Posted on 10/11/2007 2:00:29 PM PDT by Spiff
To: Conservative & Evangelical Leaders
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:
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).
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:
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:
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:
[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.] 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:
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.
/rmd
From: Mark DeMoss (Personally)
Date: October 9, 2007
Subject: The 2008 Presidential Election 1. Someone who most closely shared my 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.
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.
1. Pray fervently for this election.
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.
I like Duncan Hunter and I think that he is a rock solid conservative. However, he's not going to win the primary election. Period. He doesn't have the cash, the organization, or the momentum to even break out of the single digits. That's the reality of the situation. I wish it were different, but it is not. I urge you to pick a top-tier candidate who most shares your values and then lend him all the support that you can. And I think that is exactly what DeMoss said in his letter.
Bush actually has done a good job of keeping his word. He has been socially conservative. And, never hide the fact that he was a big-government ("compassionate") Republican that was going to push through legislation like the Medicare prescription drug plan.
But, I would prefer a Reagan type. Giuliani is absolutely unacceptable. Romney, I'd have to think long and hard about.
I agree with what you said, but truth be told, I am not going to be able to pick who I want anyway because Pennsylvania picks in April 2008....a candidate will be chosen by then. However, if Duncan bails by then and he will if he is not doing well and a nominee has not been chosen. I would be proud to vote for Mitt!!!
Surprisingly, "gay" "marriage" is about the only area of homosexuality that Mitt has remained constant on (he's always been against it). But he's been pro-civil unions for homosexuals; pro-domestic partnership benefits for homosexuals. So it's like, "Hey, you're shacking up together in a counterfeit union. Why, let's have the government and every corporation you work for reward you and reinforce that unhealthy behavior!"
Can’t see evangelical Christians voting for Romney. He’s probably a nice guy with some good ideas, but LDS is a cult and true evangelicals wouldn’t be in favor of a Mormon leading the country. Almost all of my acquaintences are evangelicals and not one of them would vote for Romney.
Mormons have been defnined by outsiders through much of our history. Think about it, many non-mormons I have met will say things like, "those mormons sure are a cult but the ones I know personally are the nicest people with the nicest families." Now that the Church of Jesus Chirst of Latter Day Saints is larger and can actually talk back on a larger scale through their numbers and the media, many think we have redefined ourselves or changed our teachings, or are hiding something. We are just able to let others know what we already know about our own beliefs. Think about it. How long has the MSM been lying about what Evangelicals believe? The MSM has also been lying about Mormons for over a hundred years. They still do it.
Richard J. Mouw - President at Fuller Theological Seminary
I know that I have learned much in this continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe.
Funny, I don't feel sad.
But I'm very afraid. It scares me to no end that this country is seriously considering for president a man who fell hook, line and sinker for the biggest crock of dung spewed by a human being since the birth of Islam.
Yes or no to the following questions, please:
Romney believes the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?
Romney believes that we can become gods?
Romney believes that Jesus and Satan are brothers?
Romney believes that God is a created being?
Joseph Smith said, "I will become the American Mohammed"?
Thanks.
Respectfully I disagree with you (I’d rather go for Fred) out of the ‘top-tier’, though I support Tancredo currently, just to let you know.
The reason why I don’t like MITT At all is that there is something off with him (his-flip-flops), and I don’t believe he is truely a Ronald W. Reagan Conservative, he’s a wolf..
The reason why I don’t like MITT At all is that there is something off with him (his-flip-flops), and I don’t believe he is truly a Ronald W. Reagan Conservative, he’s a wolf..
Pro-Life: Mitt Romney has been endorsed by several pro-life leaders and organizations. I would NEVER consider supporting a pro-abortion candidate or even one that was not solidly pro-life. My 10-year history on Free Republic attests to that fact. I support Mitt Romney and as the aforementioned pro-life leaders and organizations, I firmly believe that his conversion is genuine. (Go here for more info on this topic from a fellow FReeper.)
Pro-traditional Marriage/anti-gay marriage:Mitt Romney has been recognized as the most anti-gay marriage top-tier candidate in the race. He alone supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and he worked as governor to pass a similar amendment in Massachusetts. Again, I would never support a candidate who was not firmly against gay marriage and I support Mitt Romney because he IS strongly against gay marriage. (Go here for more info on this topic from a fellow FReeper.)
2nd Amendment Supporter: Mitt Romney is a solid supporter of the 2nd Amendment. As Governor he earned a B rating from the National Rifle Association. That may sound a little low, but you must understand that he was the Governor of a bluer-than-blue state with an 85% Democrat legislature. While he could enact precious few pro-gun policies and had even less pro-gun laws sent to him for signature because of the Democrat control of Mass., he still was able to achieve that score. He did so by doing things like holding the line against anti-gun legislation, supporting easing some gun restrictions where possible, and even proclaiming a "Right to Bear Arms Day" in Massachusetts. The SINGLE extension of a gun restriction that he did sign into law was matched by other eased gun restrictions and was supported by the NRA and the GOA. His candidacy has been endorsed by a former member of the NRA Board of Directors as well as a former NRA Executive Director. He is not a gun-grabber and is pro-2nd Amendment. (Go here for more info on this topic from a fellow FReeper.)
As a committed evangelical Christian and conservative Republican I can agree with that assessment as far as my immediate family and most of my Christian friends go, and I will vote for Mitt if he is nominated, and possibly in the primary if he convinces me that he has the same values and standards as I have concerning right to life, homosexual marriage, and 2nd Amendment issues. But you should be aware that there are many, many evangelicals who will not vote for a Mormon even if it means seeing Hillary elected.
Disagree with them all you want, condemn them all you want, but their votes count just the same as your's and mine.
I don't know if you're unintentionally ignorant about the actual beliefs of Mormons, or if you've been terribly mislead, or if you're just telling a pack of lies. What I do know is that nothing you've posted above is accurate about the actual beliefs of Mormons.
I agree if he believes those things that it is a bit weird, but that does not take away his qualifications for President. He is the only one with executive experience and that is important.
~”...and here both are Book of Mormon, restorationist-believing entities.”~
You do realize, don’t you, that Fred Thompson also belongs to a restorationist denomination? Let’s be consistent in our application of standards.
I can’t get past Fred Thompson getting divorced. Yes I know that Ronald Reagan did too but it astounds me that Republicans can’t go with a candidate that is family values. For whatever negatives that Mitt has he has kept the one promise he made to his wife and that is to honor and cherish her through sickness and health until death do us part. Sadly, Thompson did not keep that end of the bargin. Mitt not only kept his promise, but even stayed married to his wife after she was diagnosed with MS. That is a person who cannot be all bad.
~”There are people like me who on stark religious grounds will never pull the lever for Romney.”~
I become more convinced daily that your group is a small one. I think Romney’s impeccable family values, for example, will more than make up for any loss he might incur at the ballot box because of his religion.
Ah, yeah. No kidding. He went to Washington and got an 400 million dollar bailout. We lost, Utah hacks made money. Nice.
Not quite. Zero military service. Busy and all that, don't cha know.
Well framed.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: With 535 Congressmen, if one is duped on, say, foreign policy; well, it's going to be a lot harder to dupe all 535. But with POTUS, if he or she is duped, look out. Duck.
Vulnerability to deception is not just a marginal consideration for the White House...IT IS VITAL! Vulnerability to deception is a key character consideration.
Voters should evaluate candidates on character...so yes "character" includes commitment to their wives (a big plus for Mitt); so yes, it includes commitment to their families (another big plus for Mitt); and, yes, it includes integrity and scandal-free behavior. But vulnerability to deception is yet another major indicator of character.
Mitt said perhaps the biggest mistake of his life was to be wrong on abortion. So he confessed being deceived in catering to the god of abortion; he was also deceived on anything and everything tied to abortion (embryonic stem cell research; taxpayer funding of abortion; RU-486)--you name it. At one point or another he's been deceived on every aspect of homosexuality except "gay" "marriage" (what? you think 2002 Massachusetts voters, land of Dukakis, Kennedy, and Kerry...just usher in any ole conservative into the gov's chair?)
He thinks the White House is a career move to running his own planet. He thinks voters who are spiritual apostates with abominable creeds will be ushers of his magic carpet ride to the White House.
It really comes down to this: If the gay-rights activist get "gay" "marriage" there won't be any other "right" denied to them--including "gay" "marriage" being taught to our sons and daughters in public schools plus many of our churches offering "gay" "marriage" ceremonies to pre-empt being sued or held in violation of extended civil rights sanctions. Getting "gay" marriage in would be society's "Good Housekeeping" stamp of approval upon the entire GLBT agenda. Likewise, a lot of LDS gatekeepers know that once a Mormon is in the White House, it will be society's "Good Housekeeping" stamp of approval upon everything Joseph Smith said, taught, and lived.
With a Mitt White House, expect the Salt Lake City PR machine (& budget) to multiply 100 times overnight.
~”...but LDS is a cult...”~
Just because your pastor says it doesn’t make it so.
~”Almost all of my acquaintences are evangelicals and not one of them would vote for Romney.”~
I suppose we’ll see. Frankly, given Thompson’s lackluster entry and low resources, and assuming Romney doesn’t make any big blunders, I don’t see any way anybody can stop Romney from winning the nomination. Poll your acquaintances in a year when Clinton is the alternative and get back to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.