I suppose the Robertson endorsement is the biggest, though it comes with a lot of baggage and I doubt he has the clout he once did. Yesterday Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich endorsed Romney. The biggest effect may not be……

When a Mormon votes based on religion, it’s not bigotry.

See? Simple.

Hollowpoint on November 5, 2007 at 9:10 PM

No, it’d be simple if you would show us where Mormons are supporting Mitt solely based on his membership in the LDS church. You saying it don’t make it true. We have Christians stating their opposition to Mitt on religious grounds alone.

And even if Mormons supported Mitt solely on his faith, that isn’t bigotry.

Look it up.

The SCOTUS.

all the rest is just fluff for the moral majority to bicker over.

Hollowpoint on November 5, 2007 at 9:10 PM

Thats that gold plated double standard rearing its ugly head again.

The Mormon -vs- the Moron.

Mitt has major baggage, plain and simple. That baggage will be a huge liability in a general election.

Mitt’s “baggage,” were it pointed out in a debate, sounds like bigotry.

As opposed to Judi-Ani, who has some baggage immortalized on Youtube, two living, breathing examples of baggage, and the fact he’s anathema to social cons even without these personal fouls. Guiliani brushes back skeletons to get to his clothes.

Fred is an untrained, courrupt little kid with an even shallower record than Hillary, and all the associated dirty dealing. If you think csdeven is the only person with a list of Fred’s transgressions, you’re kidding yourself. Fred is radioactive. If he is nominated we WILL lose.

that the bible is not the total truth, and that Mitts wife could become a Goddess, or that the leaders of his church states something like this “We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense…”, then one would have reason to doubt him as a leader of the U.S.

A virgin birth, the trinity, and transubstantiation are difficult to believe in. Sounds crazy to some. I would vote for someone who believe in those concepts or who believed that the bible was not the total truth. My concern is what they think about the U.S. Constitution and that they understand that this is a country where people have differing religious beliefs.

I think Mitt has Christian values, while at the same time I think Joseph Smith was a con man.

You can vote against someone for religious reasons and not be a bigot.
right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 7:23 PM

No, see- you’ve not been paying attention. Here’s what I’ve learned from these threads:

When a mainstream Christian votes based on religion, it’s bigotry.

When a Mormon votes based on religion, it’s not bigotry.

See? Simple.

You can vote against someone for religious reasons and not be a bigot.
right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Apparently you cannot. Mitt isn’t running to be the head of a theocracy. He brings more qualifications to the race than any other candidate and you focus on what his faith is, when the only bearing his faith has on his presidency is the clear conservative values he holds. Those values are completely consistent with the values held by most Christians. He has not flip-flopped. His views have evolved towards a more conservative stance. He didn’t go back and forth.

You guys that use the flip-flop label the wrong way are minimizing the effect it will have on a real flip-flopper like Switchback Brownback.

right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 7:25 PM

The facts aren’t the dance. The dance is your misrepresentation of the context of his remarks.

csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Hey, great dance…

which Mitt publicly stated he is not a Reagan Republican).
right2bright on November 5, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Wrong context again. Mitt wasn’t rejecting all the great stuff Reagan accomplished. Mitt made the mistake of allowing the swimmer to frame the question by casting Reagan in a very bad light. THAT was the context. Mitt said he wasn’t trying to return to Reagan’s policies that Kennedy was claiming Mitt was for.

Why? Do you feel that most evangelicals will base their vote upon theological, rather than political, issues?

Slublog on November 5, 2007 at 2:37 PM

It makes for quite the tie breaker doesn’t it?

I have an associate that thinks Rudy will get the nomination because the “base wants to win.” Really? I thought primary voters voted for the candidate they have the most in common with and reflects thier interests.

If I am right a Mormon candidate will not fulfill that role. When competing in this field Mormon theology is relevant. If it were Mitt vs. Hunter, the winner having to facedown Hillary, it could be a very different story.

It’s not about the amount of influence Weyrich has today. It’s about how his name is synonymous with traditional values conservatism.

I think this is too naive. Weyrich’s endorsement will move money to Mitt. Endorsements are wrongfully measured by the votes, they more often carry money…and that is what candidates really want and need. The by-product is some votes.

I hear this story all the time yet I have not seen it in real life.
calirighty on November 5, 2007 at 5:30 PM

I agree, the Mormon victim card gets played to often. Some support Mitt for his business acumen, I don’t support him because of his poor record in standing up to the left (like Kennedy), standing up to his “supporters” like Bechtel, and his flip flopping pandering. Like you not looking for “Christian” leaders (I am with you), I am not looking for “business” leaders (Perot and Forbes are two examples). I am looking for a strong leader (Rudy does it, but he is so socially weak). I thought Bush was, but on immigration he buckled…where is Reagan when we need him (which Mitt publicly stated he is not a Reagan Republican).
But all of the Republican candidates are better than any one Democrat.

Duncan Hunter, on the other hand… he has a solid political track record.

While we are at it I wish evangelicals would pipe down too. I have actually seen people on this very web site minimalize the fact that WE ARE A NATION AT WAR to push their so-con agendas to the forefront. Now which party does that actually sound like?
We have so-cons threatening a Ross Perot revolution thusly handing the Whitehouse to the Clintons…AGAIN!

Hillary scares the crap out of me, but what scares me more is that moral majority bickering will hand her the keys to the kingdom.

I’d prefer Rudy’s hand on the trigger (because I think he’d be more anxious to use it)

Halley on November 5, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Too bad Rudy or Mitt don’t support people’s right to do the same, well, except for somewhat more socially correct firearms that don’t evoke pants wetting, gutteral fear from liberals and the media.