Posted on 10/30/2007 12:08:40 PM PDT by delacoert
Sometimes things happen in American politics that make no sense at all. We are experiencing just one of those moments in the 2008 presidential campaign.
I thought that the concept of a religious test for public office in our country was put to bed once and for all when John Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected president in 1960 and Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, was nominated for vice president in 2000.
Now we have a candidate with a record of accomplishment, Mitt Romney, who is consistently lagging in the polls with the most credible reason being that significant numbers of Republican primary voters will not support him because of his Mormon religion.
When voters, particularly in the South, are asked to identify candidates that they would not support for president under any circumstances, Romney leads the list. Romney is rejected as a potential presidential candidate in this type polling more often than other polarizing figures such as Rudy Giuliani. It has become increasingly clear that many conservative voters will not support an otherwise qualified candidate who happens to be a Mormon.
As a Democrat, I wouldn’t vote for Romney in the general election if he is nominated by the Republican Party. But I’ll be damned if I can understand why he should be disqualified from seeking his party’s nomination because of his religion. This makes no logical sense in the world’s greatest democracy in the 21st century.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Oooooooho, one clever little Democrat is this Frost. Feel free to e-mail him about his propaganda piece.....mfrost@polsinelli.com
Bingo...
Romney has more than one problem as a candidate. I don’t see how you can separate one from another. It may not be his religion, but if voters are not sure about him, and they are uncomfortable about his religion, that might tip them over to vote for someone else.
A candidate is the whole package, accomplishment and problems. If Romney was solid on issues, I doubt most voters would have a problem with his religion. If he has a problem, it is that people don’t see him as solid.
No, I don't think so. Look at #16.
People will not vote for him because he is a Mormon. People’s idea of being Christian if fairly limited to Protestant, Catholic and Jewish denominations and possibly Islam all before (well before) Latter Day Saints. The years have not been good in terms of PR for them.
I think his problem isn’t that he is Mormon, but rather that he isn’t Mormon enough. I tend to think of Mormons as socially conservative to a fault, but with Reid as the current Mormon of power, maybe I need to re-think things.
Or is it people that are wholly underwear have strange bed fellows!
Or is it people with holes in their underwear have strange bed fellows!
That is strange and a bit insincere that the Mormons are now attempting to pretend the symbols aren’t Masonic. Still, if he were a consistent conservative, I wouldn’t care that he has special drawers.
Martin Frost isn’t trying to help Republicans; he’s trying to paint Republicans as “intolerant” and “bigoted.”
Too funny.
1. He'll be the easiest Republican for Hillary to beat (probably carrying only the state of Utah).
2. Or, if he does happen to win, he's the most acceptable of the GOP slate of candidates (Dims seem to realize, like most of us, that he'll flip on all his conservative promises he's lied about).
I think you are on to something. It seems most posters agree.
I really wonder if people won’t vote for him because he’s Mormon. Maybe the problem is, he’s not Mormon enough...
Wow! Somebody got ahold of EVERY primary ballot & crossed his name off?
(Sometimes, what passes for "journalism" is exactly why FREEPERville has a steady dinosauer media drum beat)
“I’d choose Romney on his worst day over a democrat.”
I totally agree! How about Romney/Hunter?
OK, beyond not being to point to anywhere that any formal "religious test" exists, this writer needs to "do the math."
I believe LDS doesn't have all that many more voters in the U.S. than say, Muslims. So say a Muslim runs for POTUS.
There's no "test" for Muslim candidates, either. Still, such a candidate would need to convince Christian voters that when his faith labels such Christian voters as "infidels," somehow he is not part of that infidel-labeling faith.
Likewise, any LDS candidate needs to convince Christian voters than when his faith labels all Christian voters as "apostates," somehow he is not part of that apostate-labeling faith.
You and EV must read the same BS - your statements are incorrect!!
First off, “discrimination” in anything is not a bad thing because it means simply being able to distinguish a significant difference — rather than a purely arbitrary one, which is prejudice.
People who cannot discriminate this essential difference between “discrimination” and “prejudice,” should not parade their ignorance on media programs as though they were somebody who should be listened to — on any matter requiring discernment and discrimination in these matters.
They just seem like pompous assholes repeating slogans somebody has fed into them, thinking they are thinking for themselves — or should be thinking for anybody else.
“Like the day he signed a permanent assault weapons ban?”
He never did that. He signed an NRA-supported bill that corrected flaws in the 1998 AWB. If he had not signed that bill, the AWB would have still been in place and worse.
” Or the day he implemented gay marriage?”
He never did that, it was the Massachusetts state supreme court that declared Massachusetts already allowed it (never mind the lack of reasoning for the ruling, but they did it).
Romney opposed gay marriage forcefully from the get go, worked to get the lege to act, and was prevented from resisting implementation by the lib Dem AG.
” Or the day he signed socialized medicine into law”
What he supported was designed by the conservative Heritage foundation. It’s a plan that puts universal coverage available via private insurers, not ‘socialized medicine’. He had to compromise w/ Mass libs on it, but his plan proposed now works on market and federalist principles.
In truth, Mitt Romney is one of our best chances to have a mainstream conservative Governance in the White House in 2009. There is a lot of hyperbole in the attacks on Mitt Romney based on selective distortion of his fiscal conservative and pro-family record as Mass Governor.Not a right winger, but hardly a Hillary either.
We’ve only been around this track about 50 times EV, but that is how I see it. Romney will make a good President.
Says the n00b romney supporter. There sure are a lot of them on FR these days.
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.