Evangelical publicist sends letter to evangelical leaders urging them to rally Romney support

Mark DeMoss (The DeMoss Group) ^ | 9 October 2007 | Mark DeMoss

[Spiff]

To: Conservative & Evangelical Leaders
From: Mark DeMoss (Personally)
Date: October 9, 2007
Subject: The 2008 Presidential Election

In about 100 days we will likely have a Republican nominee for president. Most political observers believe it a near certainty that this nominee will face Hillary Clinton in the general election. While most people think this election cycle started too early, I’m finding that few people realize the primaries are almost upon us—and how compacted the primary calendar is.

Within about 30 days after the last college football bowl game is played, primaries (and an all-important caucus) will be held in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia! (At least a dozen of these will fall on the same day—February 5, 2008.)

As certain as it seems that Hillary will represent the Democratic Party, it now appears the GOP representative will be either Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Governor Mitt Romney (based on polls in early states, money raised and on hand, staff and organization, etc.). And, if it is not Mitt Romney, we would, for the first time in my memory, be faced with a general election contest between two “pro-choice” candidates.

I decided over a year ago to help Mitt Romney; and while I have not been (and will not be) paid one dollar, I have worked harder on behalf of a candidate this past year than in any election of my lifetime. Why? In large part because the next president is almost certain to appoint two-to-four Supreme Court justices.

When I began surveying the landscape of potential candidates I was looking for three things:

1. Someone who most closely shared my values;

2. Someone who has proven experience and competence to lead and manage large enterprises;

3. Someone who can actually win the nomination (without which it is obviously impossible to challenge or beat Hillary Clinton, or any other democrat—people who certainly don’t share our values).

So how did I settle on Mitt Romney? After spending months researching his life and his record, and hours with him (and his wife and staff) in his home, his office and on the road, I am convinced his values practically mirror my own—values about the sanctity of life, the sacredness of marriage, the importance of the family, character and integrity, free enterprise and smaller government. But more than one candidate shares my values; which leads me to my second criterion.

The President of the United States is the CEO of the largest enterprise on planet earth, presiding over a nearly $3 trillion budget and some 2 million employees (the size of the workforces of General Motors, General Electric, Citigroup, Ford, Hewlett-Packard and AT&T combined). Mitt Romney has already been the chief executive of one of the most successful investment management firms in the world—Bain Capital, with nearly $6 billion under management; a Winter Olympic Games (Salt Lake City, 2002), where he turned a $379 million operating deficit into one of the most profitable Games ever; and the state of Massachusetts, where he eliminated a $3 billion deficit without raising taxes or borrowing money.

That kind of experience convinces me Mitt Romney could lead, manage and govern America during a critical time in world history. But can he actually win (my third criterion)? After he was the runaway winner of the important Iowa straw poll in August, TIME magazine’s political columnist Joe Klein wrote, “Romney now has to be considered a strong favorite to win the Republican nomination. And another prediction: if nominated, Romney will be formidable in the general election.”

Like it or not (and most of us don’t), these campaigns have become obscenely expensive. It has been estimated that the two party nominees may well spend in excess of $100 million in the primaries, and several times that in the general election. One insider told me Hillary may spend half a billion dollars before it’s over! This means a successful candidate must be able to come up with this kind of money. Through the first three quarterly reporting periods, Republican candidates reported total revenues as follows:

• Mitt Romney: $62.4 million
• Rudy Giuliani: $46.1
• John McCain: $30.5
• Fred Thompson: $12.8
• Ron Paul: $8.0
• Sam Brownback: $3.3 (through 2 quarters; 3rd quarter number had not been reported yet)
• Mike Huckabee: $2.3

These numbers are important for many reasons. It takes money to hire staff, recruit volunteers, send out mailings, travel the country, organize events (Mitt told me recently he had done 462 events just in Iowa so far!) and to buy TV commercial time. CNN recently reported that Romney just became the first candidate in history to buy 10,000 TV commercials at this point in the presidential campaign (by comparison, John McCain was purchasing his first commercials the same weekend).

Gov. Romney is also leading by 4%-11% or more in polls in a number of early states, such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada—and one recent poll now shows him leading in South Carolina. Historically, a candidate who wins the Iowa caucuses and several of the early primaries benefits from a tremendous amount of national exposure and fundraising momentum.

As this race heats up and we approach the final stretch of the nominating process, I have three growing concerns:

1. Currently, conservatives (whether evangelical or not) are dividing their support among several candidates. In the long run, this only helps Rudy Giuliani, who clearly does not share our values on so many issues.

2. Talk of a possible third party candidate draft movement only helps Giuliani (or, worse yet, Clinton), in my view. While I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. James Dobson that not having a pro-life nominee of either major party presents an unacceptable predicament, I would rather work hard to ensure we do nominate a pro-life candidate than to launch an 11th-hour third party campaign. Mike Huckabee affirmed this concern when he told the Washington Post last week, “I think a third party only helps elect Hillary Clinton.”

3. Perhaps most troubling to me is the idea I keep hearing that electing someone like Hillary Clinton would “actually be good for the conservative movement,” since it will “galvanize our forces, enable us to build our mailing lists and raise more money…therefore, I’m not going to vote for anyone this time around.” Well, I am not willing to risk negatively changing the Supreme Court, and our entire judicial system, for the next 30 years in exchange for building our conservative mailing lists and operating budgets for the next four or eight years. That, in my opinion, is selfish, short-sighted and dangerous.

Here is what I believe is at stake in this election:

• Someone is almost certain to appoint two, three, or four justices to the Supreme Court. Do we want that person to be Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney?
• Someone will cast vision and lead Congress on matters of national security, including securing our borders against illegal immigration. Should that be Hillary, Rudy or Mitt?
• Someone will deal with the definition of marriage in America—and will either defend and model a faithful marriage and strong family, or not. Who should that person be?
• Someone will either defend unborn life—or defend those who place their rights and desires above those who can’t defend themselves. Would we prefer that Clinton, Giuliani or Romney be in that position?
  

  [By the way, I am also troubled by skeptical sentiment in some corners about the legitimacy and sincerity of Gov. Romney’s “conversion” on the abortion issue. I always thought the pro-life movement existed for the purpose of influencing hearts and mind on the issue of life, and historically, we have celebrated converts to our side. We embraced Ronald Reagan (who signed a liberal abortion law as governor of California), Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe”), and others—and I am prepared to accept and embrace Mitt Romney. I’ve also told him he will be held accountable on this if elected.]
  

• Someone will need to deal with radical Islamic Jihadists and the threat they pose to our nation. As evangelicals, do we want to entrust Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney with that critical assignment?
• Finally, someone will either welcome evangelicals and people of faith into the White House and their administration; or shut them out of deliberations and consideration for various appointments. Would Hillary, Rudy or Mitt be most accepting of evangelicals and people of faith?

Now, I fully recognize some evangelicals take issue with me for supporting a Mormon for the office of president, and I respect their concerns. Indeed, I had to deal with the same concerns in my own heart before offering to help Gov. Romney. But I concluded that I am more concerned that a candidate shares my values than he shares my theology. (If I believed similar theology was paramount in a president, I would be writing this memo urging support of Mike Huckabee.)

As a Southern Baptist evangelical and political conservative, I am convinced I have more in common with most Mormons than I do with a liberal Southern Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic or a liberal from any other denomination or faith group. The question shouldn’t be, “could I vote for a Mormon,” but, “could I vote for this Mormon?” After all, Mitt told me there are Mormons he couldn’t vote for (I presume Harry Reid, for example); and there are Southern Baptists I couldn’t vote for (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, to name a few).

Incidentally, if one-third of “white evangelicals” voted for Bill Clinton, the second time (a Southern Baptist who doesn’t share our values on most issues); can we not at least consider supporting a Mormon who does share our values? Noted conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote this month that Mitt Romney is “the only Republican candidate unequivocally opposed to gay marriage and the only one who signed the no tax increase pledge.”

On May 17, my friend of nearly 30 years, Jerry Falwell, went to Heaven. In addition to being my first employer and like a second father following the death of my father in 1979, Jerry was my political mentor in many ways. I learned from him, some 25 years ago, the value of working closely with people of other faiths and religions who shared our convictions about the sanctity of life, support for the state of Israel, the sacredness of marriage and the importance of the family unit, the dangers of pornography, and the value of God in public life. Consequently, the Moral Majority (and many subsequent organizations) was built with coalitions of evangelicals and likeminded Roman Catholics, Jews and yes, Mormons.

Just about six months before his death, Jerry accepted my invitation to a meeting with Gov. Romney at his home outside Boston. He joined me, and about 15 other evangelicals, for an intimate discussion with the Governor and his wife Ann. Jerry was one of several that day who said, “Governor, I don’t have a problem with your being Mormon, but I want to ask you how you would deal with Islamic jihadists…or with illegal immigration…or how you would choose justices for the Supreme Court…,” and so on.

While Jerry Falwell never told me how he intended to vote in the upcoming election, I think I know how he would not have voted. I also know he would not have “sat this one out” and given up on the Supreme Court for a generation. I am wholeheartedly convinced that Mitt Romney can be trusted to uphold the values and principles most important to me as a political conservative and an evangelical Christian. Again, I am not being paid, and I am not interested in a job in a Romney Administration (I would not accept one even if offered, as I’m still raising three teenagers). Neither is my public relations firm involved in any way. I am involved because I believe the stakes are high, perhaps higher than ever before in my life.

In closing, I would respectfully urge fellow conservatives and evangelicals to consider doing the following:

1. Pray fervently for this election.

2. Follow the news and the primary calendar; being familiar with the process and aware of the urgency of the schedule.

3. Encourage people to vote and not “sit this one out,” merely because they aren’t excited about a candidate.

4. Encourage people to support the candidate who best represents their values; whether or not they share your theology.

5. Galvanize support around Mitt Romney, so Rudy Giuliani isn’t the unintended beneficiary of our divided support among several other candidates—or, worse yet, so we don’t abdicate the presidency (and the future of the Supreme Court) over to Hillary Clinton.

I believe we can make a difference—the difference in this election—and if Mitt Romney should become the 44th president of the United States, I’m confident he won’t forget how he got there. I hope you’ll join me. Thank you for your consideration of these things.

/rmd

[Colofornian]

So you’re willing to rationalize Thompson’s restorationism on the basis that he’s not even good at it...

I guess you don't get it. If I owned a Ford, but got rid of it...you can't play "Pin the tail on the Republican donkey" by taking aim at my Ford fidelity. There would be no Ford fidelity.

...yet Romney’s faith makes him worthy of utter condemnation? A bit of a double standard here.

OK, how many folks are going door to door pitching Fred Thompson's (past?) faith? Is there a satellite TV station called RU-TV?

Wouldn’t you rather expect Thompson to join a mainstream Christian church and be a faithful attendant thereof? That would, at least, make your stance consistent - AND it would make Thompson a much better representative of Evangelical voters... wouldn’t it? Yet Thompson gets a pass.

Whose rationalizing anything? Have you ever seen me plug Fred? (The answer's "No") Do I defend Fred? (The answer's "No") Do I see FREEPER folks defending Fred's spirituality anywhere for me to take issue with them on any specifics? (The answer's "No") If I were to "cut down" a Fred Thompson restoration tree and no FREEPERS responded, it'd be silly conversing with myself (it seems that whatever "restoration" in question is not important to folks & it seemingly stopped being important to Fred somewhere along the way).

That would, at least, make your stance consistent...

Speaking of consistency...while you haven't been a big Mitt defender (faith-wise, yes; otherwise, no...I seem to recall you being "iffy" on Mitt for a while), perhaps at times you've defended his switch on social issues (yes? no?). And if not you, I know many LDS keep asking, "Why attack what Mitt used to believe? That's yesteryear's tenets he held onto. Let's move on." So, if you think that's a good argument of theirs (perhaps you've said as much a time or two)...then it would also apply to Fred. If you were then "consistent" you would have to say, "Why attack Fred on what he used to believe? That's yesteryear's tenets he held onto. Let's move on."

[Grunthor]

“few actual theological differences with Mormons”

Like maybe the entire “Book of Mormon?”

Heck, that’s only ONE difference, isn’t it?

[JDoutrider]

read later

[WFTR]

Its interesting how McCain is a no-go with evangelicals. I would have thought they would hold him in higher esteem than the rest of the conservative base.

John McCain trashed evangelicals in 2000 when he was running against then-Governor Bush. He was also part of the "Gang of 14" who tried to push the president to select moderate, pro-abortion nominees to the Supreme Court. McCain-Feingold is also aimed at preventing Christian organizations from being able to rally support at the time of an election. This pattern of action against evangelicals will likely keep them from ever supporting Mr. McCain.

Bill

[JSDude1]

Romney is wolf (there is something about him), also there ARE better candidates than a Massachusetts (no offense to you all in Mass) Liberal..!

I am sorry, if he can sell out the left (in this election); he can sell out the right when it is politically expedient in the future: He’s “more of the same”!...

[Saundra Duffy]

“As a Southern Baptist evangelical and political conservative, I am convinced I have more in common with most Mormons than I do with a liberal Southern Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic or a liberal from any other denomination or faith group. The question shouldn’t be, “could I vote for a Mormon,” but, “could I vote for this Mormon?” After all, Mitt told me there are Mormons he couldn’t vote for (I presume Harry Reid, for example); and there are Southern Baptists I couldn’t vote for (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, to name a few).”

Yahoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Saundra Duffy]

I would love to watch Romney debate Hillary on health care. He’s the only GOP candidate who can go toe-to-toe with her. It would be lovely!!

[Saundra Duffy]

Do you believe that Jonah was three days inside a big fish? Do you believe that Noah built an ark and that the animals came in two-by-two? Do you believe that Daniel survived in the lions’ den? Do you believe that Shadrak Meshak and Abednigo were thrown into the fiery furnace and survived without even the smell of smoke on them? Do you believe that God parted the Red Sea and the Jews walked over on dry land? Do you believe that manna fell from Heaven? Do you believe that the Walls of Jericho came a-tumblin’ down? Do you believe that Moses struck a rock with a stick and water flowed? How about the creation of the earth in seven days? What about all those plagues in Egypt, the river turning red, fish dying, boils? What about the Passover where you sprinkle lamb’s blood above the door? What about sacrificing animals on an altar? The idea that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son on an altar?

How preposterous!!!!!!!!!!!!! You’d have to be a fool to believe all that nonsense, right?

You just attacked my Faith. I love my Church. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He died for me.

[Plutarch]

John McCain trashed evangelicals in 2000 when he was running against then-Governor Bush...This pattern of action against evangelicals will likely keep them from ever supporting Mr. McCain.

Yup, and anyone associated with all that evangelical trashing in 2000 as well, for that matter.

[restornu]

Mark DeMoss, James Lileks

Hewitt: Hour 2 - Hugh gets reaction to the James Dobson threat to sit out the election if Rudy is the nominee with Christian publicity expert Mark DeMoss, and then covers the good, bad and the weird with humorist and columnist, James Lileks.

Audio
http://ksky.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=23f52336-8cb7-47d6-aeed-dcaea130d24b

[WFTR]

You forgot to mention some other parts of the Bible that seem strange today. I believe that there's a part of the Levitical law that said a woman accused of adultery would be given a concoction mixed by the priest from stuff around the temple. If she was guilty, she would die. If she was innocent, she would live. There's another account of a man sending his daughters to be raped and killed by homosexuals who had surrounded his house demanding that he let them have sex with two men who were visiting. God also commanded the Israelites to kill everyone in Canaan including innocent new born children and pregnant women. If every Christian had to defend every one of those stories, no Christian would ever be elected.

Bill

[WFTR]

Yep, Fred Thompson was a strong McCain supporter in 2000. Maybe he is still feeling some negative effects of that support. I was at an event here in Louisiana a few weeks ago, and no one seemed enthusiastic about Mr. Thompson. I was surprised.

Bill

[epow]

Ideally, a husband and wife are coequal companions. This ideal persists in the eternities

Not according to Jesus Christ.

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12;26, For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

It is clear that Jesus taught that the status of resurrected saints in marital and sexual matters is exactly the same as that of the angels. IOW they are not married when resurrected and do not marry in Heaven.

In those verses of scripture Jesus reminds the Sadducees that life in Heaven after the resurrection is quite different from this life. It does not merely continue this world and its arrangements, but it is life of a completely different order.

I personally believe that Jesus was indicating that although resurrected husbands and wives in Heaven will know and love one another in Christian love and fellowship, they will not be married as they were on earth in mortal bodies, will not have marital relations, or give birth to children. In that regard they are "as the angels of God in heaven". I can't prove that by scripture, but I believe it is clearly implied in the above quotations of Jesus' own words to the Sadducees.

[tantiboh]

~”OK, how many folks are going door to door pitching Fred Thompson’s (past?) faith?”~

Wait, so that’s your argument? Romney’s an unacceptable candidate because Mormon missionaries keep knocking on your door?

~”Do I see FREEPER folks defending Fred’s spirituality anywhere for me to take issue with them on any specifics?”~

Interesting you mention that. The conversation normally goes something like this:

“Mormons are bad.”
“No we aren’t!”

You’re acting like we’re living in a world like this:

“No we aren’t!”
“Mormons are bad.”

Generally speaking, if detractors didn’t bring up Romney’s faith, it’d hardly come up at all in political threads where he’s the subject. In fact, I found much of August and September to be just that way, and it was quite nice.

~”...I seem to recall you being “iffy” on Mitt for a while...”~

You recall correctly, though I am becoming less so. I’m finding him to be the least politically unacceptable of the viable candidates. Another week or so, I think, and I won’t be able to claim the “iffy-ness.”

~”perhaps at times you’ve defended his switch on social issues”~

No, they rather bug me. I have gone so far as to say that at least he’s moving in the right direction (flipping) and not flopping back. Frankly, I think a Mormon stake president should have been more staunchly pro-life in his public policies. I may be a bit harder on him because we share the same faith, and my human prejudices cause me to expect more from him. But, conversions do happen, and I believe firmly in redemption; I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I will say, though, that he hasn’t switched on nearly so many issues as some of his detractors like to claim (one example being the gay marriage issue).

~””Why attack what Mitt used to believe? That’s yesteryear’s tenets he held onto. Let’s move on.” So, if you think that’s a good argument of theirs (perhaps you’ve said as much a time or two)...then it would also apply to Fred. If you were then “consistent” you would have to say, “Why attack Fred on what he used to believe? That’s yesteryear’s tenets he held onto. Let’s move on.””~

Look, I’ve been holding off on my support (as if little ol’ me matters much) because I wanted to see what Thompson brought to the table. I don’t really like how Thompson’s performed so far, and I think he goes too far in his application of federalism, which impacts a number of crucial issues. So, I’ve found him lacking.

I have, like you, commented on the double-standard. How is Thompson given this aura of Conservative Savior when he’s migrated right just as far as Romney has, and has plenty of blemishes in his record to rankle conservatives? Yet Romney gets pilloried for the same evolution while Thompson gets a pass, at least here on FR.

My disenchantment with Thompson, though, is due to what I see in his issues NOW, and my fondness for Romney is due to what qualities I see in him NOW. I’d be happy to explain further, if you’re interested.

[tantiboh]

Careful with that kind of talk, WFTR. You’ll be called a Deceptive Mormon Apologist soon.

[tantiboh]

We ascribe to a different interpretation. In verse 30, Christ stated that marriage does not occur in Heaven; He did not say that marriage upon the earth does not persist in Heaven.

We believe that a man and woman married on earth can have an everlasting relationship that will persist beyond the grave. We believe that the family unit is a fundamental building block in the eternities; and that a family may be joined for all time. Death does not end our familial relationships.

The following verses from LDS scripture explain the concept. This is, we believe, modern revelation given by Christ (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132):

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood...[it]...shall be of full force when they are out of the world...

So, it is a difference that exists between LDS doctrine and that of mainstream Christianity; it is, though, a rather comforting teaching. The idea of eternal companionship certainly goes far in building the strength of a marriage.

[hoagy62]

Let me put it to you this way, and, so you know, I am speaking just on behalf of myself:

As a Southern Baptist, I could no more support a candidate who is a known follower of what I consider a ‘doctrine of Satan’ than I could betray my country. And should my church decide later to support Romney, I would immediately leave the church and fellowship elsewhere.

I don’t see that happening, but I just wanted to let you know where I stand.

[JRochelle]

LOL.

It would be funny.

Romney has said that the biggest difference between his health care plan and Hillary’s is that his became law.

[Colofornian]

Wait, so that’s your argument? Romney’s an unacceptable candidate because Mormon missionaries keep knocking on your door?

Nice reductionism. Does Thompson's (past?) faith put "institutes" near every college campus? Do they teach you can become a god? Is the salvation they offer based upon 16 things YOU have to do to garner exaltation? Have they made the good news of the gospel into a series of laws you have to follow? Does the town where most of the folks who believe what he believed is among the nation's leaders in suicide (like Utah)?

Interesting you mention that. The conversation normally goes something like this: “Mormons are bad.” “No we aren’t!” You’re acting like we’re living in a world like this:“No we aren’t!” “Mormons are bad.”

Look, I'm not sovereign enough to pre-arrange the topics of the posts around here. They're usually driven by what's in the media (since they all start with an article), so in one sense the topics are media-driven. All I can tell you is that you can review the threads for yourself and you'll see all of the major candidates taking their lumps at one time or another. It seems to have been (from the looks of what folks have posted) open season.

Whereas on any given week I see the media and posters here addressing Mormonism, I don't see the media and posters here addressing Fred's (past?) faith. Certainly in more recent months you can make a partial case for that being that if Mitt gave up his stake meetings and didn't make anything of his Mormon roots, certainly the frequency of Mormonism being addressed in these threads would die down.

So I tell you what: You start a thread about Fred's spiritual beliefs with some real meaty content (not guesswork) and ping me and I'll be glad to participate in the discussion.

Generally speaking, if detractors didn’t bring up Romney’s faith, it’d hardly come up at all in political threads where he’s the subject. In fact, I found much of August and September to be just that way, and it was quite nice.

Are you that clueless? You're telling me that the liberal MSM, who always takes every opportunity to bash anyone from the "religious right," is giving Mitt a free pass in mentioning his faith? (You must have been vacationing in the Pacific of Kolob)

Look, I rarely post articles. If I wanted to, I could go to the LDS Church-owned Deseret News 3-6 times a week and, skipping those you would call "purely religious" articles, I could post gobs of articles that mix Mormon faith with some other admixture. Some would be a faith & politics mix; during the Olympic games in SLC, there were numerous "Mormons & the Olympics" articles. I mean, even though the Boy Scouts sport a "I believe in God" dimension, they're basically a secular organization. I'm sure I could find plenty of Boy Scouts & Mormons articles. (You get the drift).

Now if the Mormon church has the right to comment (thru Deseret) on the admixture of faith and the public square, why do you consider that a monopoly privileged only to Mormons?

You recall correctly, though I am becoming less so. I’m finding him to be the least politically unacceptable of the viable candidates. Another week or so, I think, and I won’t be able to claim the “iffy-ness.”

Tanty, what I appreciate about you is that you are an authentic person. You are a rare transparent Mormon. You're a straight shooter. Well, because of that, I know you've said exactly the same thing a few months ago. (Seemingly always on the edge of Mitt, about to become a Mittbot, but not quite committing)

I have, like you, commented on the double-standard. How is Thompson given this aura of Conservative Savior when he’s migrated right just as far as Romney has, and has plenty of blemishes in his record to rankle conservatives? Yet Romney gets pilloried for the same evolution while Thompson gets a pass, at least here on FR.

Well, look closer into Fred's record. He is conservative, and no, he hasn't migrated as far as Romney has. Use common sense. What do you need to present yourself to be elected in Tennessee? Now ask the same question: What do you need to market yourself as to get yourself elected in Massachusetts? As for blemishes, yes (but they all do--even if it's only electability)

None of the major-tiered candidates have received a total free "pass" (even if it's not always been evenly balanced; but again, since most discussion is generated by what's in the media, whoever said the media was balanced?)

[FastCoyote]

“You just attacked my Faith. I love my Church. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He died for me.”

I attacked none of your Biblical beliefs Saundra, I only attacked the baloney of Joseph Smith and the BOM, about whom we have ample documentary proof of charlatanism. Moreover, we have at least an archaeological trace of Biblical events whereas we have diddly squat about Lamanites and Nephites. By the way, you attack my faith but trying to make me accept Joseph Smith as a valid Prophet (who himself called all other Christians an abomination).

So I guess your crappy reference to us being some Joseph Smith fantasy Robbers really was a petty low insult that I’m supposed to put up with because you are a “Saint”. Then you won’t mind me suggesting you are Baal worshipers, just to even things out.