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

[Spiff]

Great letter that makes several rock solid points. I hope that evangelicals read it and consider it carefully.

[Spiff]

• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •

[jveritas]

If the Romney gets the evangelical vote during the primaries he will have over 60% chance of becoming the nominee and over 80% chance of becoming President. The question is will he get the evangilical vote?

[Spiff]

If the Romney gets the evangelical vote during the primaries he will have over 60% chance of becoming the nominee and over 80% chance of becoming President. The question is will he get the evangilical vote?

Your assessment is sound. This will be a real test of evangelicals to see if they can put aside their many perceived and few actual theological differences with Mormons and realize that what is more important is supporting someone with the same values. A person of the Jewish faith is not Christian, doesn't agree theologically, but may also share the same values. I would hope that evangelicals would also vote for someone of the Jewish faith for the same reason.

I don't think anyone should hesitate to pull the lever for someone who shares their same values despite some theological differences. When theological differences come into play is when those theological differences lead to a wide separation of values. When a candidate's values are nearly the same as a voter, then the theological differences aren't nearly as relevant - if at all.

[dawn53]

I’ve heard of the DeMoss agency. They are publicist to some of the largest Christian organizations in the country. Found this list of their clients, interesting enough, Focus on the Family is one of them.

http://www.demossgroup.com/clients.htm

[CheyennePress]

I have a hard time believing that Romney will garner an overwhelming majority of the evangelical support, and I say that as a Romney supporter.

You’d think that Thompson would have had a lot of that locked up. He’s a son of the south. Sort of talks like it. But his confessions about not supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, not believing in criminalizing abortion, and not finding church important enough to him to attend on a regular basis will cut into his votes.

It would make sense for Romney to be the candidate evangelicals rally behind. He’s the one espousing their views. Will they? Like you said, I’m not sure.

If Huckabee had a different last name, a lot more money, or hadn’t been such an open borders/tax raisin’ kind of guy, we might have a different story. If Thompson hadn’t espoused the views he does, we might have a different story. As for now, I think Romney could rally some late support. As is even evidenced on here, his Mormonism will hurt him. As will the fact that he changed position on abortion, regardless of his veto record in Mass.

But I think he’s in good position to start to pull more supporters into his camp, especially as they start heeding the message more closely.

[xjcsa]

This will be a real test of evangelicals to see if they can put aside their many perceived and few actual theological differences with Mormons and realize that what is more important is supporting someone with the same values.

There are many very real, deadly-serious theological differences between evangelical Christianity and Mormonism, such that many (including me) cannot accept Mormonism as being within Christianity at all.

But you are right about the rest. And at this point I consider myself a Romney supporter, although I'm also open to Fred Thompson and (if he would just drop the nanny-state crap) Mike Huckabee at this point.

[Nonstatist]

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.

[redgirlinabluestate]

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.

Finally, some common sense exercised in an attempt to derail Rudy's lead in the polls and rally evangelical voters behind the one man most capable of denying Rudy the nomination.

Sounds like he has the same idea that Ann Coulter recently espoused:

The writer, Mark DeMoss, a publicity agent whose clients include the Rev. Franklin Graham, wrote the five-page letter, urging the recipients to “galvanize support around Mitt Romney, so Mr. Giuliani isn’t the unintended beneficiary of our divided support among several candidates.”

[MEGoody]

If the two choices were only Mitt and Rudy, I’d definitely choose Mitt.

[JRochelle]

Same old spin. Romney really means what he says!

I am glad Romney says he is pro-life now. But it smells to high heaven of political expediency.

Just like, you know all his other conversions.

Guns. Gay rights. Illegal immigration. yadda yadda.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Excellent, thanks.

[Coldwater Creek]

McCain has stabbed Christians in the back one time too many, but that is only one reason that we don’t like him.

[MHGinTN]

"... few actual theological differences ..." If there is one fundamental difference, if it is the proper one, that is all that is needed for conservative Christians to refuse to vote for Mitt Romney. There are at least three major fundamental differences. It will be near impossible to sneak past these when the Rodham-rodent goon squads gets started exposing these three biggies. A one or two percentage of Republican voters not voting for the nominee or even refusing to go vote will hand this nation to the forces of darkness in a way that perhaps will never be overcome.

The stakes are high. Do conservative Christians ignore their core beliefs and vote into office a man whose religion claims to be THE restored Christianity and therefore by inference the Christianity of the conservative Christians not in that church are not 'real Christians'? The current Romney strategy is to reverse this question and make it appear that Mormonism is being attacked as not Christian, when of course the reverse is the reality as clearly seen in the founding principle claims of Mormonism. I don't think dissonance is going to work as a strategy to get this man elected Presidnet. But the Romney camp seems to think it will, when 'hold your nose' push comes to 'fall in line regardless' shove.

[Colofornian]

This will be a real test of evangelicals to see if they can put aside their many perceived and few actual theological differences with Mormons...

Listen, if the "theological differences" were really "few," Joseph Smith would have tried to be a reformer, not a restorationist. Joseph wouldn't have unloaded his try of a nuclear spiritual bomb by labeling "all" Christian creeds as "an abomination before God" and he wouldn't have labeled them as "all" corrupt.

But nice try. I mean the Reorganized Church of LDS doesn't even try to reduce their differences with the Mormon church as "few," and here both are Book of Mormon, restorationist-believing entities.

As for some of those "few" differences: Christians don't baptize dead folks; they're not polytheists; they don't believe they can become gods; their Heavenly Father wasn't a created being; they don't attempt to earn salvation or exaltation; they don't believe their only living prophet & spiritual interpreter lives in the Salt Lake City area; and I could go on and on about those "few" differences.

You also keep neglecting how it is that Mitt is supposed to inspire us when his faith keeps telling us: : "You are an apostate from Christ. Every creed of yours is an abomination before God. Your leaders are corrupt. So I can count on your vote, then?"

I mean I could head off down the street to a local major retailer and pull off a book right there published from Utah that outlines the so-called 100% apostasy of the Christian church. (100% = no true survivors outside the LDS church)

Why would we want a White House-hyped faith elevated by the Salt Lake City PR machine that specializes in diminishing the historic Christian faith and everyone who identifies with that?

[Gurn]

Summary: "Dear Christian, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain who believes that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and that Jesus and Satan are brothers."

No way, NO WAY would I ever vote for Romney. Let him run for "Prophet." President, no way.

[Colofornian]

Same old spin. Romney really means what he says! I am glad Romney says he is pro-life now. But it smells to high heaven of political expediency.

I find it interesting that you don't even need to compare Mitt's old stances on all kinds of issues with his new stances to see how "convenient" his changes are. I mean just go back to 1994 with some of the YouTube clips of his debate against Ted Kennedy.

He says he will "sustain and support that [Roe-based] law" and that he would "sustain and support" a woman's choice [to abortion]. What few folks understand is that the word "sustained" to a Mormon is a sacred word.

LDS have that word several times in Doctrines & Covenants (LDS "Scripture"). "Sustained" is the word used by LDS grassroots members toward their dead "prophets," their living "prophets," and their general authorities. By "sustaining" these people, the entire belief system is committed to what they have revealed.

For Mitt to say he would "sustain" Roe and then not "sustain" Roe would be like a Mormon saying he would "sustain" his living prophet and then back out.

Likewise, Mitt covers all bases with his 1994 statement on the Boy Scouts, first saying the Boy Scouts should do what they want to do; and then saying in his next breath anybody of any "sexual orientation" "should be allowed to participate" in the Scouts.

[Ol' Sparky]

The question is will he get the evangilical vote?

If he is viewed as the only hope of defeating Giuliani, yes.

At least one can rationalize that Romney is a Mormon and actually really is a social conservative.

I'd trust Romney to keep his word far more than Giuliani.

[iowamark]

You should mention the fact that Mark DeMoss is a paid consultant of the Romney campaign.

[Spiff]

Same old spin. Romney really means what he says! I am glad Romney says he is pro-life now. But it smells to high heaven of political expediency. Just like, you know all his other conversions.

How many evangelical and pro-life leaders have to vet Mitt Romney and express their support before you realize that you're wrong when you accuse Romney of a false conversion? They've got their credibility to lose and the missions of their organization can be negatively effected if they're wrong. They did the homework and they came up Romney supporters. It's not some conspiracy to fool you into voting for Romney. These are bona fide conservative, pro-life, and evangelical leaders and such that are putting their support behind Romney because that, more than any other top tier candidate, he shares their conservative, pro-life, and pro-family values.