Posted on 12/07/2007 6:53:38 AM PST by AFA-Michigan
Reaction to Mitt Romney's religion speech
While Mitt Romney's speech on his Mormon faith this morning played to evangelicals by describing the role way his religion should play in public policy, it was unlikely to sway social conservative voters uneasy with his socially liberal background.
The speech was meant to address fears that he would take policy cues from Mormon church leaders, and that his religion is a cult that is unacceptable to Christian conservative voters.
But many social conservative voters are less concerned with the specifics of the former Massachusetts governor's religious creed than his sympathetic record on abortion rights.
"I don't think Romney's problem has anything to do with Mormonism," said Jerry Zandstra, a Michigan anti-abortion activist and pastor who supports Arizona Senator John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination. "I have no problem with him being a Mormon. It's his positions that are ever-shifting and problematic."
For instance, Romney now says he's firmly anti-abortion, but while running for office in Massachusetts, he said, "I believe women should have the right to make their own choice."
Another Michigan social-conservative activist said Romney's declaration that "Americans do not respect believers of convenience" was an "indictment" of his own political background.
"The risk he runs is being judged as a 'believer of convenience' in the public policy arena," said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan.
"It's not that he's Mormon, it's that he hasn't been Mormon enough in the public policy arena."
Mormons are typically vehemently socially conservative and anti-abortion.
Massachusetts voters, who chose him 50%-45%, are far more liberal than the Republican Iowa caucus-goers he sought to woo today. In Iowa, evangelical Christians make up an estimated 35% to 50% of caucus-goers. The Iowa caucuses are January 3.
The speech was billed in the media as the 2007 Republican version of John F Kennedy's speech to a group of protestant ministers in Houston in 1960. In that address Kennedy declared that he was an American running for president who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic running for president who would take orders from the Vatican.
Romney's speech stuck to a dramatically different theme, and included some key talking points of the Christian right.
"It was not JFK's ringing endorsement of church-state separation", said Peter Montgomery, a spokesman for People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group. "He's trying to assure [Christian conservatives] 'I'm one of you,' in order to get their vote."
Romney also referred directly to the cultural battles in which conservatives are perpetually engaged, saying God should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.
"Some of what he said was meant to play directly to some of the concerns in the culture wars," said Martin Medhurst, a professor of rhetoric at Baylor University in Waco, Texas . The message , Medhurst said: "I'm on your side."
Romney said he refused to offer doctrinal details of his Mormon religion.
"He's basically shut that off," said John Green, Senior Fellow at Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Green said by doing so, he avoids the risk doctrinal differences will put off Christian voters. "That's an argument he probably can't win."
Instead, Romney embraced what Green called "American civil religion, the idea that American politics and government are based on universal religious values." "He's trying to stake out a positive role in religion," Green said.
It's unlikely, however, that he convinced evangelicals they're cut from the same cloth.
"I don't think his Mormonism is a deal breaker for most Americans, but only Mitt Romney can close the deal," Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, told ABC television's Good Morning America. Asked directly if he thought Mormons were Christians, Land said, "No, I do not."
Medhurst said the speech was a defensive play intended to staunch the flow of wavering Iowa evangelicals from his camp to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, has overtaken Romney in some Iowa polls and is gaining ground nationally.
Marvin Olasky, provost of The King's College, a Christian liberal arts school in New York City, said Romney will have a tough time persuading evangelical voters that Mormon church priorities will not help shape his public policy.
Romney's avowal of his belief in Jesus' divinity is "necessary, but not sufficient," Medhurst said. Romney will now have to meet with evangelical leaders and win their endorsement, he said.
Gov. Romney indicted himself Thursday when he said:
“Americans do not support believers of convenience.”
Romney’s sudden and dramatic reversals upon entering the presidential race of his previous positions on abortion, constitutionally protecting marriage, the homosexual agenda, and other issues were nothing if not politically “convenient.”
His speech on “faith in America” was billed as telling Americans “how his faith would inform his presidency.”
Americans concerned about protecting prenatal life and traditional family values can only hope that Romney’s faith would inform him differently as president than it did during his earlier political and business activities.
Actions speak louder than words, and Romney’s past political and business activities are a far more trustworthy measure than any campaign speech of whether the faith he professes is likely to have much if any influence on his future behavior.
As a matter of record, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is widely known to oppose abortion, homosexual behavior, and pornography. In fact, it considers all three — with exceptions in the case of abortion — to be sinful and morally wrong.
Thus, Romney’s record of passionately defending and thus promoting abortion on demand and homosexual activists’ political agenda, while personally profiting from the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of pornography, makes clear that the faith he professes had little discernible influence on his past political and business activities.
Why should Americans believe that the policies of a Romney presidency would be any more consistent with the values of the faith he professes than his political and business activities have been in the past?
Mitt Romney’s credibility problem is not that he’s Mormon. It’s that politically, on core values such as protecting life and traditional family values, he hasn’t been Mormon enough.
That’s the basis on which most Americans are likely to judge him a “believer of convenience,” by which he fails the standard he himself uttered.
Not on how his religious beliefs compare to other faiths, but how starkly his public policy views were at odds with the cultural values widely associated with his own faith.
See a multitude of examples below...
“Not the slightest hint that his religion has constrained his politics in any way”
Richard Cohen, The Washington Post, November 20, 2007: “There is not the slightest hint that (Romney’s) religion has constrained his politics in any way. You name the issue and he’s been for it and against it — gun control, abortion, gay rights. Call this what you may, it is proof that Romney is not enslaved by any dogma. His religion, to which he is committed, is distinctly his business and would not, as far I can tell, have any bearing on his presidency.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111901187.html
PORNOGRAPHY: Romney publicly rebuked
by newspaper owned by his own church
The Deseret News, Salt Lake City, July 10, 2007: “Pornography taints everything it touches. Mitt Romney should have understood that. So should the Marriott Corporation and other hotel owners who offer hard-core movies in hotel rooms. Romney caught a bit of flack last week because he spent nearly 10 years on the Marriott board and yet never tried to reverse the company’s policy of providing pornography on demand... For a presidential candidate who has railed against pornography, this is not entirely insignificant. Even if the subject never came up at a board meeting, one can argue that at least part of the $25,000 plus stock he was paid annually for his board membership came from the money some hotel guests paid for access to the films.”
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680197653,00.html
ABORTION: “I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate.”
U.S. Senate campaign debate, October 1994: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
Gubernatorial campaign interview, 2002: “So when asked, will I preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: yes.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo
Gubernatorial campaign debate, November 2, 2002: “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. ...I’m not going to make any changes that would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself. ...A woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion...I have held that view consistently. ...I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate. I’m in favor of preserving and protecting a woman’s right to choose.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
WBUR Radio, Boston, December 2005: “’My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraceptive or emergency contraceptive information.’ Romney’s decision to remove the exemption for private (Catholic) hospitals is a surprise victory for abortion rights advocates.” (13 months after his alleged conversion on the abortion issue)
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/wburnews/2005/me_1209_2.rm
Washington Post, May 2007: “I was effectively pro-choice at that time.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050902263.html
And throwing leaders of his own church under the bus in an attempt to justify his pro-abortion record...
WHO Radio, Des Moines, August 2, 2007: “There are Mormons in the leadership of my church who are pro-choice. ...Every Mormon should be pro-life? That’s not what my church says.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Mitt_unplugged.html
Fox News, August 5, 2007: “My greatest mistake was when I first ran for office being deeply opposed to abortion but saying I’d support the current law, which was pro-choice and effectively a pro-choice position. That was just wrong.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293017,00.html
USA Today, August 6, 2007: “I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-08-05-gop-debate_N.htm
Fox News Sunday, August 12, 2007: “I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word ‘pro-choice,’ because I didn’t feel I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn’t pro-choice.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293017,00.html
Endorsed by the pro-abortion Republican Majority for Choice PAC.
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA: “I would have voted no” on Marriage Protection Amendment
Romney was endorsed by the homosexual activist group Log Cabin Republicans in both his 1994 and 2002 candidacies.
“Bay Windows: Do you support the Protection of Marriage Amendment? Romney: No, because it would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples. Bay Windows: Do you believe the Protection of Marriage Amendment initiative should be put before voters? Romney: The people have a constitutional right to put questions before the voters. But, if it had been on the ballot, I would have voted no.” Bay Windows, Boston, January 1, 2002
St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 5, 2007: In 2002, when Romney was (running for) governor, his wife, son and daughter-in-law signed a petition supporting a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would not only ban the state from recognizing same-sex marriages, but further stated, Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent, nor shall it receive the benefits or incidents exclusive to marriage. But Romney quickly expressed his opposition to the amendment, saying...the language barring civil unions was too extreme, with his spokesman telling the Boston Globe, Mitt does not support it. As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it’s unnecessary.”
Boston Phoenix, May 14, 2004: In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as too extreme the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
Boston Globe, Feb. 23, 2005: (Romney) urged GOP lawmakers to vote for a proposed constitutional amendment...that would ban same-sex marriage but allow gay couples to enter into civil unions.
Associated Press, April 25, 2004: “Gov. Mitt Romney’s top legal counsel told the state’s justices of the peace Sunday to resign if they are unwilling to preside over the marriage of same-sex couples beginning next month. ...’If a justice of the peace cannot comply with his or her oath of office, then we would expect that person to tender their resignation from that office.’ ...Romney has also ordered changes to the state’s marriage application, replacing ‘bride’’ and ‘groom’ with ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B.’”
Endorsed Ted Kennedy’s and Barney
Frank’s federal “gay rights” legislation
Romney letter to Log Cabin Republicans, 1994: I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for Americas gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than (Ted Kennedy). ...If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will. ...We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit.
Opposes Boy Scouts’ nationwide ban
on homosexual Scouts or Scoutmasters
Associated Press, Jan. 11, 2007: Romney was asked if he ever publicly opposed the Boy Scouts’ exclusion of gay members while he served on its executive board. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation, Romney replied.
Sioux City Journal, July 23, 2007: The campaign for Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback is criticizing rival Mitt Romney, saying he supported the idea of allowing gay men to serve as Boy Scout leaders. ...The Brownback campaign pointed to Romneys answer during a debate in 1994 when he ran for the U.S. Senate. ...The Romney campaign pushed back at the allegations, saying Romney is a supporter of the Boy Scouts and believes local councils should decide their scouting policies.
Appointed homosexuals to public office
Office of the Governor, May 4, 2005: “Governor Mitt Romney today nominated Stephen S. Abany of Boston for the position of Associate Justice of the Wrentham District Court.
(Abany) has served on the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association.”
Boston Globe, Jan. 2, 2006: “His harsh criticism of judicial over-reaching’ always wins applause from Republican audiences. But (Romney) has at times taken pains to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians. When an administration official was dismissed and said the action was related to her plans to marry her lesbian partner, Romney strongly denied it and said several high-ranking officials in his administration were gay.”
Associated Press, May 4, 2007: I have nothing but respect and feelings of tolerance for people with differences from myself and feel that way with regards to those who are gay, he said. He noted that one of his Cabinet members was gay and that he appointed gays to positions of responsibility in his administration. I oppose discrimination against gay people, Romney said. I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay, and that’s not me.”
Endorsed gays in the military
Romney letter to Log Cabin Republicans, Oct. 6, 1994: I am convinced that (Dont Ask, Dont Tell) is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nations military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.
Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2007: Mitt Romney, who once advocated allowing gays to serve openly in the military, said yesterday that he does not think the Pentagon should change its don’t ask, don’t tell policy in the midst of the Iraq war. We’re in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the time for a change in that regard, and I don’t have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly, Romney said.
L.A. Times, Feb. 1, 2007: “Romney once embraced the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy as just a first step toward openly gay people in the military. Now he says the policy should not be changed in a time of war.”
Politico, March 16, 2007: “I think General Pace has said that he regrets having said (homosexual behavior is immoral), and I think he was wise to have issued an apology, or a withdrawal of that comment. I think that we, as a society, welcome people of all differences, whether there are differences in ethnicity, faith or sexual preference, and I think he was wise to correct his comment and to suggest that that was an inappropriate point to have made.”
Larry King Live, March 15, 2007: “I think the choice of words of the Chief of Staff were inappropriate for the public discourse. ...In a governmental setting, the right way is to show more of an outpouring of tolerance.
Homosexual adoption
Boston Herald, June 6, 2007: There are other ways to raise kids thats fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. Thats the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice.
Boston Globe, March 14, 2006: I recognize that (homosexual couples) have a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services.”
"I don't think Romney's problem has anything to do with Mormonism," said Jerry Zandstra, a Michigan anti-abortion activist and pastor who supports Arizona Senator John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination. "I have no problem with him being a Mormon. It's his positions that are ever-shifting and problematic."
It was a wonderful speech, but I have to agree with the above.
Romney said he believed in evolution. Apparently his positions are also the result of randomness and selection based on the polls. of course the political environment is constantly changing so we can’t predict anything he will say or do in the future. Most likely his campaign will become extinct.
We all change. I am now 100% pro-life and was at one time okay with abortion. I am not a flip flopper, just someone who can learn. Isn’t that the result we strive for with our pro- life advocacy?
Bushie, go back and actually read the post and comments above, then tell me you think Romney’s alleged overnight conversion on the abortion issue is the only question we have to answer.
Forty million abortions didn’t prick his conscience, but the thought of discarded embryos did, he says.
Point is, we don’t know if he’s sincere or not. Last thing we should do in the meantime is reward him for 15 years of preaching the virtues of abortion on demand.
Bushie, did you announce your conversion on the life issue only in conjuction with running for some political office? I’m guessing not.
Just in case anyone here cares what an English op-ed writer thinks...
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.