Anti-Mormonism Bites Romney In Southerly Regions

[Zakuska]

I've yet to meet a Mormon who admits to that.

On the flip side I've heard plenty of Evangelicals say just the opposite. "I'd never vote for a Mormon."

[cdowis]

(Off topic)

1. Romney actually won MS and AL -- in delegates. He increased his lead in delegate count last Tues, as the other candidates fell further behind. The anti sentiment failed to achieve its goal.

2. I think the LDS will vote for the individual who was best fit for the job, not on religion. At the beginning of the primary season, Romney was on the bottom of the list for me, until I took a closer look at the remaining candidates.

[Zakuska]

(Off topic)

1. Romney actually won MS and AL -- in delegates. He increased his lead in delegates last Tues, and Santorum slipped further behind, so the anti sentiment failed to achieve its goal.

2. I think the LDS voted for the individual who was best fit for the job. At the beginning of the primary season, Romney was on the bottom of the list for me, until I took a closer look at the other candidates who were remaining.

Thanks for bringing that up.

It was MS not FL as I listed above.

Looks like he didn't make it on the ballot in MS in 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/E...s/state/#val=MS

[KevinG]

I still contend that Mormonism isn't the reason people vote for/don't vote for Romney any more than people liking Obama because of his color.

Any candidate is going to get dragged through the sewer of personal politics and the most unusual thing about Romney is his Mormonism. That means we are going to be treated to interesting musicals, Saturday Night Live skits and Tonight Show monologues about underwear, owning planets and multiple wives for the next few years.

I try not to take it personally.

[Pahoran]

I think it is simply wrong for LDS to ask people set aside their religious beliefs just so a Mormon can get elected.

Who is asking anyone to do that?

Whose religious beliefs forbid them to vote for a Mormon?

It is really a shame you deliberately avoided the real issues.

And it's an even bigger shame that you can't help but be insulting.

No doubt there are valid reasons to prefer a candidate other than Romney. But the "real issue" is that people are opposing him for other than valid reasons.

For instance, you mentioned the Priesthood ban. Romney had nothing to do with it; it ended 34 years ago; and it cannot possibly have any influence in a putative Romney administration. So how can it possibly be relevant? At all?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Saints Alive]

I think Mormons voting for Romney has more to do with Mormons leaning republican (as polls have shown) than it does with Mormons voting for Mormons. I doubt Harry reed would have a very large Mormon base if he were running for president.

[frankenstein]

Who is asking anyone to do that?

romeny is and has.

If ones personal religious beliefs include consideration of a political candidates religion as a factor for voting for the candidate, then is it romney, who is telling others, using a deliberate misleading statement. (see an early televised debate wherein romeny addresses religion and religious tests)

Whose religious beliefs forbid them to vote for a Mormon?

You know just as well as I that there are "preachers" preaching that Christians should not vote for a Mormon. As is often stated be "apologist' if you want to know what a LatterDay Saint believes, ask a LatterDay Saint, likewise ask a "christian" who applies a religious test.

And it's an even bigger shame that you can't help but be insulting.

CFR that I was insulting (I presume you are referring to my comment to Daniel Peterson)

Is it now insulting to point out flaws in another position? If addressing flaws in another position is now insulting, please consider how insulting your own online conduct is.

[The Nehor]

Never have I been so ashamed of my fellow Americans as I feel now. I really thought that people could look past religion in politics but obviously bigotry is still alive and well in the south.

Minorities in the south will be impressed it took this election for you to realize that.

[Calm]

Is this more disheartening than the people who will simply vote for Romney because he is a Mormon?

I think there is something a bit more admirable in voting for someone because you like something about them than in not voting for someone because you don't like something about them, even if both reasons really have nothing to do with whether or not they would make a good whatever.

[Vance]

I've been posting on this issue at http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/.

Nice post.

I grew up in a small town in southwestern Utah. During WWII the population of said town was 105 (all Mormons). Of that 105, 21 young men (a full 20% of the pop.) served in the Armed Forces of the US.

It makes me sick to see the Anti-Mormon bigotry on display during this election cycle.

[mtomm]

How many? Does it matter?

I'll quote a Facebook post: "I've decided church trumps party."

So at least one.

[Avatar4321]

Oddly enough, Romney still has a significant lead in the number of total delegates from the South.

I can predict that if Romney gets the nod, and his opponents try to stir up anti-mormonism to try to beat him, Romney will win in a landslide.

There is a history of bad luck for candidates who run elections that attack Mormons. Especially when they know better.

[Ares]

Usually we avoid politics - however this thread is about a Mormon politician and how that influences his chances of election. Please keep it to that narrow window - thanks!

[KevinG]

romeny is and has.

If ones personal religious beliefs include consideration of a political candidates religion as a factor for voting for the candidate, then is it romney, who is telling others, using a deliberate misleading statement. (see an early televised debate wherein romeny addresses religion and religious tests)

You know just as well as I that there are "preachers" preaching that Christians should not vote for a Mormon. As is often stated be "apologist' if you want to know what a LatterDay Saint believes, ask a LatterDay Saint, likewise ask a "christian" who applies a religious test.

I find this position ironic with as many critics of the LDS church who said promoting a political movement (Prop from the pulpit should require us to have our tax exempt status removed.

The LDS Church is much more politically neutral than most Evangelical and Baptist churches here in the South. They certainly aren't even in league with the likes of Sharpton or Jefferies for political activism through the church.

[jwhitlock]

Saints Alive:

In delegates Romney is well ahead. We'll have to wait until at least the last of April before he or someone else can claim to have to more than half the needed delegates to avoid a brokered convention. I still expect Romney to be the eventual nominee, but it going to be an interesting contest.

However even in the North those Primay/Caucuse votes are very close. Ususally a few percentage points either way. The combined Anyone But Romney votes is easily double that of Romney. In Pennsylvania a survey of likely Republican voters 60% favor Santorum. We'll have to WAFO what the actual Primary vote is but it doesn't look good so far for Romney. It is telling that both Santorum and Gingrich have played the Antimormon card.

Since Santorum is from PA, that is hardly unexpected. Yet, interestingly enough, PA voters in general booted Santorum after two terms in the Senate; that was somewhat of a surprise. And most interesting of all, there is more than expected support for Gingrich; one of the few ex-Congressional leaders actively supporting Gingrich is Bob Walker from PA. Very surprising. It indicates that the electorate is very fickle as to who they'll support. Almost like whoever has the best 15 minute sound bite gets the vote...

[blueadept]

(Off topic)

1. Romney actually won MS and AL -- in delegates. He increased his lead in delegate count last Tues, as the other candidates fell further behind. The anti sentiment failed to achieve its goal.

2. I think the LDS will vote for the individual who was best fit for the job, not on religion. At the beginning of the primary season, Romney was on the bottom of the list for me, until I took a closer look at the remaining candidates.

Romney loss MS and AL last Tues whose delegates were split between the 3 candidates. He had fewer delegates from these two states.

The part that people are forgetting is that there were two other primaries going on Tues in Hawaii and American Samoa which are winner take all delegates which Romney took all of the delegates.

So what happened was LOSS + LOSS = Romney Won

I'm glad Romney's faith has played a negligible role even though 2/3rds of those voting know he's a Mormon.

I was shocked to hear that only 1/3rd of the voters in AL and MS knew that Santorum was a Catholic....

[Zakuska]

The thing I find intresting is the narrow margins that the Candidates are actually winning by. There hasn't really been a land side one way or the other in any of the elections so far (except in the case where some one didn't get on the ballot), just a 3 way split with numbers in the 30s

I mean Romney last year in Alabama got only 18% and now hes up to 36% that shows people are warming up to him and that the US may indeed elect a Mormon. The numbers that are showing here are pretty close just like the election that got Obama into the whitehouse.

[blueadept]

Oddly enough, Romney still has a significant lead in the number of total delegates from the South.

I can predict that if Romney gets the nod, and his opponents try to stir up anti-mormonism to try to beat him, Romney will win in a landslide.

There is a history of bad luck for candidates who run elections that attack Mormons. Especially when they know better.

Which candidate has made any negative comment about Romney's faith ,,,,,,,CFR

Supporters of candidates should not count IMHO.

[jwhitlock]

How many will that be?

I'm as "Mormon" as they come. If I vote for him, I will be holding my proverbial nose. Any "Mormonism" involved will be trivial at best.

Many others here have said essentially the same thing.

Lehi

Agreed; quite a few of us are very conflicted about the current crop of candidates - just like last election. When it comes down to the fact that it's much easier to define what you don't like about the candidates, than what you do like, it's an indication that there's a serious problem. No one in either party jumps out as a great leader, but there's plenty of concerns about qualifications on all sides.

Of course, the fact that even a great leader is likely to fail given the current circumstances doesn't help. Perhaps the real question is, do we want a Mormon presiding over something that is inevitably going to collapse no matter who is elected?

[Zakuska]

Of course, the fact that even a great leader is likely to fail given the current circumstances doesn't help. Perhaps the real question is, do we want a Mormon presiding over something that is inevitably going to collapse no matter who is elected?

Well if that happens guess who is going to bare the brunt of the blame?

[selek1]

Several things need to be noted here:

First, Howell Raines is an Obama partisan whose hack status has passed into legend rivalling that of Rob Bowman.

Second, the article doesn't cite any specific evidence of religious discrimination- it's entirely predicated on Raines insider knowledge of the minds of Southerners.

This is the same mindset that denounces any criticism of Obama or resistance to his agenda as "racist".

This is the same mindset that prattles on endlessly about "Mormon forced conformity" and "the Morg".

Raines is neither a credible commentator, nor does he cite credible sources.

The most blatant bigotry on display is NOT the alleged anti-Mormonism, but the very real and habitual derision of voters in the South and "fly-over states".

Raines and his fellow Kool-aid drinkers routinely deride anyone outside their coastal cocktail circuits in exactly the same terms used in the article.

The only difference between this piece and the traditional boiler plate about "bitter people clinging to their guns and God" is that attempts to drive a wedge between conservatives as well as conservatives and independents.

It is exactly the same narrative used to explain why Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and the rest of the hard Left are so unpopular: it's because Southerners are too stupid to bow before their betters.

Like the anti-Mormons, Raines is projecting his own prejudices and insecurities on people he does not understand and cannot comprehend.

His comments should be evaluated in that reality.

[Jeff K.]

Romney loss MS and AL last Tues whose delegates were split between the 3 candidates. He had fewer delegates from these two states.

The part that people are forgetting is that there were two other primaries going on Tues in Hawaii and American Samoa which are winner take all delegates which Romney took all of the delegates.

So what happened was LOSS + LOSS = Romney Won

I'm glad Romney's faith has played a negligible role even though 2/3rds of those voting know he's a Mormon.

I was shocked to hear that only 1/3rd of the voters in AL and MS knew that Santorum was a Catholic....

American Samoa and Hawaii voted for Romney overwhelmingly and those delegates gave him 41 more or less

[Pahoran]

romeny is and has.

If ones personal religious beliefs include consideration of a political candidates religion as a factor for voting for the candidate, then is it romney, who is telling others, using a deliberate misleading statement. (see an early televised debate wherein romeny addresses religion and religious tests)

Frankie,

I'm getting increasingly irritated with the effort it takes to decipher your posts. Permit me to show you what the above could look like if you could just be bothered making an effort:

Romney [caps and spelling; I don't think any Gypsies are running] is and has.

If one's personal religious beliefs include consideration of a political candidate's religion as a factor for voting for the candidate, then is it Romney [caps and misplaced comma] who is telling others, using a deliberately [an adjective is not an adverb] misleading statement. (See an early televised debate wherein Romney [caps and spelling] addresses religion and religious tests.) [Punctuation corrections unflagged.]

With that out of the way, let's look at what you are asserting.

Romney is asking people to "set aside their religious beliefs," is he? What did he actually say?

You know just as well as I that there are "preachers" preaching that Christians should not vote for a Mormon. As is often stated be "apologist' if you want to know what a LatterDay Saint believes, ask a LatterDay Saint, likewise ask a "christian" who applies a religious test.

Yes, I am aware of the arguments of those sub-Christians. I have never seen one of them that is able to quote a Bible verse to the effect of "Thou shalt not vote for a Mormon." Every one of them distorts or misrepresents Mormonism in some way or other and then proceeds to rely upon that distortion in order to appeal to the mere prejudice of their audience.

If someone's religious beliefs forbid them voting for a cultist who wears magic underwear and believes in a spaceman from Planet Kolob, what does that have to do with Romney, or any other candidate?

And please note that just because someone with his collar on backwards says something, it does not mean that whatever he says is automatically a "religious belief." Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of who spouts it.

CFR that I was insulting (I presume you are referring to my comment to Daniel Peterson)

Is it now insulting to point out flaws in another position? If addressing flaws in another position is now insulting, please consider how insulting your own online conduct is.

Accusing someone of having "deliberately avoided the real issues" when he did nothing of the sort is insulting.

Whether or not there are legitimate reasons to oppose Romney's candidacy, the fact that people oppose him for illegitimate reasons is itself a perfectly valid issue. If Dan's blog was trying to argue that Romney is the best candidate, then those other reasons would need to be addressed. But since it is merely discussing the fact that Romney is opposed because of anti-Mormon prejudice, then those other reasons are simply off-topic.

Indeed, some of those supposed reasons may well be mere talking points used to cover up the real reasons. For instance, I'm pretty sure that at least some of Romney's opponents who chant the mantra about "flip-flopping" and the dog on the roof will really be opposing him because he's a Mormon and they're still sulking about Prop 8.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

I like how you never attempted to cover what the values are that voters believed romney did not share.

I'm glad that you like the misconception you have of what I wrote. I'm happy that you're happy.

My point, so obvious (I thought) that nobody could possibly miss it, was precisely that Romney does share the values that those voters claim matter to them. Saying that he doesn't share their values when he manifestly does share their values points pretty unmistakably to something else -- and I'm far from alone in suspect that that something else is religion.

Also, how many churches, up to 1978 had what appear to outsiders as racist beliefs/practices. Of those churches, how many have had a member who is also a political candidate in a highly contentious primary?

If you want to make the case that alleged Mormon racism offends Evangelicals more than non-Evangelicals, and Southern Evangelicals more than Northern and Western Evangelicals, I look forward to seeing your evidence and arguments.

Rather than appeal to emotionalism and America is Number 1, why not address the actual issues of concern?

I think the real issue is religion. I believe that I said that I believe that the real issue is religion.

Is romneys history of flip flopping, that romneycare served is the same as obamacare, the dog story, or his religion the problem or is it a collective off them all. Or do people simple just not like him for no apparent reason.

Maybe his losses in those two southern primaries were, as you imply, utterly without cause and purely random.

Pardon me, though, for doubting it.

And please, again, lay out your reasons for believing -- if, indeed, this is what you believe -- that Romney's much-exaggerated "history of flip-flopping" and Romneycare and The Famous Dog Story somehow turned those who said that it was important to them that a candidate share their religion off much more than it turned off those who said they didn't much care that a candidate share their religion, and please explain how this has little or nothing to do with Mr. Romney's religion.

It is really a shame you deliberately avoided the real issues.

By which you mean to say that I didn't mention The Famous Dog Story?

I have not the slightest reason to believe that Southern Evangelicals particularly care about The Famous Dog Story. Do you?

There's polling data on the impact that religion and values had in those two primaries. If you have polling data about The Famous Dog Story, please do share it.

If the issue is religion, it is a terrible that lds people would bully nonlds to set aside their own nonlds personal religious convictions; the lds doing so makes them no different than those they rail against concerning religious beliefs and voting.

Who in the world is asking anybody to set aside his or her personal religious convictions?

Certainly I'm not.

But if it's going to come down to Catholics only voting for Catholics and Protestants only voting for Protestants, and Christians against Jews, and Christian Scientists campaigning to get Methodists off the city council, and Muslims crusading to remove Jews from American public life, and Evangelical political parties forming to oppose mainstream Protestants, all I can say is "Welcome to the Balkans! The wonders of Bosnia and Serbia are waiting for you!"

Jeff k if you are going to reference the US Constitution please be accurate, states and feds can not require a religious test, nothing in the Constitution prevents a individual voter from using religion.

That's right. Voters are entirely free to cast their votes on the basis of religion ("I vote only for Greek Orthodox candidates"), on the basis of race ("Asian-Americans should never be elected to public office") or ethnicity ("Keine Juden!"), on the basis of gender ("Women aren't fit to serve in government"), or, for that matter, on the basis of a coin-flip or the number of vowels in the candidates' last names or a drug-induced hallucination. But, in doing so, they're not entirely living up to the highest principles of responsible American citizenship, and they're open to criticism.

[KevinG]

Southerners will vote for social conservatives. This makes Ginrich and Santorum more attractive than Romney who has stayed a relatively moderate course.

I'm living in Georgia and ran the primary election in my district and I didn't catch near a whiff of anti-Mormonism.

In fact I get more anti-mormonism from New Yorkers, Michiganders and Utahins on these boards in one day than I experience in a year of being a Southerner.