The Candidates
Featured Archives
Ever since he seriously began running for the Presidency, Mitt Romney’s Mormonism has loomed ominously over his campaign. A significant chunk of the electorate (polls show it as low as 30% and as high as 43% – most recently, Pew had it at 36% in September) say that they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon as president. Given Romney’s reputation as Mr. Data, he and his aides are well aware that this issue needs to be diffused in order for him to have a chance to win the nomination, let alone the general election. He needs to show that Mormonism isn’t heretical or even a “cult” that many social conservatives think it is. The most obvious way for Romney to accomplish this feat is to give a speech that echoes JFK’s famous 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in which he sought assure the country that his Catholicism wouldn’t be an issue as President.
Back in February, the New York Times reported that:
Mr. Romney said he was giving strong consideration to a public address about his faith and political views, modeled after the one John F. Kennedy gave in 1960 in the face of a wave of concern about his being a Roman Catholic.
Mr. Romney’s aides said he had closely studied Kennedy’s speech in trying to measure how to navigate the task of becoming the nation’s first Mormon president, and he has consulted other Mormon elected leaders, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, about how to proceed.
In July, David Brody noted that a speech was increasingly coming to fruition:
Mitt Romney would like the Mormon talk to stop. He knows it won’t. And his campaign knows that as he gains momentum, the talk will grow. That’s why a key official inside his campaign tells me that it’s looking more and more likely that he will have to give a major speech addressing his faith.
Then early last month, Bob Novak passed along some juicy tidbits about it:
Although disagreement remains within the Romney camp, the consensus is that he must address the Mormon question with a speech deploring bias. According to campaign sources, a speech has been written, though 90 percent of it could still be changed. It is not yet determined exactly what he will say or at what point he will deliver a speech that could determine the political outcome of 2008.
Novak heard from a source within the campaign that such a speech would likely happen after Iowa (conceivably to capitalize on his victory) but before New Hampshire and South Carolina. Quoting to a different campaign source, however, Matt Lewis was told that “it’s likely to happen sooner rather than later,” because there’s not enough time between Iowa and the other early states to spread the message or minimize the damage if the speech goes badly. That sounds plausible enough.
On the other hand, Jay Cost argues in a lengthy post that:
The “speech defusing the Mormon issue” probably should have been given in the summer. The campaign season is here – and so the speech will take Romney off message at the time when being on message is most important. On the other hand, giving the speech in the summer might have meant that it fell upon deaf ears – as voters were not paying enough attention. So, I can appreciate the Romney campaign’s logic for waiting – but they need to give this speech soon. What really concerns me is that that 90% of it is still up in the air. This is a bad sign. Even if they were going to wait to give the speech in, say, November – they should have had it firmed up by now. That is a sign to me that they still just do not know what to do.
He goes on to make the case that Romney should focus his speech on taking conservative skepticism of Mormonism seriously and tackle it head on rather than chide them over intolerance and religious bias. Afterall, these are people Romney’s needs to win over to become the GOP nominee.
But given all of the leaks over the past year, it seemed that the speech would happen eventually. So it was surprising when I saw an AP article in my inbox tonight which said that Romney’s aides opposed him giving a speech on his religion. Per Romney himself:
“I’m happy to answer any questions people have about my faith and do so pretty regularly,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “Is there going to be a special speech? Perhaps, at some point. I sort of like the idea myself. The political advisers tell me no, no, no – it’s not a good idea. It draws too much attention to that issue alone.”
There seems to be a big disconnect within the Romney campaign. The Mormon issue needs to be addressed somehow. He has been answering questions about his religion all throughout the campaign and they aren’t going away. The attention is already there, which is why it’s better that he gets it over with now then wait until the primaries start.
There’s only 7 weeks left until the Iowa Caucuses.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Clueless.
Very well researched, LJ. I remember all those comments.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:45 am
There is no way a Mormon could win in a general election, especially one who comes across like a phony and one who’s trying to buy the Presidency. And Republicans are smart enough not to sabotage everything with that experiment.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:58 am
What is left to say in the Mormon speech? I think he has covered it pretty well. He won’t let Salt Lake City tell him what to do and he shares the conservative values of many Republicans.I am beginning to think those against Romney want him to give the speech, because they think it will be a negative. The media want it, Mitt’s enemies want the speech, but the average person seems to liking what Mitt is saying about his religious beliefs. He is moving up in all the states he is working in…. even in South Carolina where the Mormon question would seem to matter. Lets discuss what matters in the campaign.. the issues, their records and their ideas. If Romney has to talk about Mormonism, then they all should have to discuss their religion or lack there of.
Lets stick to the topics that matter. He shares our values, he is a proven experienced leader. He runs a great campaign and is a great candidate. I have confidence in his ability to make America a better place.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Romney will be the GOP nominee and will beat Shrillary in the Generals. Metro and the media makes this out to be 100 times bigger than it really is. They say that from 30-40% are less likely to vote for a Mormon, well the percentage is almost the same for being less likely to vote for an Evangelical. It really isn’t much of a difference, but people with their own agends (media, Metro) would have you belive it is. Let me also say that anyone who actually know someone of the LDS faith usually respects them and their faith. They are good people.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Even if I were wrong, why would the GOP want to take a gamble?
We only get one shot every four years, not something you want to be gambling with.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:10 am
LJ,
“He needs to show that Mormonism isn’t heretical or even a “cult†that many social conservatives think it is.”
That WILL NOT happen. That’s the gotcha that Romney’s opponents (political and religious) want him to make.
You are severely misguided if you think it’s incumbent on Romney to justify the doctrines of his faith to the American populous.
If any LDS, including Romney, simply claim to be Christian, or even state a belief in “Christ as personal Savior” the Evangelicals go wild and cry foul. The pastors of every Christian church would ramp up their attacks on Mormonism (especially if Mitt would be able to make a convincing case). It would be a “Holy War” so to say. (I know all you McCain and Rudy folks would just LOVE that)
This ever-changing strategy regarding the speech via campaign sources does not indicate a lack of a plan. Rather, it reflects an ever-changing race. It’s not as if Romney “owes” the speech to anybody, does he? It’s up to him and his campaign.
Romney will give the speech if it becomes politically expedient to do so, such as:
1) If the data REALLY DO show that “the Mormon issue” could harm his early state strategy (there is no evidence that this is the case . . . especially when Romney dominated the Ames Straw Poll and the Iowa Polls in a state where over 50% of caucus-goers claim to be “conservative Christians”)
2) If Romney can use it to “go for the jugular” and win S.C. too.
3) If Romney is the GOP nominee and the speech can help the moderate voter realize that the Church won’t dictate his political actions (THIS IS WHEN KENNEDY GAVE HIS SPEECH . . . just two months before the GENERAL election . . . why is everybody so impatient? . . . aside from opponents wanting Romney to open up this bag of worms?)
November 11th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Gamble?
Rudy= 3rd party
MCcain= illegal immagration
Fred= lazy,doesn’t want it, gets rolled by Clinton
Huckabee= no independents, gets rolled by Clinton
Talk about a gamble.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Metro,
“There is no way a Mormon could win in a general election”.
You argue it would be too much of a “gamble” and that the GOP shouldn’t “experiment”.
AHHHHH, the IRONY my friend.
You want us all to buy into your/Rudy’s experimental Super Tuesday/Big State strategy/arguments.
But best of all, you want the GOP to “experiment” on a nominee that is pro-choice and essentially a-religious. Can’t you see the irony there?
November 11th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Mitts will have plenty of time to do it between wrapping up the Primary and taking on Queen Hillary. About 9 months.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Jeff, I see no irony. The majority of Americans, notably independents, and even Republicans, are OK with secular governance and the right to a first-trimester abortion. Not true of putting a Mormon to the White House.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:40 am
The majority of Americans, notably independents, and even Republicans, are OK with secular governance and the right to a first-trimester abortion. Not true of putting a Mormon to the White House.
Really Metro?
Because even at with 40% of Americans not voting for a Mormon, that leaves a 60% majority.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Jason, but that 40% does not coincide with Democrats.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:44 am
And you know the 40% is understating it. MANY people wouldn’t answer it honestly, not wanting the pollster to consider them a religious bigot. So the true number is easily over 50%.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:46 am
You’ll see the irony when a 3rd party candidate hands Hillary the election. Than you will say “The majority of Americans, notably independents, and even Republicans, are ‘NOT’ OK with secular governance and the right to a first-trimester abortion.” It’s not even a gamble, electing Rudy will give the DEMS the presidency- period.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Adam, so, you’re saying Rudy is going to win the primary, then?
November 11th, 2007 at 2:51 am
Metro,
IT does coincide with Dems. I think the very first Rasmussen poll from a year ago showed in the cross tabs that Dems were equally likely to say no to a Mormon as a Repuiblican.
As for the people won’t tell the polster the truth line, that’s your opinion, your spin. Nothing factual can be offered here either way. Nor does it account for computer polling where the numbers still come under the majority. Or are you arguing that people don’t want the computer to think they are biggots.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:52 am
If I had to give a percentage chance it would be 50% Rudy 50% Romney.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:01 am
Jason, maybe it’s because it’s late but you just validated my point. My point was that the entire 40% were not Democrats. That’s the only way it would not affect the race. By admitting that it’s split, 20% Dems/leaners and 20% Republicans/leaners, you’ve just proven why a Mormon cannot be elected. Do you understand? Those 20% Republicans/leaners are necessary for a Republican to win.
Hardly any polling is done by computer, apart from Rasmussen. And you know enough about religious bigotry such that your opinion would match mine, whether you like to admit it or not.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Metro,
“The majority of Americans, notably independents, and even Republicans, are OK with secular governance”
Please provide something to back that up.
I’ve heard poll after poll that the VAST majority (like 80%+) want their leaders to be “people of faith” and to “pray for guidance”.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1642653,00.html
There is evidence of that division in the poll. By a two-to-one margin (62% to 29%), Republicans say a president should use his or her faith to guide presidential decisions. By contrast, Democrats reject this idea by a similar two-to-one margin (58% to 32%). In the same way, while three-quarters of Democrats say the president should not use his or her own interpretation of the Bible to make public decisions, Republicans are about evenly split (46% to 43%) on this. And while the overwhelming majority of Republican voters (71%) agree that religious values should serve as a guide to what political leaders do in office, 56% of Democrats disagree with this.
That last point underscores that a solid majority of Republicans want that, nearly half of DEMOCRATS WANT THAT TOO. Being “a-religious” like Rudy has been thus far on the campaign trail puts him in a precarious position if these polling numbers are correct.
Also, there is a huge difference between (as you state) “secular governance” and “a secular governing us”. Many may be OK with the principle of the former, but you’re trying to achieve the latter.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:16 am
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070615/27995_Poll:__American_Voters_Want_a_Religious_President.htm
A new national poll revealed that Americans want a religious person to be president.
Over half of all respondents with an opinion (60.7 percent) believe a presidential candidate should be religious while 39.3 percent do not, according to the poll released Thursday by the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute.
But a majority of Americans (66 percent) said the candidate’s specific religious affiliation is not relevant to their voting decision while 27.8 percent do consider a candidates specific religious affiliation. Most of the rest (6.3 percent) responded they were unsure if a candidate’s specific religious connection influences their vote.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Jeff, secular means a separation of church and state. Given his performance on 9-11, Americans view Rudy as a person of faith and one who believes in prayer. I wish you luck if you want to attack him on that front.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:26 am
The whole “won’t vote for a Mormon” poll figures fall victim to the same failings of “generic ballot” polls.
Many of those same polls finding that a certain percentage wouldn’t vote for a Mormon had even higher percentages for “someone in their 70s”, “or a double divorcee” (would have loved if they would have included “A Southern Baptist Minister” . . . I bet that would even be lower than for “A Mormon”!)
But fortunately, for all our candidates, they are voting for the man/candidate and not for the labels. Metro’s argument is very weak on this “America won’t elect a Mormon”. He would have a more logical argument that “Massachusetts wouldn’t elect a Mormon” or something like that.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Regarding the Massachusetts example, I normally say a “socially conservative Mormon” is unelectable. I inadvertently left out the modifier tonight.
If the electorate were polled, and asked if they would vote for a twice-divorced candidate, if he were Rudy Giuliani… and a Mormon Republican, if he were Mitt Romney, then you’d see the difference. Rudy’s got Teflon. If I had enough money, I’d find a pollster and commission it. Somebody should.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Metro,
Then it’s up to Rudy to be up front about his faith since the majority of Americans want a “religious” POTUS (that’s the term used in the poll I cited). Rudy’s been COMPLETELY silent on it and many may gravitate to Hillary who has been more open about her faith than he has. Mitt is asked and talks about his religion and his faith ad nauseum. If the Rudy/McCain factions feel that Romney needs to give “a speech” then they could at least have their candidates be open about their own. Sound fair?
November 11th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Metro,
“I normally say a “socially conservative Mormon†is unelectable.”
You’ve got no proof and an extremely weak argument to boot. BTW, that’s a mighty convenient classification you’ve concocted there (sounds like you might be referring to a certain candidate’s past and future, eh?)
November 11th, 2007 at 3:41 am
The reason a majority want a religious President is to be assured of how the President would handle a crisis. They have already seen Rudy do so, with grace. They may hear he planned to attend seminary, but that is really irrelevant because of his 9-11 performance. You’re not going to get anywhere, here. But I really hope he is attacked on any grounds contracted by his 9-11 performance, because the public is never forgetting that and such attacks will backfire.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Not at all. Mitt won the governorship as a socially liberal metro capitalist, which said loudly and clearly he was not your typical Mormon. Now that he upholds the so-con views Mormons are known for, he becomes a threat.
Americans find socially conservative Mormons annoying enough when they known on our doors. But when they hold federal executive government power and start talking about engineering our families, Americans simply will not have it. Ever.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:46 am
And now I must go to bed. ‘night.
November 11th, 2007 at 4:20 am
There’s a big difference between the two following questions:
Would you vote for a Mormon for President?
Would you vote for Mitt Romney, who, by the way is a Mormon, for President?
(Or fill in the blank with any other name of a candidate, who, by the way, happens to be a Mormon and is running to be elected as President.
Being a Mormon is just part of who Romney is.
I’ve been visiting my family here in The Bible Town (Winona Lake, Indiana) of the Bible Belt of the Midwest and I’ve been talking to people about Mitt Romney and some very doctrinally conservative folks are willing to vote for him when they look at the prospect of Mitt vs. Rudy.
Besides, the more they find out about Mitt, the more enthusiastic they become about his candidacy.
November 11th, 2007 at 4:50 am
LJ:
Here’s the part of the argument I don’t think holds. He has to hurry up and do it before the Iowa Caucuses…Have you been watching the Iowa polls?
If this speech is to happen, it is for the general election, NOT the primaries.
Romney is no more of an experiment than Rudy, McCain or Huck.
November 11th, 2007 at 5:06 am
metro
The wording in number 12 was vague. I read it to mean that those 40 percent are not dens so its a stronger argument against a succesful primary for mitt. I am not sure exactly what you were trying to say then if that was not it. Of the number covers dens as well as repubs.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Metro,
Your answers to why Mitt won’t win, or can’t win, or doesn’t deserve to win, shift in the wind from day to day. He’s a phony so he won’t win. He’s a Mormon, and 50%+ obviously wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. He won’t win because Republicans would never consider passing up the chance to nominate the greatest leader in the history of the planet. And yet, wonder of wonders, Romney’s strategy seems to progressing reasonably well. I noted before that it was bad news when Rudy’s supporters continually moved the goal-posts on what was necessary for Rudy’s victory (first just one state before Florida, now just Florida), but it seems even more worrying that they’re inclined to shift the reasons for Romney’s inevitable loss. When you’re forced to invent new arguments continually, it doesn’t bode well for your case. Every poll I’ve seen that polled the Mormon issue, and the “twice divorced” issue, has shown more people comfortable with the former.
As far as my thoughts on “the Mormon speech”, I’ve previously had some pretty concrete ideas, and have since almost entirely reversed those thoughts. Which, I think, goes to the difficulty the Romney team is likely to have in hitting the right note. Ecumenical messages are probably unwise. As others noted, he doesn’t want to equate Mormonism with Christianity. At one point, I felt he really ought to highlate the historical legacy of Mormonism. The fact that it’s an explicitly American religion. The fact that it grew out of the American West. The fact that it’s largely promoted strong values (Mormons were ardently anti-slavery, etc). Essentially cast an entire narrative highlighting Mormonism’s congruity with American values and traditions. Unfortunately, I’ve seen some serious difficulties with this approach. Romney wants to make it acceptable to vote for a Mormon. He doesn’t want to proselytize Mormonism. And if prominent evangelical supporters feel as though he’s attempting to make Mormonism attractive, some of their greatest fears might be realized. So he needs to at once cast Mormonism as acceptable, and unthreatening, while insisting that it’s a personal revelation and not necessarily applicable to the broader population.
He might wish to highlight the extent to which Mormonism is a family tradition. In other words, obliquely say something like “My dad was a Mormon, my mom was a Mormon, I loved them dearly, and Mormon upbringing promotes strong values, no wonder I’m a Mormon”. But, that’s a dicey route to go, since it perhaps suggests that he doesn’t actually believe in the doctrines of Mormonism, but follows them because of personal concerns. Insincerity of faith isn’t something that evangelicals appreciate. So it’s all very complicated. He’s probably best served avoiding the speech unless he can write one that hits the proper note, but he ought to work tirelessly to try to hit that note. Because, ending the issue will improve his chances immeasurably.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:19 am
The only people who want Romney to give a Mormon speech are those who don’t want him to win the nomination. Now that it looks like he is going to win most of the early states, they REALLY want him to give the Mormon speech.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:34 am
I disagree with LJ. why must he address it? He seems to be doing fine. Of all places that argument might fly, south carolina, it doesn’t even seem to matter. He is leading in all the early states.
that poll that people incessantly recite with 30 percent would be the same if they placed “evangelcial” where they were saying “mormon.”
I agree with Kevin. it is those that don’t want romney to win that want him to make it an issue.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Naw, Mitt should avoid the Mormon speech at all cost!
There’s absolutely no benefit in having another issue across which he demonstrates even greater gymnastic prowess in flippidy-floppidy flip-flopping. I just heard on NPR that he had told MA voters back in ‘02 that if they wanted to hear him riff on his religion, they should, as is said, go to Helen Wait.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:49 am
i’m not trippin on this. yeah, a large percentage of people say they wont vote for a mormon, but a larger percentage of people surveyed said they would be less likely to vote for a born again christian (bush), a woman (clinton), a black (obama), or a douche (edwards). okay i made the last one up, but the point is, its not a big deal. evangelicals who hate on mormons are jerks. they think they get to declare who is christian, and who is a cult. live and let be, we’ll all find out who was right when we die.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:21 am
When Reagan was around he put Mormons in key postions of power. Foreign Policy, Brent Scowcroft. Economy, Bay Buchanan. Social Policy, yep two of his top domestic policy adviser were Mormons.
I guess Reagan was a horrible president with all that Mormon influence. But I guess Reagan was lucky no one cared that a significant portion of his administration was ran by Mormons because the backlash would have been horrible.
In the similar vein I guess the NeoCons are equally lucky that the general public hasn’s figured that their policy is run by Jews!
November 11th, 2007 at 10:24 am
The Jew comment is not a serious comment but rather an illustration to all the tinned ear folks who so easily mix religion with politics. When demean the quality of a person or a politician because of their religion (and not their policies) then the only result is bigotry.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Romney and Guiliani have a problem with the same group. The 20% or the Republican party that will vote for a third party rather than Rudy or stay home rather than vote for a Mormon are by and large a slice of the Conservative evangelical wing of the party.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:48 am
If the pollster.com trendlines in the states Mitt is trying to win ever stop going up and start going down, it will be time to revisit the idea of giving the speech. Right now, Mitt is making progress on all fronts, so his campaign should continue to do what’s so obviously working. Giving such a speeech would draw a lot of attention to the issue. The MSM has literally written thousands of articles to draw attention to the issue, but the effort is petering out. The fact that he is a Mormon is the one thing by now that everyone knows about Romney. His numbers are going up because people are learning more about him than just that, and they like it. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Polls have also shown that a greater percentage will not vote for someone who is on their third marriage, or will be pushing 80 years old. Where’s Rudy’s “special speech” explaining how his poor judgment in personal affairs will not affect the presidency, or McCain’s speech that his old age will not affect??? For that matter, large percentages of GOP voters will not vote for someone who supports abortion, gay rights, or amnesty for illegals. Where are the “special speeches by Rudy and McCain?? I agree with #3 – its Romney’s opponents and the media who keep clamoring for “the mormon speech.” But are they genuinely concerned that Romney gets over “the mormon problem”??? Of course not. They just want to perpetuate the mormon hype. Romney has addressed his religion sufficiently and is doing just fine without giving the special speech the media claims that he owes.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I think Romney’s view on a Mormon speech can pretty much by summed up in his exchange with Bob Jones III, where BJ3 said “your religion is wrong”, and Romney replied “fine” – he is simply not interested in debating the merits and drawbacks of his religion. He has said he is not going to take directives from the Mormon Church, end of story.
Interesting that you note that there are only seven weeks until IA votes – yet you conveniently leave out the fact that, even without giving the “Mormon speech”, he has double digit leads in the first two early states, is expected to win the third, is doing well in Michigan, and is in a three-way race in SC.
His current strategy is obviously working. Why fix what doesn’t need fixing?
November 11th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Don,
“20% of the GOP will stay home rather than vote for [Romney] . . . because he’s a Mormon.”?
I’d like you to back up such a clearly unproven statement.
Somewhat conversely, we see bias along the same vein when there’s a generic “third party pro life candidate” vs. Hillary and Rudy. In the three way match-up it’s usually 45%, 34%, 16% or something with the third party candidate in the teens. However, when you actually have to put a name in there (Alan Keyes, or whoever) that number will drop dramatically. It won’t drop to zero though and I’m still convinced that a 3rd party pro-life candidate will hand the nomination to Hillary. People either love or hate the “generic” alternative because they give a more deep emotional response than do the complex individuals we end up voting for.
Just my 2cents.
November 11th, 2007 at 11:42 am
nowandlater, actually from public comments on C-Span and on the web it seems people are aware and concerned that many neocons are jewish and that are foreign policy tilts favorably toward Israel. But the irony is that Israel is probably less secure now because Iraq is so unstable.
November 11th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Matt, I’ve not been moving goalposts. I’ve always held Romney has the same problems, even if I don’t trot out the whole list in every single comment. That’s a silly standard.
Also, my line has ALWAYS been Rudy needs 1 state before FL to GUARANTEE it, but also has a chance to win FL without an outright win beforehand. No goalposts moved.
November 11th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
#42- yep, that sums it up. What could you possibly gain by giving the Mormon speech? Only if you are losing do you do that, because then you have nothing to lose.
November 11th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
First of all, I totally agree that there is a certain number of Republicans that will not vote for a Mormon under any circumstances. They basically subscribe to the belief that, as has been declared by that evangelist in Florida, “A vote for a Mormon is a vote for the devil!” — or something very similar. That is their choice to believe that way, and nothing anyone does or says (including Romney) is likely to change that.
On the other hand, all this talk about greater than 50% of the base not able to vote for a Mormon is a bit overdone I think. It all comes down to how the question is worded in the surveys. From everything that I have read, the common form of the question seems to have been “Would you be *less likely* to vote for a Mormon candidate”? Obviously, that is quite a different story than “Would you be unwilling to vote for a Mormon under any circumstances”?, which is what MetroRepublican seems to be arguing.
As a simple example, if the question read “Would you be less like to vote for a Rudy Giuliani”?, then I myself would have to say yes. However, should Giuliani win the nomination, I almost certainly will be voting for him over Hillary Clinton. In other words, all these surveys are saying is that a Mormon is not many peoples’ first preference. That does not mean that they will not vote for a Mormon regardless, especially when the competition is a Giuliani or a Hillary.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Metro is obviously a religious bigot who wants an amoral secular society. Romney threatens that and Rudy would advance it. Romney doesn’t need to try and convert everyone to his faith in order to be a good candidate or to be a good President.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I am adamantly opposed to a Mormon speech.
November 11th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
as to the mormon speech, I think if Romney gave it, he would hit it out of the park. I think he ought to give it, since it would put his faith in the public forum for hopefully the last time.
I would simply say this. I would say I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior. I have Christian values. I get that others dont think I am Christian. I get that my faith is unique among other protestant faiths. I am supportive of others faiths, and that we have shared values. Then I would speak more to the values part. Values, values, values.
what would they say if he said that. If they argued he wasnt Christian, it would be difused with his statement that his faith WAS uniquely different. I think the mormon issue will be old news and a non issue when he does battle with Hillary in the general.
November 11th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
While Romney may lead in the early states, that doesn’t have a bearing on his religion. The same number of people would not vote for a Mormon in November 2006 as November 2007. That obviously means that he has not diffused the issue so far. What happens if he does end up winning the nomination?
If JFK had to get a speech on Catholicism (a religion that has far more of a history and membership in America than Mormonism does), I don’t see how Mitt can avoid it.
November 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
It sure is funny to hear the various supporters of other candidates say how Romney CAN’T win a general election due to the “mormon issue”. As if there’s no “Hillary issue” or “tax hiking liberal issue” or any number of other “issues” on the other side.
Last year, how many of you would have said that Romney stood a descent chance of breaking out of no-name single digits and totally schooling all your candidates put togethor?
November 11th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
I believe Mitt will give the speech soon after winning the Republican nomination when his name recognition and scrutiny will be skyrocketing to show that he gave it not because he had to but because he wanted to. The clamor right now does seem to be loudest from his opponents who would use all their behind the scenes influence to keep the Mormon issue alive through as many news cycles as possible. The Mormon angle would be crowded out by the usual avalanche of analysis from the MSM as to how did he do it since Mitt is neither the MSM nor Fox News annointed Republican nominee and by the fact that really, what new is there to say about this issue that has not been thoroughly hashed over by many commentators and media already. Romney has been very shrewd – he has never avoided the issue on the hustings and in fact he has effectively given a 1 minute version of the speech hundreds of times in the front line states. He has treated the issue with adequate sensitivity and deflected the needless detailed doctrinal questions in many media interviews already. The strategy must be working because he just keeps steadily rising in all the frontline states (including Rudy’s do or die FL). His head-to-heads with Clinton are lower for the same reason as his national poll numbers are lower. Right now the only people focussing on Romney are voters in IA, NH, SC and FL, political junkies like us who post on blogs and the media. Middle America won’t notice Mitt until February 08 as he sweeps the board after winning IA, NH, SC, MI, NV, FL and then Super Tuesday.
Remember that the 50/50 Red State/Blue State America of 00 and 04 is still the reality. Romney will have to appeal to some independents but they are less fussy on the brand of Christianity than social conservatives who are dominated by evangelicals who have theological differences with Mormons. Secular progressive Dems will never vote for any GOP candidate and the few who might plump for Rudy are put off by his unequivocal support for the war and his pledge to appoint originalist judges. The few who would cross over for Rudy will be offset by a small hard core of conservatives who will stay home over Rudy’s pro-abortion stance.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:06 am
[...] Romney on Adam and Eve Mitt Romney needs to talk more about his “religion.” He needs to have that JFK talk where he explains his religion to [...]
November 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
LJ – I agree the speech will probably come to pass in the general election phase.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
[...] of Americans would be “less likely” to vote for a candidate who was Mormon.  (See The Mormon Speech No More)  Then there are a vocal few, like Senator McCain’s mother, who publicly express their [...]