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 ...
Romney's base was the more conservative voters who had chosen republican governors 4 times in a row, and the majority of the time in Massachusetts, and Romney lost his base, perhaps being to the left of Ted Kennedy on the homosexual agenda was not appealing to his base.
Romney sure did not inspire, or lead or even sustain anything to the right during his time, in his failed single term where he had wanted to seek reelection.
While saying that Romney was liberal because the state he CHOSE to run in was liberal, is a weird enough explanation for his off the charts radical liberalism, it doesn't explain his politics, donations, party registration, voting, and fund raising, and public positions and statements during the decades before being governor.
“I disdain Marxist socialism. So take your moral superiority and shove it.”
“I train my children to make intelligent well thought out choices and to weigh them carefully. The old adage of don’t cut off your nose to spite your face comes to mind. Other elections voters could afford to play around with their vote this election is truly different. This is a choice between a candidate who hates this country and its capitalist system which has brought a good way of life for those willing to work and a candidate who loves his country and happens to have an inkling of how our system works.”
“I guess your trying to denigrate Mormons for believing in the existence of this planet. I wonder which religions have certain beliefs they once had that they would just a soon forget about now. Truth of the matter is most religious beliefs are a matter of faith when it comes to some of their claims!!!”
“With only his track record as Governor of California to look at, we could have said the same thing about Reagan 32 years ago. In fact, many conservatives in June of 1980 did say this.”
90+% of the judges Romney appointed were liberal.
Romney ran in a liberal state because that’s the only place he had a chance of winning.
To say Romney had to “be a liberal because he was governor of a liberal state” only means he is not a leader but a person who practices capitulation just to get elected.
“If you think long and hard about that, you might figure out there is a ‘bigotry’ wager running with such misuse of the Gospel of Salvation. “
“20 February, 2010 6:17 a.m.
What a horses ass question!
He currently acknowledges he is pro-life.
The timing is not relevant.
You asked “how” I could support him, and my answer is that I believe his current position.
THAT is all that is important on the Pro-Life question.
And it is certainly sufficient to gain my support of Romney over Obama.
How can YOU do ANYTHING that doesn’t maximize the opportunity for Obama’s defeat?”
So basically you have no idea what you’re defending. Or you do, and you don’t care.
Brilliant!!! RC
See my post #119, you are correct. Just because Romney wants to be called pro-life doesn’t make it so.
You can do better than that. Prove me wrong.
Fact is, as Governor of California, Reagan was hardly the stalwart conservative that he became as President.
Just what is your problem with Reagan?
Good grief it appears every chance you can you excoriate the man.
No, he was NEVER pro-abortion, so stay off that.
In California, and nationally, Reagan was known as a right wing Governor, just as he had been know as a conservative for many years before that.
Reagan was the clearly labelled right-winger in the 1968 presidential primary race as he ran against the moderate Nixon, and the liberal Romney.
Mitt Romney has never, ever, been anything but the anti-conservative, even the actual, real life, anti-Reagan.
You are creating some silly history there, Reagan's challenge in 1980 was to fight to overcome the fear the voters had of his being so far right. A reputation that he had earned over the previous 30 years.
Mitt's problem is convincing conservatives that as the most liberal nominee in republican history that he is still better than Obama.
“You can do better than that. Prove me wrong.”
Good luck on that one.
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?
Presently? According to church articles contained in Ensign and other church publications, excommunications occur for personal reasons ranging from murder and espionage all the way down to apostasy.
It's the most extreme punishment of an LDS Disciplinary Council. Those are held by the bishopric unless it appears that the outcome may be the excommunication of a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, in which case they're held by the stake president. The uses of Disciplinary Councils is a subject much to broad to write about here and is something I'd suggest you research if you have the time. The LDS Ensign article on its use is found here
Informally, you would have to read the books, postings, and blogs of those who have been excommunicated, get an idea of the charges these excommunicants claim, and decide whether you believe those claims. Specific reasons for excommunication aren't made public.
Academically, some historians (particularly starting with members of the September Six) appear to have been excommunicated for publishing LDS history outside the boundaries of 'faithful history' as that term was made famous by Apostle Boyd K. Packer, although there is likely more involved in the interpersonal relations that led to those excommunications. Some of these authors include D.Michael Quinn, Ph.D., Avraham Gileadi, Paul Toscano, Lavina Fielding Anderson, Maxine Hanks, David Wright, Michael Barrett, Brent Metcalfe, Janice Allred, Margaret Toscano, and Shane LeGrande Whelan.
Perhaps you would like to deconstruct that question for clarity since you deem it brilliant?
Sowing confusion may be a brillaint corollary to alinskyesque methodology, but it isn't amplifying The Gospel of Grace in Christ.
I got on a religion thread to kill the resulting support for Obama.
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.