quote: Rolly: Romney would have to overcome religious bias to get nomination By Paul Rolly The Salt Lake Tribune
The lack of formal or informal announcements aside, Mitt Romney clearly is running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Romney, Utah's adopted son credited with saving the 2002 Winter Olympics, provides the best opportunity for a Mormon to become president of the United States since Romney's late father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was the Republican front-runner in 1968 before an ill-advised public comment derailed his campaign. While the general electorate probably is more receptive than in the past to a believer of a faith still relatively unknown and misunderstood throughout much of America, the current political climate has erected new hurdles to Romney's chances of getting the Republican nomination. These are hurdles that his father did not face nearly 40 years ago. The party has been taken over by the evangelical Christian movement like never before. George W. Bush can give much of the credit for his two presidential victories to the support of that large and growing Republican base. When the senior Romney ran for president, the Christian right held very little sway in the GOP. One of the party's most popular leaders at the time was New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, not exactly known for his Bible-thumping. Barry Goldwater, feared as a right-wing radical in the 1960s, would be considered too liberal to get the Republican presidential nomination today because he was pro-choice. Observers of the Republican infrastructure say that as many as 40 percent of the delegates to the National Republican Convention in 2004 were from the evangelical Christian movement. Anyone wishing to gain the Republican nomination in three years will need to win the blessing of that group. And that's the problem for Romney. Evangelical Christians seem to have an obsessive distrust of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, denouncing its members as non-Christians. Romney might need to do some explaining to "the moral majority" on past stands. He had to negotiate the political tar pits for a Republican in liberal Massachusetts, first running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, then winning the governor's seat in 2002. He tiptoed through the abortion issue and made some comments during the Senate campaign that he was pro-choice on abortion - the popular stand to take in Massachusetts. But when he was in Utah running the Salt Lake Olympic Committee and rumors swirled that he might seek office in the conservative Beehive State, he bristled at suggestions he was pro-choice. Back in Massachusetts, he was careful with his statements, but since winning the governorship, he has taken a sharp turn to the right on moral issues, an indication he is moving onto the national Republican stage. Romney even chastised Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch at a Republican event in Salt Lake City recently for Hatch's support of stem cell research, a litmus-test issue with the evangelicals. But even if Romney can show the fundamentalist right he is with them on their issues, his Mormonism may become the issue. Consider these examples of fundamentalist Christian attitudes towards the LDS Church while noting the extent of fundamentalism in Republican Party politics: The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which has chapters throughout the country but is most active in the South, chose a high school football player in Nashville as its Christian athlete of the year for Tennessee a few years ago.. But when the association discovered their winner was a Mormon, it pulled the award and gave it to someone else. Former BYU football Coach Lavell Edwards learned of the disgrace and wrote to the association about his concerns over the fairness of that policy. "My letter didn't seem to make much difference," Edwards said. When a nondenominational Christian Church in Cordova, Alaska, sponsored a "unity" musical concert, inviting musicians and singers to participate, the church's minister refused to allow two Mormon missionaries to be included in a choir unless they took off their missionary badges. Conservative African-American columnist and commentator Mychal Massie tried to paint Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid as a racist and used as his "proof" the fact that Reid is a Mormon. "(Reid) is simply being true to his inbred familial heritage," Massie wrote. "Mormons believed, as Reid's comments indicate he still does: 'Cain slew his brother . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin' (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, Pages 290-291)." When the international Baptist convention was held in Salt Lake City a few years ago, some visiting Baptists were quoted as saying they would try to convert the locals because Mormons are not really Christians and are in danger of going to hell. That creates a challenge for Romney in the Republican battle for the presidency. But he is articulate, charismatic and conservative and could do some of his own converting. He should just remember never to say he was brainwashed.
I've admired Romney since I first heard about him during the 2002 Winter Olympic fiasco and the turn around he engineered was borderline miraculous. This is not to say that many others did not also contribute greatly to the success of the games; nonetheless Romney deserves much credit. I have since followed his political career with great interest, and in addition to agreeing with him politically nearly 100%--I can't say the same for any other 2008 candidate--I greatly admire his leadership style and his political instincts. I'll definitely root for him if he runs.
That being said, I tend to agree with the analysis in the article. The Religious Right™ has so much influence over the Republican Party that I doubt he'd get through the primaries. In addition, a Gallup poll conducted in 2000 when Orrin Hatch was running had 17 % of the respondants say they would not vote for a Mormon for President. My guy is definitely in for an uphill battle. It's a shame that American politics have become so polarized that there is little hope of a true moderate getting elected (unless they* can fool the primary voters into thinking they are fanatical.) *gender neutral pronoun
So what do y'all think? Does Romney stand a chance? Or has the idea of a Mormon president in 2008 similar to the idea of a black or female president in 1958?
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orrin Hatch is not sexy. But while I think the numbers on "refuse to vote for a Mormon" may get slightly lower, there will be enough that it would surprise me. A lot.
On the pro-choice thing, George H.W. Bush was pro-choice back in the 70's . The party is forgiving on that kind of thing.
Another thing about Romney is the possibility that he could deliver Massachusetts. Hatch, coming from Utah, doesn't really offer much in the primaries strategy department.
And you know I always favor the chances of governors over senators. I'll repeat what I have so often that since the infiltration of the TV into the election process, no senator has beaten a governor.
P.S. Though I did like John Edwards. Maybe he'll run again, on the strength of having honored his one term promise. If he did that. I have no idea. I know a lot of folks didn't respect him intellectually.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's never going to happen because of the fact that he's even remotely moderate, no candidate from either party who is not moderate can even dream of getting elected.
Posts: 242 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, the article linked claims he has an approval rating of 65% here, but another survey says it's at 41% (and 51% disapporve). I'd guess it is somewhere around 50%.
I think it would be difficult for him to take MA... And all it would take is for him to be associated with the Belmont Temple brouhaha, as minor as it was in the grand scheme of things, in some way (not that he was, just if it could be pinned on him), and he'd be cast as a "spooky Mormon bent on taking over the USA" type, which would probably mobilize the Religious Right, and not in a good way.
Whoops! I made the fundamental mistake of modern politics--I forgot to take the sexiness factor into account. Yeah, that should give Romney's numbers a bit of a bump. Plus, he has 5 good-looking sons--that should give him another few points.
I doubt he could deliver Massachusetts, especially if he's running against a certain junior senator from New York, which is likely. Those Massachsetians may elect a Republican governor, but their statehouse is 80% Democrat and they voted Kerry 62/37 in 2004. Then again, Kerry was the hometown boy and he "only" got 62 percent, so maybe . . . no, still won't happen.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to break it to you, but he is not EVER going to be president...and if he were to become President he would continue to do as he has here in MA...
Bargin in bad faith and then refuse to fund legal contracts with educators at public colleges. Drastically cut funding to higher education, to the point that out of 50 states, MA now ranks 47th in finding of Public Higher Education.
Cut guarenteed funds to local governments....force cuts in required services, and decrease funding for police and firefighters to the point that violent crime increases 54% in a one year period. Not to mention closing of 3 firehouses, and drastic cuts in firefighter positions.
Fund horrible construction projects despite mismanagement (although this wasn't all his fault) that would only benifit the eastern side of the state, while ignoring DoT reports fir the rest of the state that put most of the bridges and underpasses in MA in serious and/or critical condition.
He is a horrible administator, and I don't trust anything he says at all.
Then again, perhaps that wouldn't be much of a diference after all....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the Democrats will nominate Harry Reid for president.
Speaking of which, I am a little disappointed in OSC that he didn't say anything about Reid when he was nominated. You jump down Dems throats for nominating Pelosi, then say nothing about Reid. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say one thing. If we were to get an Obama/Romney race, it'd have a much better chance of being a substantive campaign, compared to the last two, which were interesting largely for the procedural peculiarities.
But seriously I couldn't think of a better way to get right wing christians and left wing anti-religionists to join one another opposing the same candidate.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Christian Conservatives who power the GOP are drawn largely from groups that do not consider the LDS to be a Christian denomination. At least this is true in the South.
Getting the GOP nod would require some real fancy footwork by any nominee who is not from one of a handful of denominations that have been "blessed" by the new GOP.
Add to that the fact that people who may not really be pushing the power-elite within the GOP but are still religiously and politically conservative. The middle-America types. If they don't know many LDS people, they are likely, I believe, to need a serious education before they'd ever consider voting for someone who has a strong identification with that church.
If the candidate was running on a message that didn't involve his religious affiliation, maybe this would be less of an issue for the general run of the mill folks. But how likely is it that an LDS candidate's religion would NOT be a campaign issue? Even if that person themselves didn't make it an issue, others would.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
50% of the voters in Utah don't have to vote before there is any change of this state changing. Though I guess it would be interesting if the GOP convention turned into a Mormon bash, if UT, WY, ID and AZ would become more contestable. I know AZ was considered contestable last time, but the Mormon bloc there is considerable.
The question is whether Romney could even be a viable vice presidential candidate or if it would be an error on the scale of Ferraro or Quayle. Bush won despite Quayle.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Romney might need to do some explaining to "the moral majority" on past stands. He had to negotiate the political tar pits for a Republican in liberal Massachusetts, first running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, then winning the governor's seat in 2002. He tiptoed through the abortion issue and made some comments during the Senate campaign that he was pro-choice on abortion - the popular stand to take in Massachusetts. But when he was in Utah running the Salt Lake Olympic Committee and rumors swirled that he might seek office in the conservative Beehive State, he bristled at suggestions he was pro-choice. Back in Massachusetts, he was careful with his statements, but since winning the governorship, he has taken a sharp turn to the right on moral issues, an indication he is moving onto the national Republican stage.
OMG! A flop-flipper! How can anyone be sure where he stands on any issue?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Wall Street Journal had an editorial tossing around the idea of Romney running for President. I thought it was odd that it didn't comment on him being a Mormon. Even if he were ten times the leader and politician he is, I don't think that he could be elected . . . simply because he is Mormon. I would vote for him, but not because we're both Mormon. I wouldn't vote for Hatch or Reid for president.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, most Christians (including me) didn't really think Reagan was Christian, either -- but we loved having him as President. Still, it would be an uphill battle for a Mormon to run for President, until LDS manages to convince most other denominations they're legit. And the left would _hate_ a Mormon candidate -- unless he was Mormon the way Kerry was Catholic.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though I did like John Edwards. Maybe he'll run again, on the strength of having honored his one term promise. If he did that. I have no idea. I know a lot of folks didn't respect him intellectually.
Who?
_____
As to Romney, I don't think the religion would be an issue. The guy probably has a nice white brood of kids who don't drink, do drugs, or have abortions out of principle, and probably want to do something safe and non-threatening like accounting or engineering when they grow up. I don't pretend to know middle America, and even if most people find the LDS religion foreign-- and maybe a little bit stepford in culture-- few people are threatened by it, and if they are, it's not a deep threat.
There isn't a feeling of a great mormon agenda. The vocal ones hate taxes and get resentful about government social services, just like regular white people.
Black people are going to be slow to vote for a mormon republican, but seriously, black people are going to be slow to vote for any white republican.
Romney will talk the family values talk, and to tell the truth, Romney running would be great LDS PR, and probably good for the US as a whole, by extension. Depending on who his challenger is, fundraising would be a snap.
If enough people split the field, and with Romney's proven ability to win Democratic states, and possibly carry New England, he may be the chosen one.
quote:And the left would _hate_ a Mormon candidate -- unless he was Mormon the way Kerry was Catholic.
The vehemently pro-life section of the left would hate Romney, but do you really care what they think? If he were a Harry Reid mormon, or even a Scott R, or even a fiscal OSC mormon (read: didn't get red in the face when it came to taxes), he'd be fine. He'd take his lumps, but he'd be tolerable with democrats.
I'm pretty far left and I'm pro-choice, and I don't mind pro-life Republicans. If you really think that killing that fetus is a mortal sin frowned upon by God, hey, that's a reasonable position. It's not mine, but it's not a mark on anyone's character.
posted
I think a Jewish, Black, or female candidate is due for election before a Mormon is. Not that these things pan out in any cosmic sense of fairness.
It is more a question of how the religious right operates. You'll recall that there was some concern about John Ashcroft's nomination because as a Pentacostal Christian he was considered on the fringe. I think in a race between Romney and a democrat, most of the religious right would choose Romney. But before Romney can face a democrat he has to lead the Republican field. However, watching the process by which Kerry rose to the top demostrates that anyone, even Cheney, could take it.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was being sarcastic in my last commnet, but the fact that Romney made even vaguely pro-choice comments in the past would make him currently a dark horse to get the Republican nomination for the presidency. THAT will kill him far sooner than being a Mormon.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Naw, I think the "one heartbeat away from the presidency" ads would be back. Especially if the presidential nominee was Cheney. They wouldn't talk about him being Mormon, just about him being too far right.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is more a question of how the religious right operates. You'll recall that there was some concern about John Ashcroft's nomination because as a Pentacostal Christian he was considered on the fringe.
Was there really? I remember the concern about Ashcroft, but I thought the concern centered around his religious comments and suspicious civil rights record, not the brand of Protestant he is. That said, I don't know how the religious right operates. I have ideas, butI think they are caught up in a narrative that's not quite intelligible to me. It could be good, it could be bad, but all I know is that it's different.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: black people are going to be slow to vote for any white republican
My observation is that black people aren't overly quick to vote for anybody...extremely cautious I would say. Perhaps I am over-generalizing, but black people seem to be keenly aware of how the issues affect them individually, and they are less likely to vote simply along racial or party lines. Blacks would subject a black candidate for office to at least as much scrutiny as they would a white candidate.
Slow to vote is a good thing.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
That's news to me. You regularly assume knowledge of how 'white middle America' thinks on all sorts of issues.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm dreading that Cheney will run, and I'll have to vote for Nader or whoever again. Cheney is too ambitious, and not in a way that I admire. And he'll think choosing a sound VP will cover him. I don't think that VP will be Romney.
And... the religious right. I don't know much about who they are or how they operate either, since I'm in the Mormon fringe. Some of our values overlap, but I don't get the guns and execution fandom aspect.
P.S. I don't presume to speak for the whole Mormon fringe, either. Plenty of them are gun and execution fans.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's nice to see such fair-minded, reasonable disagreement. Truly the GOP is the party of rude politics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree that Mitt will not and cannot run. He is too Mormon for the "Christian Right," and too Conservative for the "Liberal Left." I think that Reid would have more of a chance to become the first LDS President. This is mostly because he totes the liberal left Democratic line and therefore at least looks like he has "picked sides" on Party affiliation expectations. In fact, I can't think of anyone who knew that he was Mormon without having it pointed out after the fact. It certainly never comes up. I believe that is because the Democrats don't much like religion. So long as Reid doesn't mention his religious affiliation or hold to a moral issue that Mormons would have to have in order to be considered a "good Mormon," than there won't be any problems. What Democrats fail to understand is that Mormons would quickly vote for one of them if the Party was to stop at best playing lip service to religious ideals.
Mitt, on the other hand, would have to dislodge his Mormonism because of the religious politics that the Republican Party has. As much as I agree with the approach (as I think religion is very important and must be reintroduced in American politics and social theory), it has become a hallmark of the party along very particular denominationalism. For instance, the religious conservatism is of a very Evengical Christian flavor. You don't hear much of equally Conservative Muslim or Jewish rhetoric or personalities. As such, Mormons have always been (regardless of what it might sound like at times even here) weary of the Religious Right's power, if not the agenda. Many LDS I have talked with are down right scared of what might happen if, say, an Ashcroft Christian was President. They are fine with such in perifery positions where they can be checked at least by the boss.As leaders, however, some Mormons picture an even quicker return to Missouri days.
On the other hand, imagine a Mitt vs. Reid run for U.S. President? That would be interesting.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't pretend to know middle America, and even if most people find the LDS religion foreign-- and maybe a little bit stepford in culture-- few people are threatened by it, and if they are, it's not a deep threat.
lol, you need to spend some time in Oklahoma, Kansas or Nebraska, it would give you a new perspective on life and be good for you.
Though I knew lots of fundamentalists who felt extremely threatened in CA too.
quote: I don't pretend to know middle America, and even if most people find the LDS religion foreign-- and maybe a little bit stepford in culture-- few people are threatened by it, and if they are, it's not a deep threat.
lol, you need to spend some time in Oklahoma, Kansas or Nebraska, it would give you a new perspective on life and be good for you.
<--- was raised in TX and OK <--- can confirm that the people there feel threatened by damn Mormons
Not only do they feel threatened, but this feeling actively encouraged. Every few years, one of the preachers would go on an anti-Mormon kick, telling their congregation that we are all evil, evil people, and that they should not be friends with or let their kids play with Mormons. "Mormons aren't Christians" was pounded into their heads.
I think that in many of the regions that are so strongly GOP it would be impossible to elect a Mormon.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think more attention should be paid to Kwea's post. Romney has many hurdles larger than being Mormon. It seems unfair to say oh people won't vote for him because he's Mormon. I mean hopefully they won't vote for him because he's shown bad faith. By which I mean bad faith to his constituents.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen any of that at all, but that may because of where I work. Boy Scouts is so heavily involved with the LDS church that the information most of my coworkers is accurate.
I did have an interesting conversation about Harry Potter once with a pure-Texan, but besides that, nothing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I mean that it must be nice to belong to a religion that is Christian enough to pass, except when "challenged."
But in retrospect, there may be a perceived element of "insidiousness" that might get you harsher treatment. After all, no one expects that Hindus will get equal treatment -- but Mormons call themselves Christian and expect to be treated like fellow Christians, and that's just uppity. *wry laugh*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Porter, in the aformentioned states, in your opinion, are people more anti-black or anti-Mormon? (or equal?)
At least where I as in Texas, definitely anti-Mormon. But there might be more anti-Latino than anti-Mormon.
Tom -- we aren't acting like Christians to "pass". We try to act like Christians because we believe in Christ.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, in my experience, atheists and agnostics are just lumped into the "heathens" category. LDS and Jehovah's witnesses, get lumped into the more vehehment "heretics and wolves in sheep's clothing" category.
posted
Rakeesh, What the heck are you talking about? How do parties enter into anything anyone said? I'm reasonably sure you're trying to take a shot at the democrats, but I've no idea why.
porter, Tom's not talking about Mormons trying to pass as Christians. he's coming at it from the other end. The people in those demoninations know that Muslims and Hindus and Jews and Other are all bad people who must be vilified and fought against, but they've got to be reminded how Mromons aren't really our sort of people, is I think his point. If they don't look hard enough, they might actually consider you among the righteous and think you deserved first-class citizenship.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
"spooky Mormon bent on taking over the USA"
