I have often been asked whether evangelical voters could find their vision for president in a man of another faith, and specifically a Mormon. Then it struck me: This is the wrong question. To evaluate a candidate solely on religion is unfair to both the candidate and the religion. The better question is: Could I vote for this Mormon? That Catholic? This Baptist?

For example, there are Mormons who would not get Mitt Romney's vote (and, he tells me, Mormons who would probably not vote for him). Similarly, there are Southern Baptists I would not vote for. So, could I vote for a Mormon? It depends on who the Mormon is.

Looking now to 2008, if I were to support a presidential candidate other than Mitt Romney, I would have two options. The first would be to select a candidate who shares my values and is an evangelical (and some fit this description) but has little record of turning budgets from red to black and solving complex problems (and little chance of raising the kind of money now necessary to survive the front-loaded primary process).

Or I could back an experienced politician who does not well represent my values and hope to influence him religiously (a strategy that historically has marginal success, at best).

No, wait, there is a third option, and that's the one Karl Rove believes was exercised by 4 million evangelicals in 2000: I could stay home. The problem with that option is that it violates another evangelical tenet: a Christian citizen's duty to vote.

In this election, therefore, given the facts and these options, I believe I'll go with this Mormon.

Labels: Mormon