I think you're overstating your grievances. Certainly, Romney has no intention of playing a victim card or emphasizing (or hiding) his Mormonism.
You overestimate Dobson's influence. Robertson is done and needs to be wheeled off the stage.
Richard Land, probably the single most influential Southern Baptist on political matters, has said a number of positive things about Romney and indicated he could vote for Romney and that Mormonism doesn't break any deal.
I don't think the debate serves the interest of electing Romney well. I'd also note that there is quite a lot about Mormon history and some of its leaders that you choose to ignore.
In general, Mormons would be doing Romney a big favor by not making his candidacy about Mormonism. If you succeed in making him "the Mormon candidate", he'll lose. But he can win if he is "a candidate who happens to be Mormon".
Beyond all that, given that Mormons are only 1.6% of the population but represent about 5% in Congress, the idea that there is some unassailable anti-Mormon bigotry is kind of silly.
If Mitt doesn't make it about Mormonism, then it's not about Mormonism. Maybe you should consider whether you're helping him or hurting him. There is, you know, a number of anecdotes in science about how a given scientist stated that he would greatly prefer to have his theory attacked by his most vocal scientific opponent than defended by his greatest amateur fan.
You're really not doing Mitt any favors here.
“In general, Mormons would be doing Romney a big favor by not making his candidacy about Mormonism.”
I agree. The challenge we face here is that almost every time Romney’s name comes up, the following conversation ensues:
Skeptic: “Well I could never vote for Romney because I could never support a president who supports weird thing 1, 2, and 3.”
Mormon: “Well, we do believe 2, here’s why. But you are incorrect about 1 and 3. We don’t believe that.
Skeptic: “Oh, but what about this Mormon who said, “yada, yada.” Do you deny that this doesn’t support 1?
Mormon: “Yes, because you’re taking it out of context.”
Skeptic: “Now you’re just ignoring the evidence that’s right in front of your face....”
And so the argument commences. Pretty soon, names like non-Christian, bigot, cultist, polygamist, etc. start flying around.
It’s silly, foolish, and childish. It’s doing no one any good.
