Yesterday, Joshua Treviño at NRO published a piece about Romney and Mormonism essentially claiming that religion is not out of the realm of discourse in our public square. He presented his thesis in an appropriate way and he makes a good case.

My only response to Joshua is this: "get to it already!"

Between Hugh Hewitt, Jim Geraghty and others... tomes have been written about whether or not Mormonism should be part of the Romney debate. So, six months into the presidential race I ask two questions:

• In your opinion, is there a single Mormon doctrine that disqualifies Romney from becoming President?


• If there is, should that apply to every office in the land?

I loved this article about the reactions to Romney while out in Colorado. Check out these quotes:

Many people who came to the El Paso County Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner on Wednesday had not made up their minds on Mitt Romney.

Romney, however, seemed to dispel many of those doubts during a 35-minute address to a 700-person crowd at The Broadmoor hotel.

“God, he sounds like Ronald Reagan,” former state Sen. Ed Jones said. “I really like what I hear, and right now I’m just going to be listening and watching.”

“The word’s going to get out tomorrow: ‘This guy is very articulate, he is a conservative,’” Suthers said. “I think he’s going to play very well in El Paso County.”

I've been saying it for months now: when people actually get to see and hear Romney he wins them over.

(hat tip: Hugh Hewitt)

Labels: colorado

Scrutiny is a good thing in my mind. Romney took some heat for advocating some campaign finance measures but he never lauded this type of praise on McCain-Feingold (ht: The Campaign Spot):

November 1, 1996

PRESIDENT ENDORSES McCAIN-FEINGOLD-THOMPSON BILL

Washington, DC—Senator Fred Thompson today responded to President Clinton’s remarks in California on his support for campaign finance reform: “As a sponsor of the McCain-Feingold-Thompson Senate Campaign Reform Act,” Thompson said, “I welcome President Clinton’s endorsement of our legislation. It is unfortunate that it took a public outcry over campaign finance abuses to get the President’s full attention on the need for reform. We intend to reintroduce our bill when Congress convenes in January.”

and this one:

TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997

McCAIN, FEINGOLD, THOMPSON INTRODUCE BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997

Today Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Fred Thompson (R-TN) introduced the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997, a bill that bans soft money contributions; provides free and discounted TV time to candidates who voluntarily limit their spending; bans foreign contributions and restricts political action committees (PAC).

 

“This proposal levels the playing field and opens up the process to people who simply want to do the best for their country,’ said Thompson. ‘We must get back to winning elections not on the basis of who can raise the most money, but on the basis of the competition of ideas.”

Then as late as 2001:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: JANUARY 22, 2001

THOMPSON CONTINUES PUSH FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

 

Building on his efforts to restore faith in the federal government, U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) today joined Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Russell Feingold (D-WI) and others to continue their push to enact campaign finance reform. The McCain-Feingold legislation bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending on campaign ads, and provides for greater disclosure and stronger election laws. “One of my first priorities when I arrived in Washington six years ago was to reform the campaign finance system in this country, and I believe that this may be the best opportunity we’ve had to pass real reform since this fight began,” Senator Thompson said. “I am optimistic that we’re making substantial progress toward fixing a broken system that breeds cynicism and apathy among out citizens.”

 

Senator Thompson said that as part of the campaign finance reform bill, he will push for an increase in the hard money contribution limit: “Not only have we fallen behind in terms of the enormous expenses that are attendant to running a campaign, but I believe that the focus of campaigns has gone from hard money for about twenty years to soft money to-in this last election-independent ads. I think that if we increase the hard money limits, we would do better with regard to the soft money and independent ads situation. If people had their choice, I think they’d rather give money the old-fashioned way."

 

Senator Thompson has been an original cosponsor of the McCain- Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill since its first introduction in 1995.

and this:

April 2, 2001

THOMPSON LAUDS PASSAGE OF McCAIN-FEINGOLD CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION

 

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) today lauded Senate passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, which passed the Senate by a 59-41 vote. The bill bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending on campaign ads, and provides greater disclosure and stronger election laws. “This is a good day for the United States Senate. It demonstrates once again that this body can respond to a demonstrated public need,” said Thompson, an original co-sponsor of the McCain- Feingold bill and a supporter of the legislation since 1995.

 

“The McCain-Feingold bill will restore a campaign finance system that has become more loophole than law,” Senator Thompson added. “We will once again ensure that unlimited corporate, union, and individual funds will not compromise the integrity of the political process.” During debate on the bill last week, the Senate approved two amendments sponsored by Senator Thompson. A Thompson-Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) amendment increased the individual hard money limits on contributions to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000. It also increased several other hard money limits and indexed their future growth to inflation. “But for the willingness of Senator Thompson and Senator Feinstein to find common ground on the issue of increasing (hard) money limits, I fear our efforts would have proved as futile as they have in the past,” Senator McCain said on the Senate floor prior to the vote on final passage.

The short of it is this:

• McCain-Feingold seriously impeded on some vital First Amendment rights (as the Supremes recently declared)


• Thompson took credit for the bill again and again

. See it here.

Labels: campaign finance, fred thompson

Its no wonder that Romney just caught the endorsement of the Former USA in Colorado and now Attorney General of that state, John Suthers, who said, "I am proud to support Governor Romney. As President, he will build on his already strong record of supporting our men and women in the law enforcement community. As a State Attorney General, I know how important it is to have support from Washington, and there is no question that Mitt Romney will stand alongside those enforcing our nation's laws."

This from the Romney website today: "As President, Governor Romney will propose new, tougher federal penalties for first-time offenders who use the Internet to sexually assault children, including stiff mandatory jail time to be followed by lifetime tracking by Global Positioning Satellite (GPS). This will represent a 'One-Strike, You're Ours' law for child predators."

Romney, of course, has a very strong law enforcement track record in MA and now is turning his sights on the federal criminal laws. Sometimes, the pols can't resist piling federal law upon federal law in an attempt to score a few points with voters. But sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. They also move states and fail to report to law enforcement even when obliged to register. Strengthening the federal laws related to offenders is a good thing so that they can be tracked, especially as they use the internet to search for victims outside of their locality to the nation at large.

In addition to keeping track of sex offenders, lifetime tracking is a very onerous penalty for an offense. Sexual predators who use the internet to locate victims tend to be pretty sophisticated people. They often know a lot about the law and how to avoid detection of their activities. As a result, the word will get out about the consequences for using the internet to find victims. The stiffer the penalties, the higher likelihood that they will be deterred from using the internet for this purpose.

Romney is the man for law enforcement personnel everywhere.

Here's what some people are saying about Thompson's abortion lobbying:

NRO's Yuval Levin:

On the abortion question, Fred Thompson has so far managed to gain the trust of pro-lifers without actually saying anything about either principle or policy—what specifically he believes, or what kind of laws or rules he might support or oppose...Today’s NY Times story makes it pretty clear the facts are true—which should make us worry about the Thompson team’s (though, to be sure, never the Senator’s himself) original adamant denial. It also probably means Thompson’s “my client, not me” line won’t be enough. This was lobbying work, not legal work, which means those 22 conversations with the group involved advice about how to fight the Bush (41) administration’s rule.

AmSpec's David Hogberg:

Given the withering scrutiny Romney has endured for his flip-flopping, you'd think the Thompson camp would be extra careful on these things. Even successful campaigns have a few mishaps. But this will (and should) raise questions as to whether Thompson is ready for prime time.

Outside the Beltway's James Joyner:

The story itself is rather innocuous; that his first instinct was to lie about it, though, says something about the man’s character. My guess is that this won’t seriously damage his candidacy. After all, most people think “lying politician” is redundant. Still, to the extent that Thompson’s appeal is that he’s not a professional politician, this hurts.

Labels: abortion, fred thompson, lobbying

The Spartanburg Herald Journal runs a piece on Romney in advance of his being in Spartanburg, S.C. today. In the Q & A portion Romney talks about marriage, school choice, and parenting:

SHJ: At the Beacon, you'll be a block away from one of the poorest neighborhoods in this city. Spartanburg has a high concentration of public housing, and many people here are born into poverty, live their lives in poverty, and die in poverty. What specific things would you do help these families break that cycle?

ROMNEY: "The most important single action a society can take to break the cycle of poverty, is to encourage marriage before babies. A child that is born to a single parent is four times more likely to be raised in poverty. We also need to improve our schools, so our kids - particularly in the inner-city - are given the skills they need for the jobs of today and tomorrow. Increasingly, our urban schools, and often those with minority populations, are failing our kids badly. The civil rights issue of our generation is the failure of inner-city schools to provide minority kids with the educational skills they deserve."

USA Today has a piece about Ann Romney:

At a campaign lunch in Greenville and the reception in Columbia, Ann Romney talks about other things, of course, touting her husband's record on health care while governor and his role in turning around the scandal-plagued Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002.

Still, the crowd becomes hushed and attentive as she talks — sometimes matter-of-factly, sometimes with a catch in her voice — about how he stood by her during the worst days of her struggle with MS. She says it's taught her that everyone carries "a bag of rocks" — some personal challenge or tragedy — even if others can't see it.

Labels: ann romney, Spartanburg, USA Today

The title is supposed to be dramatic. For effect.

You see for months Romney has taken it on the chin for his previous stances on abortion. Whether it was RedState's Erick Erickson abandoning all hope for Romney because of his wife's paltry donation to Planned Parenthood. Or EyeOn08's outrage over supposed "lies" from the Romney camp about abortion. Or Joe Carter casting his vote elsewhere because of the dog incident. But the outrage apparently stops only at just at Romney's door.

Today, the New York Times confirms that Fred Thompson worked as a legal advisor and lobbyist for an abortion group:

According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.

Romney's sins were verbal for the most part, paying homage to a constituency that was overwhelmingly pro-abortion but demonstrating a strong voting record in favor of pro-life stances. Apparently, Fred was a working lobbyist for abortion advocates.

Three points here

1) In my book, I really don't care. I wouldn't vote for or against Fred because of this fact.

2) I do care that the Thompson camp has denied the fact.

2) I do care about the strange hypocrisy that many find themselves in: dissing Romney over abortion and rallying to Fred's side with a blind eye to the past.

3) The shoot-from-the-hip bombs we've been throwing at each other are indeed coming back to haunt us (I don't excuse myself from this criticism).

It's not pretty.... but I guess, that's politics.

Labels: fred thompson

From a first grade teacher friend: "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!" in response to the news that Obama wants sex education for kindergarteners.

Apparently, Mitt didn't realize his new ad was about Obama's "Ocean."

What else can I say about this? Someone will surely say that he qualified his statement with something about "age appropriate." What is that supposed to mean? I don't even want to think about what he thinks is appropriate for a 5 year old to learn about sex.

Edwards: "Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband's health-care plan would provide insurance coverage of abortion. Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as 'a true universal health-care plan' that would cover 'all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination,' referring to abortion."

Obama: "Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover 'reproductive-health services.' Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions."

Who do you think is the best candidate to stand up against this insanity? The one who is solidly pro-life. The one with the most experience with health care legislation who can articulate a better path. The one who will work tirelessly to defeat the democrats.

Only one: Mitt Romney.

Tom Bevan over at the RCP blog keens in on a portion of Cal Thomas’ piece about Sen. Vitter’s sexual encounters. Thomas makes several points about America’s reaction to sex scandals these days. He also includes this about legislators:

Some in Congress stand up for family values, while they lie down with prostitutes. Their rhetoric may add to the cultural debate, but their behavior nullifies any credibility they might expect to enjoy. Anyone who can't impose morality on himself is unlikely to be successful in legislating it for others.

Thomas is surely correct, and is one of the reasons that I believe that Mitt is the ideal candidate. His personal life is impeccable and his family life matches his rhetoric. As I’ve argued before, the personal behavior of our legislators was one of the reasons that Republicans lost in 2006. Romney represents change on this front and credibility in our elected officials. Bevan, however, takes Thomas’ statement and argues:

Which is precisely why, given that we're all flawed and imperfect human beings, the vast majority of Americans don't want politicians trying to "legislate morality" from Washington DC. - even if such a thing was possible, which it isn't.

Bevan’s argument that legislators are imperfect and so we shouldn’t have our laws reflect morality is just plain wrong. This argument could be used to strike down laws against theft, murder, rape, etc. That our lawmakers are imperfect has little to do with whether the principle is right or wrong. Perhaps immorality among our lawmakers urges us to not re-elect them (although Bill Clinton supporters would disagree with that), but says little about the propriety of the laws they propose. Yet Bevan’s answer is to end legislation dealing with morality. This is plainly wrong.

Bevan goes on to criticize Mitt’s new ad “Oceans” for…uh…well, I’m not sure what for. First, he says that the ad implies that Romney would take legislative action, which Bevan had already denounced. He then criticizes it for not offering a specific proposal, citing John Hinderaker over at Powerline. He finally ends, seemingly confused, by asking what exactly it is that Romney proposes. Criticism that the ad does not offer a specific proposal is fair (although I find it premature). It doesn’t offer any specifics. However, to make the transition from personal morality to legislating morals to Romney’s ad is a devious association. Indeed, trying to associate Romney with Vitter’s personal transgressions is not only insidious, but is clearly wrong when there is another candidate with direct ties.

Labels: Cal Thomas, real clear politics, Tom Bevan

Romney continues to surge in NH:

CNN/WMUR/UNH poll.
Romney: 33
Giuliani: 18
F. Thompson: 13
McCain: 12

Also, Marc Ambinder does an in-depth look at Romney's media team and the competition he has fostered.

Labels: Marc Ambinder, New Hampshire, Polls

I am starting the Family Challenge today. I have been thinking about a new way to think about fundraising. I have already asked the obvious people. I have even asked some of the not so obvious (my Democrat, Catholic Grandmother-in-Law actually donated). But how do I get more donors.

For voters who want a leader who has strong values in their personal life, Mitt Romney is the only choice amongst the viable Republican contenders. Does anyone really have a serious doubt about this? There may be a variety of reasons why someone won't vote for Romney, but they aren't because there is a more pro-family candidate out there.

Romney has a wonderful family who is standing behind his Presidential run with all of their energy. I want my family to be as united as his in support for his candidacy. So, the answer I came up with is the Family Challenge.

The Family Challenge is this, I am setting a goal to encourage 100% participation from every single member of my extended family to contribute to Mitt Romney's campaign. I hope that everyone considers donating a substantial amount of money, but in the end, my goal is 100% participation, regardless of the amount. The deadline is the end of the third quarter.

Now is the time to act. The press has been hounding our candidate because he is spending money to increase his name recognition. Well, I don't expect him to hold back. Keep on campaigning, my friend. We need to work harder than ever to make sure you have the funds needed to get your message out.

So, today, I announce the first Family for Romney. The Cross Family. If you want to sign your family up, do so in the comments. I encourage you to do so.

An interview with Romney's Nevada campaign director.

There are lots of interesting articles talking about how Romney has been spending money to introduce himself to voters. This quote struck me:

"That loan also means that, for all intents and purposes, Romney has personally paid for every second of the $4.9 million in television ads his campaign has aired since he formally declared his candidacy in February."

The corollary to that statement is that, for all intents and purposes, Romney hasn't had to spend a dime of the money he has raised for the extensive advertising campaign he launched and maintained through two quarters of campaigning. He has been free to use the money he has raised on other areas of the campaign because he funded the television buy himself. That is a great position to be in as a candidate.

John Kerry wasted some breath today accusing Mitt of changing his positions on a variety of issues. As I am always a fan of a good spar:

"A Romney spokesman quickly returned fire yesterday, charging that Kerry is harboring the delusions of a fallen contender."

“'This is a textbook case of Freudian projection,' Eric Fehrnstrom said. 'John Kerry is projecting his own undesirable traits onto other people. It’s a mild form of personality disorder. Usually, it’s not a cause for concern unless it shows up in a U.S. senator.'”

Ouch!

Check out Evangelicals for Mitt's Charles Mitchell discussing the reactions to "Oceans".

Labels: Evangelicals for Mitt

Mike Matthews, of Electro-Harmonix, endorsed Romney last Friday. While he focused on Romney's leadership on many issues and his belief that Romney is the best person to lead an energy revolution, all I have to say is, Big Muff Pi.

About two weeks ago Gary Glenn, a conservative activist from Michigan - and no fan of Mitt Romney - wrote an open letter addressed to me expressing his concerns about the issue of pornography and the Marriott corporation.

As many of you know I recently took a job as Vice President of Communications for the Lighted Candle Society. LCS is a non-profit group founded by John Harmer and Ed Meese fighting the forces of pornography. Our ultimate mission is to bring civil litigation against the producers and distributors of pornography.

I was also appointed to Governor Romney's Faith and Values Committee. Gary Glenn saw the opportunity to fashion a blunt club and have a few swings. You see, in Gary's mind, the logic runs thus (paraphrasing): "Justin, as part of the Ligthed Candle Society you should be concerned about putting your weight behind Romney because Romney sat on a board of advisers to the Marriott Corporation and Marriott is one of the biggest distributors of pornography."

I was later interviewed by David Brody about the subject and he gave it a fair hearing. Many of my colleagues thought the question to be spurious. I too was a bit perplexed and felt that Gary was looking for another excuse to bash Romney (he's done this numerous times now). But I did not directly respond to Gary.

Instead, I knew something that Gary didn't... Governor Romney is the only major candidate willing to publically take action on this issue. I also knew that behind the scenes the Romney camp was going to spend actual dollars addressing this issue with a new TV ad.

With that said, I give you: "Ocean"


As I told the Brody File:

In this important fight against pornography there are those people who are determined to make enemies and affect zero change and there are those who propose to use their influence to create serious lasting change - Romney is in this latter camp…pure societal turnaround can only happen when people of influence find the right moment in time to lead change…In my opinion, Romney's record shows that he could very well effect that change to happen. The fact that he included a serious anti-pornography group on his Faith and Values committee suggests this as well.

Labels: pornography

After a lot of begging, Gamecock agreed to guest post for us here. Thanks Gamecock! Now back to my two week family vacation...

The main reasons I choose to support any candidate for any political office are their positions on the issues they will have the power to address in the office they seek. Mitt Romney agrees with me and the war hawk-social conservative-fiscal conservative base on as many or more of the issues the base care about than any of the other candidates.


Additionally, Mitt has been successful in every position he has held in the business and political world. He is man of great character with no skeletons in the closet or walking around. He has exhibited courage in his willingness to take chances in business; forego profits to turn his company into a posse to find an employee’s missing daughter; and to risk his reputation to take on a rescue effort to save the Olympic Games and secure them from terrorist attacks. Finally, he stood up for traditional family values in the bluest state in the nation. He is a proven leader.


I am not bothered by the changes in his positions on political issues over the years, mainly due to his character, but also because after 1992 any republican nominee knows that the base will punish Presidents that break promises. I believe his epiphany on abortion and fetal stem cell research policy is real.


But an important secondary reason I have chosen to defend Mitt Romney relates to the slanders of some in the press, the Democratic Party, and not to few in the Republican Party that slander the South in general and Evangelical Christians of all regions in particular in suggesting that Mitt has no chance to win a significant percentage of our votes. Those that say this assume religious bigotry on our part, when in fact; many of them are exhibiting regional and religious bigotry themselves.


I’ll never forget a C-Span Road to the White House segment last year that quoted a Baptist Minister that had just heard Romney speak in South Carolina that echoed sentiments I have often stated to near unanimous agreement among fellow Baptists:


“He [Mitt Romney] is a better Baptist than most Baptists!”


There is a deep and abiding respect for the behavior, work ethic and personal conduct of Mormons in the South, and especially among devout Christians. We especially admire how well behaved their children are. Southerners are quite capable of discerning vote seeking Baptist church attendees that would advance policies that work against their values and non-Baptists that would advance their shared values agenda.


The same bigotry was levied against Dixie in 1960. Back then, not an insubstantial number of Protestants questioned the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. Yet, JFK carried a majority Southern electoral votes. Today, many suggest that evangelicals will not support Romney since many consider his church to be a cult. Most of those that make this charge do not understand the varying meanings of the word “cult.” They associate it with the Jim Jones mass suicide and Waco’s David Koresh, as if violence is the defining characteristic of what a cult is.


The fact is that violence has nothing to do with whether a particular religious group is properly defined as a cult.


Churches of many faiths often spawn sects and/or cults from their larger body. Whether or not such a spawned body is one or the other is defined by the larger body. Sects are defined as sharing the most basic and fundamental beliefs. Cults are defined as making major deviations from the canon, i.e. The Bible, with most, adding books to the closed canon. By that technical definition, I consider the LDS church to be a cult.


And it matters not a whit, just as it matters not a whit that Jews exclude the New Testament, when it comes to politics. Moreover, one complicating factor is that Romney calls Jesus Christ his “Savior.” That Romney uses this term is quite compelling, for most elected Christians never use that term, probably because their huge egos and sin of pride won’t let them admit they need a savior in public.


I said all that to say this: My people will like Mitt and many will support him. Given the importance of the war issue among us, and given other candidates that are nearly as good as Mitt, I can’t say that I think Mitt will win more votes in the South. But if he doesn’t, it will have very little to do with his religion, no matter what spin the media uses. Yes, they can find anyone to say anything, and their are a few leaders that have come out against Mitt. But many evangelical leaders have also echoed my sentiments. In any event, Southerners aren’t famous for following MSM TV appointed leaders.


I was an activist democrat party member, delegate, campaign worker, and county official for 20 years prior to what I call my “conservative epiphany” in 2000. I am part of the social conservative base. I was always a war hawk even as a Democrat (and yes, I suffered to be surrounded by wimps). I know that what religious bigotry exists in the South, finds its primary repository in the same party where one finds other group bigotries, i.e. The Democratic Party that is hostile to people of faith and treats Blacks like disabled children so as to maintain a victim-dependent voter base.


I know that Mitt Romney can win over Southern evangelicals when his name recognition reaches levels close to that of America’s mayor and a Hollywood star. That’s what campaigns do. Mitt gets received well every time he appears below the Mason-Dixon Line. I predict he will finish no lower than second in the South Carolina primary, which will vindicate both the candidate and the region I love.


Mike DeVine

Op-Ed Columnist – The Charlotte Observer

http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/191237.html

Blogs as Gamecock at www.redstate.com, and

www.race42008.com and is Legal Editor for

http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com and

http://thehinzsightreport.com/.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

This is a guest post from "Gamecock" a frequent poster around the blogosphere. He agreed to write something for MyManMitt after a little begging. Now back to my two week family vacation...

The main reasons I choose to support any candidate for any political office are their positions on the issues they will have the power to address in the office they seek. Mitt Romney agrees with me and the war hawk-social conservative-fiscal conservative base on as many or more of the issues the base care about than any of the other candidates.


Additionally, Mitt has been successful in every position he has held in the business and political world. He is man of great character with no skeletons in the closet or walking around. He has exhibited courage in his willingness to take chances in business; forego profits to turn his company into a posse to find an employee’s missing daughter; and to risk his reputation to take on a rescue effort to save the Olympic Games and secure them from terrorist attacks. Finally, he stood up for traditional family values in the bluest state in the nation. He is a proven leader.


I am not bothered by the changes in his positions on political issues over the years, mainly due to his character, but also because after 1992 any republican nominee knows that the base will punish Presidents that break promises. I believe his epiphany on abortion and fetal stem cell research policy is real.


But an important secondary reason I have chosen to defend Mitt Romney relates to the slanders of some in the press, the Democratic Party, and not to few in the Republican Party that slander the South in general and Evangelical Christians of all regions in particular in suggesting that Mitt has no chance to win a significant percentage of our votes. Those that say this assume religious bigotry on our part, when in fact; many of them are exhibiting regional and religious bigotry themselves.


I’ll never forget a C-Span Road to the White House segment last year that quoted a Baptist Minister that had just heard Romney speak in South Carolina that echoed sentiments I have often stated to near unanimous agreement among fellow Baptists:


“He [Mitt Romney] is a better Baptist than most Baptists!”


There is a deep and abiding respect for the behavior, work ethic and personal conduct of Mormons in the South, and especially among devout Christians. We especially admire how well behaved their children are. Southerners are quite capable of discerning vote seeking Baptist church attendees that would advance policies that work against their values and non-Baptists that would advance their shared values agenda.


The same bigotry was levied against Dixie in 1960. Back then, not an insubstantial number of Protestants questioned the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. Yet, JFK carried a majority Southern electoral votes. Today, many suggest that evangelicals will not support Romney since many consider his church to be a cult. Most of those that make this charge do not understand the varying meanings of the word “cult.” They associate it with the Jim Jones mass suicide and Waco’s David Koresh, as if violence is the defining characteristic of what a cult is.


The fact is that violence has nothing to do with whether a particular religious group is properly defined as a cult.


Churches of many faiths often spawn sects and/or cults from their larger body. Whether or not such a spawned body is one or the other is defined by the larger body. Sects are defined as sharing the most basic and fundamental beliefs. Cults are defined as making major deviations from the canon, i.e. The Bible, with most, adding books to the closed canon. By that technical definition, I consider the LDS church to be a cult.


And it matters not a whit, just as it matters not a whit that Jews exclude the New Testament, when it comes to politics. Moreover, one complicating factor is that Romney calls Jesus Christ his “Savior.” That Romney uses this term is quite compelling, for most elected Christians never use that term, probably because their huge egos and sin of pride won’t let them admit they need a savior in public.


I said all that to say this: My people will like Mitt and many will support him. Given the importance of the war issue among us, and given other candidates that are nearly as good as Mitt, I can’t say that I think Mitt will win more votes in the South. But if he doesn’t, it will have very little to do with his religion, no matter what spin the media uses. Yes, they can find anyone to say anything, and their are a few leaders that have come out against Mitt. But many evangelical leaders have also echoed my sentiments. In any event, Southerners aren’t famous for following MSM TV appointed leaders.


I was an activist democrat party member, delegate, campaign worker, and county official for 20 years prior to what I call my “conservative epiphany” in 2000. I am part of the social conservative base. I was always a war hawk even as a Democrat (and yes, I suffered to be surrounded by wimps). I know that what religious bigotry exists in the South, finds its primary repository in the same party where one finds other group bigotries, i.e. The Democratic Party that is hostile to people of faith and treats Blacks like disabled children so as to maintain a victim-dependent voter base.


I know that Mitt Romney can win over Southern evangelicals when his name recognition reaches levels close to that of America’s mayor and a Hollywood star. That’s what campaigns do. Mitt gets received well every time he appears below the Mason-Dixon Line. I predict he will finish no lower than second in the South Carolina primary, which will vindicate both the candidate and the region I love.


Mike DeVine

Op-Ed Columnist – The Charlotte Observer

http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/191237.html

Blogs as Gamecock at www.redstate.com, and

www.race42008.com and is Legal Editor for

http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com and

http://thehinzsightreport.com/.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson