You asked, "What else besides Romney's faith can explain the ex-governor's poor showing?" Let us count the ways. Is it inconceivable that primary voters would find his conversions to conservatism inauthentic? Is it inconceivable that they have a hard time believing that a man who described himself as pro-choice since 1970 would suddenly become pro-life in 2005? That somebody who once found McCain reasonable on immigration, would suddenly attack McCain's position as tantamount to amnesty? That somebody who once promised to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy would end up portraying himself as a social conservative crusader? That somebody who signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts would say he's a big defender of the Second Amendment, who would veto any such legislation as president? Are conservatives bigots if they don't support government mandated health care? Or $20 billion bailouts for the auto industry? Are they anti-Mormon if they decide that in a time of war, somebody with national security credentials is preferable to a one term governor?
Nobody likes to admit it, but the only reason Freepers did not support Dennis Kucinich is that he is short and married a tall girl. This forum is full of short people bigots.
The phrase
“Mormonism Sank Romney”
... is just a chance to play the victim card.
This is a great article.
At the same time, you have to be struck by how Romney played in the South relative to other areas. Recall how he gave up in South Carolina after concluding that he just wasn’t going to gain traction there.
Something has to account for why he was able to do much better in some parts of the country than others, and I’m afraid that religion looks like the logical explanation.
I think he was able to connect to the small business types. he spoke like a CEO or a technocrat. Details details over your head. That crowd likes that style.
But the average American won’t go for that at all. It’s also why Bush was able to win debates vs Al Gore and Kerry.
Bravo. Can we now put this non issue to rest?
(ok I already know - the answer is no.)
No, it was just the bigots who would not vote him.
“Mormonism Didn’t Sink Romney”
It certainly didn’t help. I cannot tell you how many “good Christians” that I saw post here and talked to in person that said, “Sure I agree with most of what he stands for (then in a whispered voice) but he’s a “Mormon.”
“Mormonism Didn’t Sink Romney”
But it sure helped!
Every time I read one these articles about Romney and his faith I go away and decide wisdom says to keep my mouth shut.
I think I finally know how speak without sounding like a narrow minded religeous bigot.
We don’t have any problem recognizing that Islam, the R.o.P., perverts the minds of Middle Eastern Terrorists. That said, we do not hate everyone of Middle Eastern Origin.
Romney’s character is shaped by his faith. In communities where Mormon’s are in the majority, they have their ways. Doesn’t mean they are not nice people, but a particular world view is predictable,especially with the leadership. A person’s inner compass, what they determine as truth, determines how they act.
Mormon beginnings and history in this country makes very interesting reading.
That's what the MSM want you to believe, but it's pure nonsense. Romney switched on one major issue. That's it.
He flip-flopped less than any of the other major candidates, including Fred Thompson, John McCain, and the Huckster.
That's a fact. Unfortunately, in our age of 2 minute attention spans, it's perception that matters, not the facts.
THANK YOU for posting this.
I’ve been saying this since he entered the campaign, and since he “suspended” it. More so since his suspension.
The point is valid, and one that was CONSTANTLY obfuscated if not outright ignored by his supporters. Some of his more adamant supporters here on FR would insist that, if his Kerry-esque FLIP-FLOPPING were pointed out, then that person MUST be an anti-Mormon bigot.
I quite frankly couldn’t care less about a person’s religious affiliation in the world of politics. I deal with POLITICAL facts when deciding upon a candidate, NOT religious facts. He could have been an atheist, and I would’ve still voted for him if he just wasn’t a flip-flopper.
I’ve said this before too: I can’t imagine for the life of me why someone would want to, ultimately, through their support of Romney, want to be in the same position in the general election as Kerry’s supporters found themselves in 2004 after THOSE primaries. I mean, did we all forget how EASY it was to exploit HIS flip-flopping?
This would be a vastly different, if not much more palatable race if all the Romney supporters had looked past the “bigotry” smokescreen, seen what he was (a Kerry like flip flopper), and gotten behind a true conservative like Hunter or Thompson. Do I sound like I’m blaming the McCain curse we now face on Romney supporters? That’s because I am.
The only real conservative was Ron Paul.. ALL the others prevaricated and hemmed and hawed.. America seems to NOT WANT Ron Paul but a government check.. Same thing on free republic.. getting a free check from the government IS NOT LAUGHED AT but encouraged on free republic.. My, my do things change around here..
I considered Romney full of it and inauthentic in his conversions and there were some like me who were cautious about him. However, there was a good amount of old fashioned anti-mormon bigotry that did him in, evidenced in the Mike Hucksterbee campaign.
If only he had been a POW...
This isn’t Front Page News, or any kind of “news” for that matter. This is an Editorial.
An editorial with which I disagree. We all know that religious bigotry was a major factor.
Yes, that's the one major switch. All other allegations of flip-flopping are either not true, or very minor. Let me go through your list.
That somebody who once found McCain reasonable on immigration,
He never described McCain as reasonable. He described an early proposal, which was vague about Amnesty, as sounding reasonable. He also said he had to study it further and get more details before taking a firm position. That was not the bill McCain brought before the Senate. As soon as the bill was written down and brought before the Senate, he denounced it.
That somebody who once promised to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy would end up portraying himself as a social conservative crusader?
Romney always supported equal rights of citizenship for gays. He never changed on that. He also always opposed gay marriage. There's no flip-flop here.
That somebody who signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts would say he's a big defender of the Second Amendment, who would veto any such legislation as president?
He always supported the assault weapons ban, just like president Bush. He never said otherwise. While I wish he would flip-flop on this issue, since I think his current position is wrong, but he hasn't.
FYI, the assault weapons bill he signed as governor was endorsed by the NRA. To call it a "ban" is highly misleading. The bill actually reduced the number of weapons banned in the state, while keeping other weapons banned
Do your homework; you're less likely to look like an ass if you do it.
Are conservatives bigots if they don't support government mandated health care?
Punishing irresponsible people who refuse to buy health insurance and then stick taxpayers with their health bills is a conservative policy.
Or $20 billion bailouts for the auto industry?
He never proposed a bailout of the industry. He proposed increased government funding for research and development. There's nothing wrong with that, nor anything inconsistent with conservatism.
Supporting research is very much a legitimate role for government in the conservative worldview. That's because research qualifies as what free market economists call a "public good." The benefits of research benefit accrue to society at large, and not just the person who funds it. Therefore research will tend to get underfunded unless it is supported by government.
That's why we give Federal grants for research at universities, research institutions, and the like. That's why we have a federally supported National Academy of Sciences and similar institutions. Conservatives have traditionally been staunch defenders of these institutions.
Are they anti-Mormon if they decide that in a time of war, somebody with national security credentials is preferable to a one term governor?
Serving in a war 40 years ago, as a lowly junior officer, hardly gives a man national security credentials. So much has changed in the ways wars are fought, that McCain's outdated low-level tactical experience is pretty much useless to a Commander in Chief who must deal in high-level grand strategy in a world very different from that of the late 1960's and early 1970's.
And his record in the Senate hardly gives comfront. The man wanted to send ground troops into Kosovo! Can you imagine a more foolhardy idea? The man's judgement on national security matters is highly questionable, at best.
I sure wish they would purge FR of the folks who have adopted demoncrat tactics by calling everyone a bigot who stood on conservative convictions against the liberal record of one Mitt Romney. It’s the same crapola that demoncrats have been doing for years when they have no intellectual basis for what they want, and there is no place on FR (or in the conservative movement) for such weak-minded knee-jerk imbeciles.
Romney had three factors against him:
1. He was too packaged.
2. He was a flip-flop artist.
3. He was a Mormon.
What was ridiculous was that he even flip-flopped on his religion. The truth is that Mormons DO teach that Satan is Jesus’ brother! Romney tried to avoid that unpopular fact knowing it would doom him with Evangelicals.
Also, conservatives (myself included) waited until it was too late to get behind Romney. None of the radio talk show hosts endorsed Romney until McCain started winning primaries. Nobody thought McCain had a chance of getting the Republican nomination and instead, they all went after Giuliani.
Yup. He looked like he was central casting. Too good to be true.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical, but would have voted for him in a minute if he had won the nomination. I voted Thompson in the primary here in MI, would have voted Romney in the general without having to hold my nose.
Now I'm faced with the dilemma of having to pull the lever for mclame. Not sure I'll be able to do it.
Religion has NOTHING to do with my decision.
I'd let a Mormon fix my car if he was the better mechanic, why wouldn't I apply the same standard when choosing a president?
I honestly don't want mclame, hillary! or obama as POTUS.
None of the arguments hold water about mclame being the only reasonable option for me.
I DON"T like mclame, and I don't want to vote for him.
I DON'T like hillary, and I WON"T vote for her. I WILL campaign against her.
I DO like obama, but I WON'T vote for him
I DON'T want mclame or hillary! in my living room for the next 4 years. I'll be throwing things and screaming at the TV.
The linguine-spined pubbies in the House and SINate will roll over either way and give the RATS what they want They did that when they were in the minority, and in the majority. I think Rush is right, we need to do some HOUSE cleaning, and some SINate cleaning.
Why should I pull the lever for mclame?
His nominees for the SC would not move the court to the right. Squishy moderate choices would be the most he could nominate and get approved, and we all know where they would side when push comes to shove.