political necessity.  I think this will be forgiven by Republicans who will be faced with candidates that either can't win (Allen), can't be trusted (McCain), or don't even take a pro-life position (Giuliani, Rice).  

I'm still hoping for a Gingrich campaign, but am not holding out much hope that it will gain traction.

This is as worthless as those generic Republican/Democrat Congressional polls that predict Democratic takeovers of the House and Senate every year.

Candidates matter.

Its more prone to be an issue in the primary, after that(if romney wins) i dont think anyone will care.

"The Church is a Christian church"

This is certainly a debatable, and debated, point. Members of the LDS typically argue that they are not only a Christian church, but the true Christian church. Folks who subscribe to the Nicene Creed as a definition of Christian faith generally disagree.

That is debated makes it a lot tougher for Romney. It would be easier for him, in many ways, if he were in the same position as Joe Lieberman - a non-Christian who shares many cultural values and beliefs with evangelicals, and who respects the importance of a relationship with God. A lot of evangelicals would rather have four or eight years of a social conservative, non-Christian in the White House than four to eight years of Hillary Clinton.

It's when you get into that sticky argument as to whether LDS is truly a Christian church that you raise questions that I think are more likely to hurt Romney, especially in the primaries, than help him.

I give you that members of the LDS are people who take their relationship with God seriously, who live exemplary moral lives, and who share common cultural values with evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.

If I were Romney, I would stop there, and not get dragged into the Christian/non-Christian argument. Last thing he wants is to get dragged into explaining why the Bible is not the complete and unerring word of God, or talking about whether men can ascend into being Gods themselves. There's no profit there.

Wow, quite a drop from what the Orrin Hatch campaign claimed to Robert Novak a few weeks back. Not to worry, though. There are many good reason to say not Romney that have nothing to do with Mormonism.

I think the concern was less about what had been said, than about what might be said if the thread took off in a certain direction.

"The religious objection will assuredly abate as the campaign wears on."

I'm not sure that will be true. If I were a Romney strategist, I would not just blithely assume that the issue will evaporate, because I think it will require careful handling at a number of levels.

A very small number of voters will oppose someone on dogma and creed alone. All the same, in the GOP, that tiny percentage can be pretty important in the primary phase, and if the evangelical Christians actively line up against Romney based on the differences in his beliefs and theirs, it will be a factor. Will that happen? I don't know. If it happens, I don't know how big a factor it will be. I suspect it will vary by state, and will depend a lot on whether Romney ends up in a head to head contest with someone who appeals to that portion of the electorate. If it ends up being Romney vs Giuliani, for example, I'm not sure this issue will matter at all.

In the general, it's a different issue. The dogma / creed vote is an even smaller percentage of the overall vote, and matters, if at all, only as an issue of incremental turnout.

In the general, the religion issue is going to boil down to whether people consider Romney strange, weird, or dangerous in any way. To the extent his membership in the LDS church can be made, fairly or unfairly, to contribute to such a perception (and trust me, if he gets to the general, masters in the art will be trying to make him seem weird and scary), it's a general election issue.

Right now, most non-religious Americans don't have much of an opinion about the Church of the LDS, and whatever opinion they have will be formed during the election process. As those opinions get formed, I don't think red herrings like polygamy are going to be part of it, because that is just too bogus and too easily refuted to get any traction. More relevant will be issues that have at least some basis in truth, such as the LDS rejection of traditional Christian dogma and the development of the western Christian churches (and I very much don't want to debate who's right on that; just trying to explicate a tactical point here), the actual teachings of the LDS church (unencrusted by any of the cheap shot misstatements that LDS opponents sometimes try to pile on, but limited to those teachings that any LDS member would agree are part of the church's teachings but which might sound unusual or different to those not familiar with them), the top down authoritarian structure of the LDS organization, and the relatively secretive nature of the LDS church. If, out of all of that, people have a feeling that Romney belongs to a religion that scares them, even a little, he is at risk of losing votes.

Rule number one in a general election for the Presidency is that you vote for the candidate that does not scare you.

My point, and it is a tactical one, is that Romney needs to handle this issue intelligently and carefully to make sure that it does not turn into a problem for him. It can develop in a number of ways, some of which could be problematic for him, some of which would not be.

The 1960 analogies are a little offpoint for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, the Catholic Church was a mystery to nobody in 1960. Even those who opposed it based on religious doctrine or ancient ethnic oppositions had a well formed opinion about the Catholic Church going in. Here, I'm betting most people don't have that kind of well formed opinion on the LDS church. Because the perceptions are yet to be formed, how those perceptions are formed will be all important in whether this becomes a meaningful issue or not.

I'm not for or against anyone at this point, so I'm not trying to grind an axe. I'm just, as a bit of a political tactics junkie, trying to unpack some issues that I think are more complex than some think.

I the that those numbers will go down when people are faced with an actual person rather than an abstract idea (and a choice between one conservative mormon and liberal Christian).  My guess is that half of the 35% are liberals who would never vote for a Republican (and are the same people who sais they'd never vote for an evangelical), and the other half are evangelicals or conservative Catholics.  More specific polling should be done during the primaries, after people have been introduced to Romney.  My guess is the numbers will drop, but it could still hurt.

...and it's unfair both to LDS Church members and to evangelical Christians.

Here's why:

It is unfair to LDS Church members that their values might be judged by the general public based on Romney's decade-long record of supporting Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, a woman's "right to choose" to terminate her baby's life, and being endorsed by the Republican Majority for Choice PAC.

Plus his support for homosexual Scoutmasters, tax-financed benefits for the homosexual "partners" of government employees, endorsement of Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, appointing homosexual activists to the bench, being endorsed (twice) by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans.

That personal and public policy record is anathema to the socio-political values of the Mormons I know well.

Romney's candidacy will also probably result in unfair judgment of some evangelicals in reverse. Are there evangelicals who'll vote against Romney just because he's Mormon?  Yes.  But there will also be many, I believe, who will vote against him based on his decade-long pro-abortion on demand record and support for various elements of homosexual activists' political agenda.

Point is, some Mormons will judge that all evangelicals who refuse to support Romney are doing so based on anti-Mormon sentiment, even those who refuse to support him because of his political record rather than his faith.

Not fair to either camp.

I've managed or consulted the campaigns of dozens of LDS candidates, sang at the LDS funeral a few months back of the very first candidate whose campaign I ever managed at age 20, so I fall into the category of a socially conservative evangelical Christian who will not support Romney because, based on his record, I don't trust that his public policy views will faithfully reflect his own church's values.

"More than two in five Democrats say they wouldn't do so, while about a third of both Republicans and independents say they wouldn't"

while I'd guess that the right's opposition would be because specifically 'morman-related', I'd guess the left's opposition would be more general in nature... just anti-anything-that-looks-conservative.

My guess is that most people don't care diddly about a candidate's religion, so long as he doesn't appear at the debates reeking of sulphur and drawing upside down pentagrams on the stage.

I'd vote for that guy! Particularly if he draws his pentagram over some logo reading, say, "Americans United For An Improved Future of Learning And Communicating Forward Together With Intelligent Strength"

Glad to see you again in this thread.

BON: "You have made these comments so many times before, only to have them refuted."

They've been disagreed with, Bonham, never "refuted," since they're all factual, by your own admission in other threads.

BON: "You really show an inability to support any of your points with rational logic."

No support on my part is necessary, Bon, when all I have to do is quote Romney himself.

For example, Romney expressly said he supported Roe v. Wade, keeping abortion "safe and legal," and protecting a woman's alleged "right to choose" to have her prenatal child killed.

What logic, rational or otherwise, is needed to support simple statements of fact?

BON: "Your love of twisting facts (I consider it lying) to help your anti-Romney agenda has been exposed in other threads."

Look, Bon, everybody knows from reading the "Illinoians for Mitt" at the bottom of your posts that you're a shill for Romney, so you're hardly an objective adjudicator of truth when in comes to his record.

I've simply stated plain facts and will continue to do so.  As Reagan said, "facts are stubborn things," and the facts re: Romney's pro-abortion on demand record will remain stubborn facts unaffected by transparently defensive accusations of "lying" by his shills.

Its choosing the ones you like and ignoring the rest.

You must have missed the second line of my post, which you have admitted to being guilty of in other posts.

Romney supported all the things he said, go watch his 1994 debate with Kennedy and the words come right out of his mouth.  I guess the boston herald must be controlling his lips eh.

Emphasis on the last line of my post:

"Additionaly your love of twisting facts (I consider it lying) to help your anti-Romney agenda has been exposed in other threads."

Read:

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/6/26/91132/1367/181#181

its full of places GG has intentionally mislead people.