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]

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

No, I shouldn't. Because he's not.

[horse_doc]

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

I will get behind Romney if he is the nominee.

But you need to understand that the "Mormons are Christians, too" approach is the best way to kill this deal. Whether you like it or not, very few Christians believe that the theology of Mormonism is consistent with Christianity.

Stressing conservative Mormon values will bring in Christian voters. Contradicting what most Christian pastors say about Mormonism, will turn off Christian voters.

[FastCoyote]

“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.”

There are people like me who on stark religious grounds will never pull the lever for Romney. I think that percentage is high enough to deny Mitt the presidency. Many people won’t vote for Giuliani are the religious grounds of abortion (nor for Hillary for that matter).

And yes, the religious differences between evangelicals and Mormons are huge, beyond things like being dipped or dunked for baptism. Humans becoming Gods, celestial marriage, God on a planet near Kolob, etc. aren’t going to be papered over with any letter.

[CheyennePress]

>>>There are people like me who on stark religious grounds will never pull the lever for Romney.<<<

Fair enough. I tend to take the Bible a bit more literally when it says, “For whosoever believeth in Him.”

[FastCoyote]

“I hope that evangelicals read it and consider it carefully.”

Considered and rejected. I will not vote for someone who believes they are God material (that includes Reverend Moon, David Koresh, and anyone else on that path). I will not vote for someone who believes in multiple gods. I will not vote for someone who cannot read the history of his church (because Joseph Smith takes the prise for blatant charlatanism and anyone who believes his baloney is Gullible). I won’t vote for someone who believes in secret temple rights, seer stones, special handshakes and mumbo jumbo like batism of the dead because it is as superstitious as witchcraft.

In short, it isn’t going to happen.

[JSDude1]

(<-( Gagggg.

Romney is not a conservative, and will not be presuppositionally on “evangelicals” side- He’s another RINO, governed as such. Can’t stomach him.

[Spiff]

But you need to understand that the "Mormons are Christians, too" approach is the best way to kill this deal. Whether you like it or not, very few Christians believe that the theology of Mormonism is consistent with Christianity. Contradicting what most Christian pastors say about Mormonism, will turn off Christian voters.

I think that the truth is very important. The truth is that Mormons ARE Christians (they believe in Jesus Christ, they worship Jesus Christ, they are disciples and followers of Christ, they are witnesses of Jesus Christ, they remember Jesus Christ in all they do, the center of their life is Jesus Christ, they have taken upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ, etc.). Contradicting the mistruths that many Christian pastors stell about Mormonism with the TRUTH about Mormonism is a good thing. I have yet to hear a pastor of any faith tell the truth about what I believe as a Mormon. I have friends of different faiths who come to me with questions about what their pastors are telling them. And, let me tell you, that their pastors are not telling them the truth.

But that's me, not Romney. Romney isn't running a campaign on his religion or trying to get pastors of other faiths to tell the truth about it. He's hoping that people can understand that theological differences are common between all faiths and that they're only really relevant, when selecting who you're going to vote for, when the differences mean significant differences in values. For all of the many perceived and the few real theological differences, Romney's values are the same as most evangelicals.

[JRochelle]

Don’t you get it?

Mitt isn’t rising in the national polls becasue he comes off as a phony.

Mitt may very well be pro-life. As I said, that a good thing.
That isn’t going to convince me to support him. He will never beat Hillary.

[JSDude1]

Ya’ll forget George W. Bush said the same thing..

(look I don’t hate our President; He had done some good things: Tax Cuts, Supreme Court Justices, War on Terror, etc), but he has betrayed Ronald Reagan Conservatives, Evangelicals, and many other stripes of Conservatives). If you want more of ‘the same’ vote Mitt!

[JRochelle]

On Brit Hume’s show tonight, Mort described Romney to a T.

He said Romney is a great businessman. What does a good businessman do when his product isn’t appealing?

He redesigns it. Just like Romney has redesigned himself.

Problem is, that theory doesn’t work in politics.

[FastCoyote]

[Fair enough. I tend to take the Bible a bit more literally when it says, “For whosoever believeth in Him.”]

But that is EXACTLY the problem. Joseph Smith is ALSO considered a gatekeeper. Moreover, to Mormons, even Christ can’t fully absolve you of your sins, it is a religion based on works (that’s why all the squeaky clean Mormons, they have to be to get Temple recommends and get into heaven, and then become Gods of their own). Moreover, which “Him” do they believe in? Cause there are questions about the trinity and other factors. There is also a sub debate about whether Adam was a God who gave seed to humans, so Jesus isn’t necessarily even in the loop.

No Mormon church or Temple has a cross on it, think about that one for a while.

[FastCoyote]

prise=prize, boy I hate my mental typos

[JRochelle]

That calls for a new tagline.

[napscoordinator]

Great job. That letter is spectacular!!!! Romney is my second choice after Duncan Hunter! I would be proud to vote for him in the general election if he is nominated!!!!

[Rameumptom]

>>>>>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.

Here's a few "Christians" who believed in some of those things. It's a long read but very interesting. You may be surpised what Justin Matryr, Origen, Tertullian, Barnabas, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Iraneus, Lactantius, Polycarp etc. believed.

Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity

A Restoration Church

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) is a radical religion by the standards of most modern religions--and it was considered even more strange in the time and place it originated. Perhaps no other major religious movement in American history has given rise to so much controversy, curiosity, admiration, and animosity. The Church has been variously described as a non-Christian "revival of primitive paganism in a modified form"2, a "cult,"3 and, by a much more sympathetic observer, a completely new Christian religious tradition.4 But what does it claim for itself?

Mormonism emphatically claims to be Christian--but considers itself neither Protestant nor Catholic. Rather, it differs from both in that it claims to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ. That is, the Church claims that all other Christian traditions have come down to us as incomplete remnants of the original Church which Jesus organized, which necessitated God restoring the true body of Christ to the earth through a prophet--Joseph Smith, Jr. Thus, the Latter-day Saints claim their church is an actual restoration of primitive Christianity, as it existed under the Apostles in the first century A.D.

_________________________________

As for the Mormon/Evangelical split. As a Mormon I had preconcieved notions about Evangelicals and misunderstood many of their beliefs. This book helped me change some of my ignorance and helped me understand where Evangelicals were coming from in our differences.

How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation (Paperback) by Craig L. Blomberg (Author), Stephen E. Robinson (Author)

Book Description - Voted one of Christianity Today's 1998 Books of the Year! Mormons and evangelicals don't often get along very well, at least not once they begin to discuss their religious beliefs. They often set about trying to convert one another, considering the faith the other holds as defective in some critical way. Unfortunately, much of what they say about one another simply isn't true. False stereotypes abound on both sides, preventing genuine and helpful communication. Having discovered this sad state of affairs, Craig Blomberg, a committed evangelical scholar, and Stephen Robinson, a committed Mormon scholar, set out to listen to one another and to ferret out the real agreements and disagreements between them. In the conversation that develops, you will read what each believes about key theological issues--the nature and bounds of Scripture, the nature of God and deification, the person of Christ and the Trinity, and the essentials of salvation--and see how they interact with one another. What they agree on may surprise you. Though this book does not sweep differences under the rug, it is meant to help Mormons and evangelicals know and tell the truth about one another. It does not expect to end evangelistic efforts from either side. In fact, it may help to promote more effective communication because it can help to get rid of misrepresentations from both sides. In the end, however, you will be able to judge for yourself just how wide the divide between them is.

[TitansAFC]

-—”He will never beat Hillary.”-—

Well, I wouldn’t say that. For one thing, he’d have a unified party behind him - and a base terrified of Clinton, no longer being faced with Rudy911 as the alternative.

Have you watched him campaign or debate? The man is impressive. He’s eloquent, witty, and photogenic. I sincerely think he’d beat Clinton.

Let me be clear: My vote will ultimately go to whoever has the best chance of beating Rudy911 on the day I cast my vote. That could be Mitt, Fred, or whoever - because Rudy911 winning the nod will mean I’m done with the GOP for at least a couple of election cycles. But if you really look at what Mitt has done in the early primary states, as well as how vast and organized his ground game is, you have to come to the conclusion that he is a MAJOR player for President in 2008.

[Rameumptom]

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

Or you could just read the article before you post.

[darkangel82]

Romney’s Mormonism doesn’t bother me, but his liberalism does.

[epow]

Just like, you know all his other conversions.

If Mitt can convince me that he really has converted from pro-abortion to pro-life, from a gun grabber to a 2nd Amendment supporter, and is fully opposed to "gay" marriage I would at least seriously consider switching my tentative support from Fred to Mitt. After Fred's somewhat less than stellar performance on the farce the MSM called a debate last night, I have doubts about his appeal to uncommitted young voters who may incorrectly perceive him to be just a sick, tired, old man.

Personally I still prefer Fred to any of the other high ranked GOP contenders, including Mitt. But it is of the utmost possible importance that Hillary, or any Democrat for that matter, be prevented from appointing the next two or three USSC Justices, not to mention abandoning the WOT to appease the barking moonbat portion of her left wing party. I can't and I won't vote for Giuliani, but I could and I will vote for Mitt if he's the GOP nominee.

[napscoordinator]

Such a sad person you sound like.

Anyway, Mitt is the ONLY family values candidate we have that can win!!! Duncan Hunter is equal to Mitt, but does not have the traction at this time! Mitt SHOULD BE the 44th President of the United States of America! Oh yes I am a Catholic just for your information so yes I am a Christian and have no problem with Mitt and his religion.