David French, co-founder of Evangelicals for Mitt (currently serving as a JAG in Iraq) sent this letter to Jonah Goldberg concerning the silly responses he received to his question: "What's so bad about Mormonism?"

Dear Jonah,

Greetings from Iraq. As I sit here just a few miles from the Iranian border, I have reliable email and internet access for the first time in more than a month. I eagerly went to the Corner to get my fix and saw your question to readers about the real effects of a Mormon president. In my civilian life (I’m a mobilized reservist), I’m a co-founder of Evangelicals for Mitt (www.evangelicalsformitt.org ) and a regular contributor to NRO’s own Phi Beta Cons. Obviously, since I’m now deployed, my political activities are nonexistent. But I did want to say something in response to the emailers who argue that a Mormon president would somehow lead people astray because he would be a great marketing asset for the LDS church.

I’m hardly surprised that you have gotten this response. This, in fact, is the single most common objection we’ve received in the almost 18 full months that we’ve been operating our Evangelicals for Mitt website. In my mind, this line of reasoning is more responsible than any other for the religious-based objections to Mitt Romney’s candidacy. It is also so theologically and intellectually flawed that it almost makes me want to weep.

Do religions really stand or fall based on the attractiveness of their most famous adherents? Or does God perhaps have a say (I would say the decisive say) in the process? I presume that your correspondents would never stay in a Marriott hotel, fly Jetblue, or root for the 49ers when Steve Young was throwing touchdown passes to Jerry Rice. Because, after all, they don’t want to endorse anyone or anything that brings credibility to the LDS church. I suppose God stands helplessly by as religions compete for souls by offering up a series of accomplished, attractive politicians and celebrities. (“I see your Steve Young and raise you a Kurt Warner.”)

In fact, as we know from the Bible, God more often uses the “least of these.” The King of Kings came not as a prince but a carpenter and allowed himself to be executed between two petty criminals. His apostles did not run Roman provinces but were instead chased across an empire, met in caves, and were sometimes torn apart in arenas for public amusement. And yet Christianity has endured and flourished. Why? Because – perhaps, just perhaps – God is in control.

So when I see Christians say that the eternal souls of men are in danger because a Mormon of genuine integrity and real accomplishment is running for president, I wonder who (or what) they have faith in: the sovereignty of a loving God who holds the nations in his hands, or the persuasive power of a Mormon missionary who can add one more celebrity to the list of famous LDSers (“we’re right because Gladys Knight, Danny Ainge, Dale Murphy, Harry Reid, and – yes – Mitt Romney say so!”)

All the best,
David

Labels: david french, EFM

(UPDATE: SEE APOLOGY TO PHILIP KLEIN HERE)

OK... taking a page from Dean Barnett I'm going to answer the gambit of questions I received from readers, friends and family.

Q. Where is Mitt going to be this week?

This week the focus is simple: fundraising:

• Mitt starts out the week on Monday in Texas with fundraising events in Dallas an Houston
• Tuesday, the campaign heads to California (which is proving very generous in their contributions) for fundraisers in Palm Desert and Los Angeles
• Wednesday the Governor jets across the country for a luncheon in Baton Rouge and northward for a dinner in in Charleston, SC
• Thursday the Romney camp awakens to the beautiful SC dawn for a luncheon in Greenville
• Finally, Friday finds Mitt in Palm Beach for the final fundraiser of the 1st Quarter

Q. What's up with the fundraising for the various candidates?

Of course the real buzz around town is the anxious nail biting push for dollar donations which will probably be revealed at the end of the week. While the full reports won't be published by the FEC until April 15th, the campaigns will likely give a good weekend update just in time for the Sunday shows.

So, who will be the winner. I wouldn't count Mitt out but here's the reality of the contest:

• Rudy is the rock star with wide (but shallow) support across the country
  
• McCain is the long-timer maverick, loathed by many in the GOP base, but has built up the best mailing list in the business
• Romney is the underdog who has hired the A-team but lacks the name recognition, relying instead on the ground game
• What about the others... If they garner more than a few million each... i would be surprised

Q. OK spill it... What are the numbers?

Despite what McCain wants you to believe the no one (including the Romney camp) is going to raise $30 million. McCain's people are expectations spinners and it simply won't fly. Romney will probably come in under $20 million. McCain will top him and Rudy? Really I have no idea but it could top them both - I dunno.

Q. Did you hear about the Evangelicals for Mitt liars?

Frankly, this is silly. In my mind the folks at EFM have been maligned by Philp Klein and the AmSpec folk (who are inexplicable vehement in their opposition to Mitt Romney). Here's the short version: Nancy French (a native of Tennessee) opined that she thought Thompson was pro-choice in his original incarnation for the Senate. Philip Klein and (see apology here)other people in the blogosphere then accused them of being liars. EFM co-blogger comes to Nancy's defense:

This was, of course, in response to Nancy's very temperate post pointing out several news accounts that either refer to Senator Thompson as pro-choice during his Senate runs--or discuss Senator Thompson calling himself pro-choice. She didn't attack Senator Thompson--she said he'd be a "great candidate"--but she did continue to make the point David and I have also made, namely that the "True Conservative Watch" currently enveloping our movement is a bit much. She simply pointed out that he appears to be just as imperfect as Governor Romney.

David French (Nancy's husband) chimes in with his own response:

There's no doubt that Fred Thompson was less pro-choice than his Democratic opponent in 1994, but there is also little doubt that he was less pro-life than Bill Frist (the other Republican running for Senate at the time). I was practicing law in Nashville, and I have distinct memories of the race because Fred Thompson was the first pro-choice politician I ever voted for. In fact, I can remember having guilty pangs as I pulled the lever--breaking a vow I made in college to never vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Yesterday, I suspect that Philip Klein (who I gather to be Anti-Romney-esque) fed some items into the Prowler Column on Spectator.org. The gist of the article is confusing. They claim:

• EFM is taking funds from the Romney campaign but isn't
• Mark DeMoss was the guy who started the EFM website only he didn't.
• EFM is using Romney research which the Prowler doesn't cite.
  
• EFM is attacking Thompson using this research by quoting the opinions of other people?

In short, it's a pathetic attack with little evidence

more to come later today

Labels: abortion, Amspec, charles mitchell, david french, EFM, evangelicals, McCain, mitt romney, nancy french, rudy, thopmson