Gingerly, Romney Seeks Ties to Christian Right

New York Times ^ | 16 October 2007 | MICHAEL LUO

[shrinkermd]

He has invoked the Rev. Rick Warren, a popular evangelical author and megachurch pastor. He has quoted Scripture and alluded to the Gideon Bible as favorite late-night reading. And he has cited his belief in Jesus Christ as his personal “savior.”

As Mitt Romney has had to grapple with suspicions about his Mormon religion during his presidential run, he has tried in various ways to signal his kinship with evangelical Christians, who represent a crucial constituency of the Republican base but consider his religious beliefs to be heretical.

He faces a delicate task in trying to stake out common ground with conservative Christians, while not running afoul of deeply rooted evangelical sensitivities about any blurring of distinctions between Mormonism and conventional Protestantism.

“He has to be very cautious,” said Oran P. Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council, a conservative Christian group in South Carolina. “When he actually says things that make Mormonism sound like orthodox Christianity...I think that’s where he runs into trouble.”

Mr. Romney faces one of his most important tests on Friday, when he addresses a gathering of conservative Christians at the Values Voter Summit in Washington. His advisers are still undecided about whether Mr. Romney will directly address concerns about his religion in his 20-minute address and, if so, how much to dwell on it relative to his stances on particular social issues. In the end, they said, because his religion is so personal to him, Mr. Romney’s own feelings on how to handle it will be most important. They made clear it would not likely be a major address on his religion, akin to how John F. Kennedy confronted the issue of his Catholicism in 1960. The decision about if and when to give such a speech, they said, has still not been settled.

[shrinkermd]

The big problem with Romney campain is Romney. In spite of being a highly intelligent, successful, he seems to lack peopole intelligence. That is, he lacks an intuitive understanding about how people see and think about him.

Human nature is such that there is a general suspicion among the brightest that people "fake it to make it." Once they decide this is the case that candidate cannot repair the damage. Alas, I think this is what has happened to Mitt Romney.

Pandering may pull a few less sophisticated votes his way but the cognoscenti have already made their decision.

[mnehring]

Romney, Romney, that name sounds familiar. Where have I seen it before? Oh Yea, here:

[JRochelle]

He is a faker. As Mort Kondrackie said on Brit Hume’s show last week, Romney did what any shrewd businessman should do when he has a flawed product. You reinvent the product. So Romney tried to reinvent himself as a conservative. Problem is that doesn’t work in politics.

Edwards is the silky pony in the democrat party.

Romney is the phony pony in the republican party.

[DManA]

Trying to court a large voting block makes more political sense that Rudi’s strategy - Stick your finger in their eye and try to kick ‘em in the pants.

[MBB1984]

I do believe that Romney, deep down, is more conservative that Rudy. Part of my belief is due to his Mormon background and I am not Mormon. And, at least Romney, now, is taking more conservative stands than Rudy. He is a faker, but in the end I think he would make a more conservative president than Rudy or McVain. Also, he is telegenic and has the best business sense of any of the other prominent candidates. In short, he is the most conservative of the electable candidates.

[highball]

The big problem with Romney campain is Romney. In spite of being a highly intelligent, successful, he seems to lack peopole intelligence. That is, he lacks an intuitive understanding about how people see and think about him.

The article agrees with you:

(Romney’s) advisers are still undecided about whether Mr. Romney will directly address concerns about his religion in his 20-minute address and, if so, how much to dwell on it relative to his stances on particular social issues. In the end, they said, because his religion is so personal to him, Mr. Romney’s own feelings on how to handle it will be most important. They made clear it would not likely be a major address on his religion, akin to how John F. Kennedy confronted the issue of his Catholicism in 1960. The decision about if and when to give such a speech, they said, has still not been settled.

The whole Mormon issue only remains because Romney has refused to deal with it head-on. He's making it an issue, which seems incredibly stupid to me.

[redgirlinabluestate]

More good news for Mitt Romney:

.....a top official at the conservative, fundamentalist Bob Jones University is throwing his political support to Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university's college of arts and sciences, said he believes the former Massachusetts governor is the only Republican candidate who both stands a chance of winning the White House and will reliably implement the anti-abortion, antigay marriage, pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives.

"The fact that I'm seen as a Religious Right person would hopefully get others to step out for him," Taylor said in an interview in Greenville, S.C., the university's hometown.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13250.html (Romney gets some help from Bob Jones University)

[redgirlinabluestate]

More interesting comments from the same article:

Taylor’s endorsement, which he said he plans to announce in the near future, marks a stunning move for such a high-placed academic at Bob Jones University…. Taylor acknowledged that endorsing a Mormon for president risked alienating the university’s conservative donors and alumni. But, he said, “we’re not electing a pastor — we’re electing a president.”

It gets back to a point I argued last week: slowly but surely, the religious right is coalescing around Romney. At the start of the year, this seemed highly unlikely — Christian conservatives simply wouldn’t be able to get over their theological differences with the former Massachusetts governor.

But the circumstances have changed. Rudy Giuliani is a threat the religious right movement, Fred Thompson is too weak, John McCain is too untrustworthy, and Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback aren’t competitive enough. Romney offers evangelicals a competitive candidate who, at least now, says everything they want to hear about abortion and gays...

[highball]

Romney offers evangelicals a competitive candidate who, at least now, says everything they want to hear about abortion and gays...

That's why I have a problem with Romney - he says the right things now after having said the exact opposite for a long time.

I just don't trust him.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Yes, but as has been explained a thousand times, we don't have to rely on his mere words as he already governed conservatively in Massachusetts.

We can look to his actual record.

We can rely on the pro-life and pro-family people who worked with him in Massachusetts and now endorse him. Actions speak louder than words. It is the totality of the circumstances which makes Romney the best choice. Those who actually know him do trust him.

Eight prominent leaders of pro-life and pro-family groups in Massachusetts wrote an open letter praising Gov. Romney for his leadership and accomplishments in these important issues and attesting to his commitment to the pro-life and pro-family causes. It is a MUST read.

A few examples from his actual record:

1)Romney took the pro-life position on every abortion-related issue he’s faced while governor.

2)He vetoed an emergency contraception bill and offered a compelling case for life in the process.

3)He fought efforts to advance embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, despite overwhelming opposition.

4)He pledged to veto any effort to expand access to RU-486, the abortion pill.

5)He has faced constant ridicule from pro-abortion organizations for refusing to give in to their demands.

6)He actively promoted abstinence education programs in Massachusetts’ schools. The abstinence movement and the pro-life movement work hand-in-hand to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and to promote true sexual health to America’s youth. http://www.americansformitt.com/prolife_perspective.html (A Pro-Life Perspective on a Mitt Romney Candidacy )

[redgirlinabluestate]

Similary, influential evangelical leader Mark DeMoss encourages support for Romney after a thorough review of his actual record, private meetings and personal reflection. He says he supports Romney for several reasons, including:

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....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1909920/posts (Evangelical publicist sends letter to evangelical leaders urging them to rally Romney support)

[highball]

I don’t know Mark DeMoss. A quick Google search pegs him as a publicist.

Mr. DeMoss may trust Mitt if he likes, but that in no way means *I* must trust him.

[redgirlinabluestate]

DeMoss has been, most notably, a publicist for the Rev. Franklin Graham. Of course, you can make up your mind based on old youtube clips, DNC talking points and such, instead of relying on his actual record or leaning on the opinion of those who actually know him. That is your right.

[kevkrom]

Gee, who to believe... third party folks following their own agendas, or the word from the candidate's own hand?

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Yes, but as has been explained a thousand times, we don't have to rely on his mere words as he already governed conservatively in Massachusetts.

We can look to his actual record.

So, you contend that his words are different from how he governed? That means he lied and misrepresented himself to the people of Massachusetts. He represented himself as a liberal to fool people into voting for him, then [according to you] governed as a conservative.

So, according to your defense, we're supposed to trust Mitt Romney will govern as he says he's going to, based on past evidence of exactly the opposite.

Thank you for making such a persuasive case against Slick Willard.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Seeking ties to the religious right? I hope his lawyer said it was okay.

[redgirlinabluestate]

We are going backwards again? Are you relying on the Project Vote Smart form and the other questionnaires Fred filled out ages ago? Or, are you relying on his actual record and what his platform is now? If I had a photo of the form, I'd post it for you. What does that prove? What does it have to do with now?

But, if you want to live in the past:

But he {Thompson} also told the Eagle Forum in a 1994 questionnaire, "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people."

In a candidate survey the same year for The Tennessean newspaper, Thompson said that states should have the right to impose "reasonable restrictions on abortions such as parental notification." But he said, "The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289422,00.html

Documents The Tennessean located in Thompson’s Senate archive at the University of Tennessee show:

• On a 1996 Christian Coalition survey, he checked “opposed” to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution “protecting the sanctity of human life.”

• He included a handwritten clarification: “I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people.”

• In 1996, asked by the Memphis group FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God Inc.) if human life begins at conception, Thompson circled “N/A.”

[redgirlinabluestate]

So, you contend that his words are different from how he governed?

No, not at all. Romney promised to maintain the status quo. He honored that promise. Maintaining the status quo included stopping abortion rights from being expanded -- and that is what he did.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Status quo? Oh, right, sure. I guess anyone simplistic enough to imagine that those quotes and questionnaires make Fred Thompson pro-choice will believe anything.

[kevkrom]

That's a far, far cry from supporting "the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade".

It's a far, far cry from claiming that Ted Kennedy wasn't "pro-choice" enough.

It's a far, far cry from falsely claiming that Reagan was "adamantly" in favor of abortion rights as California governor, in order to make a false moral equivalence to Romney's record.