Posted on 06/22/2012 5:12:13 AM PDT by Colofornian
Mitt Romney faces an anti-Mormon bias just as strong as the one his father confronted during his own presidential run more than four decades ago, according to a Gallup poll.
Eighteen percent of Americans say that if their political party nominated “a generally well qualified person for president who happened to be Mormon,” they would not vote for that candidate. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, is a devout Mormon who once presided over the church’s Boston stake.
When Gallup asked the same question in 1967, during George Romney’s bid for the White House, 17 percent of Americans said they would refuse to vote for a Mormon.
“The stability of resistance to a Mormon presidential candidate over the past 45 years is an anomaly, given that resistance to a candidate who is black, a woman or Jewish has declined substantially over the same period of time,” Gallup Poll Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport wrote in a press release announcing the survey results.
The electoral significance of a lingering anti-Mormon bias is unclear because only 57 percent of Americans even know that Romney is a Mormon, according to the poll.
“This suggests the possibility that as Romney’s faith becomes better known this summer and fall, it could become more of a negative factor -- given that those who resist the idea of a Mormon president will in theory become more likely to realize that Romney is a Mormon as the campaign unfolds,” Newport said. “That things will actually work out this way, however, is far from clear.”
Democrats, who are unlikely to vote for Romney anyway, oppose a Mormon president at a much higher rate than Republicans, 24 percent to 10 percent. Opposition among independents stands at 18 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
It is Belief, NOT suspension of it, genius.
You’ve mis-phrased your intended slam.
What are YOU doing to support Obama?
Because Romney isn’t running for Pope of America!
He will not influence my faith or practice.
Obama IS THREATENING “Freedom of Religion” and the future of America.
The Sunday paper should have coupons for discounts on tin-foil.....
I’m trying to convince people that Obama is a larger threat to America and Freedom of Religion, and right to Life....than anyone in history.
Tell that to the Catholics who abandon Christ to become baptized into Mormonism.
Catholics seem to be the top diet of Christian conversions by Mormons.
People offer many reasons why they are attacking Christians and defending/promoting Mormonism, but none of them justify their anti-Christian activity.
“By not voting for Romney you ARE SUPPORTING OBAMA!”
Why don’t these people understand this simple truth?????????!!!!!!!!!
Just like when you don’t buy coke or pepsi, but instead buy bottled water, you are actually buying coke!!!
Idiots!
“Not voting for Romney is a defacto vote FOR Obama”
Hardly.
[Or perhaps the world this post refers to has been truncated down to just two choices and two outcomes - a binary universe with binary outcomes that are guaranteed...?]
“Because Romney isn’t running for Pope of America!
He will not influence my faith or practice.”
Well, great! At least we know the entire election is just about you. Whew!
Next!
The political reality is that the next presidency will be either an Obama 2nd term or a Romney first term. I am not happy with the the options but I intend to do whatever I can within the law to see to it that a second Obama term does not happen. I personally find Romney no more objectionable than I did McCain whom I despised but voter for anyway.
I understand your viewpoint.
I find Romney worse than Juan.
I also don’t want a rhino leading congress into liberal sins.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I understand your concerns, I just think that Romney may govern a little differently with a conservative house and senate than he did in dealing with the Massachusetts politburo. Even Reagan compromised when he had to. From "An American Life: (his autobiography)
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it."
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything."
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'"
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
We have a Senate filled with RINOS, and a House without BALLS.
It is them that will help Romney get the 75-85% of the liberalism he wants.
He wants it, they want it and Demoncrats will agree, since they want it too.
I’d prefer attacking Zero on every front, at every turn, to reinvigorate our party, than to give in on 75%+ of the liberal agenda.
With Reagan, we had a conservative in charge. With romney, a liberal. To the degree Reagan advanced conservatism, Romney will advance liberalism. He did it in MA. We have no factual reason to expect anything differently now, than how he acted.
I’d rather stake out a conservative opposition and fight, than to empower liberalism.
You may not know that Mitt used to support and even fund raise to make the federal Congress AND the Senate democrat.
That was before he even reregistered Republican in October of 1993, after having voted for Paul Tsongas.
Massachusetts never moved Romney left, he CHOSE Massachusetts over Utah when he decided to run for Governor, because Mass. was a better match for his liberalism.
Reagan was known as a right-winger in California and nationally, we prefer that you not sully him with Romney who despised Reagan, changed his party registration because of Reagan, refused to vote for Reagan, and who has spent 5 years trying to convince America that Reagan was "adamantly pro-choice".
If you want to quote Reagan in a manner that is relevant to voting and to candidate Mitt Romney, then use this one.
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all."- Ronald Reagan
Did you bother to read the attack I was responding to?
It WAS “all about me”!
I see.
“YOU have no idea how OBAMA will work harder against your interests than anybody else possibly could.”
Since the conventions have not been held and no one has been nominated, you or anyone else for that matter has any idea who the candidates will be.
We can speculate and ponder, maybe even with some degree of accuracy but we do not know for certain.
Given that some dem governors and other high officials have publicly said they will not attend the dem convention, it isn't guaranteed that BHO will be nominated and since the Republican candidates have not turned their delegates over to Romney, with many suing to become uncommitted so they don't have to support Romney, and about a third total which are uncommitted appear not to be supporting Romney - really you are only guessing like everyone else.
After the convention, then you can be sure.
“Try posing your question in a rational construct, n00b. And just as a side note, this was supposedly posted in the religion forum thus we are left to believe you see attack Milt Rominy as a religion topic?”
You stated the other poster was abusing Christ (shaming the “Gospel of Salvation”) by attacking Mormonism and the proven pathological liar known as Mitt Romney. How exactly is that so?
If Mitt Romney is indeed a liar, and if Mormonism is indeed a cult (and it is), exactly how would Christ be offended by posts that speak both those truths? And certainly those posters are no apologists for other liars like Obama. So how exactly are they shaming Christ, as you irrationally suggest?
If you ignore the question a second time, I’ll know your true reasoning isn’t religious over a worry for Christ, but are purely political. And that really is part of the outrage against Romney. We know that people will defend Mormonism, attempt to mainstream it, aid and abet it, all because Romney is the (disgraceful) Republican nominee. We all know that people are going to sell their principles out, defending lies, all for the sake of short term political profit.
That is one of the reasons why you see so much outrage against Romney, and so much force and resistance to Mormonism... because we know what is coming, and we know how unjust and how ugly it’s going to be.
This is a matter of truth being more important than politics.
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.