Comments on: Mitt, the Mormons, and the Democrats’ Mountain West Strategy

By: truebluethru\'n\'thru

truebluethru\'n\'thru — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:09:53 +0000

Hmm…OK. Butstill, with Romney’s competition from Thompson and Huckabee, how will he truly end up garnering a true lion’s share of the politically-inclined Evangelical leaders’ endorsements, then, for such a game plan to work then?

Then, regarding his “Mormon speech”: Romney, in a way, must essentially give a version of it each and every time he mounts the stump. That is, it would simply be his “values” speech–how Romney judges positions and appointees by certain values, explaining what his values are. When it comes time to give “This-is-the-governor’s-’Mormon-speech’!” speech, he would highlight what’s worked within the values context from the generic stump, freshening it with something of timely substance (I don’t know: what?) about his specific brand of faith (…or at least adding a few new soundbites to keep the media alert!)

By: truebluethru\'n\'thru

truebluethru\'n\'thru — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:09:53 +0000

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:32:53 +0000

Since evangelicals in general and southern evangelicals in particular vote in unison according to the advice of their leaders more than any other segment in our country, I think Romney is doing exactly the right thing by avoiding a “Mormon speech” while he courts the influential evangelical leaders – and continues to pick up their endorsements. (BTW, part of me would hate to have to write that speech, since any perceived mis-statement is guaranteed to derail the campaign; another part salivates at the thought, since a perfect one could clinch a nomination.) I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he gives that speech shortly before the first primaries.

By: truebluethru\'n\'thru

truebluethru\'n\'thru — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:27:51 +0000

Re 24: Yes.

Right now prognosticators foresee Rudy’s being able to hang on. Maybe it is the case that the combination of “feeling patriotic” about one’s vote–that is, re Rudy’s association with 9/11 (and this despite anti-Rudy folks’ resentment of his having capitalized on it)–while also “endorsing Rudy’s competence” will end up trumping “endorsing Mitt’s competence,” alone. And, if early polls mean little, then Mitt’s competetive position in places he’s advertised heavily in may be chipped away at when Rudy’s and the rest of the field begin to more aggressively advertise.

On the other hand, maybe Mitt’s “strenth” etc. mantra garners enough of the “patriotism” factor to go along with his natural affability and leadership skills to enable him to prevail, in the end, despite his minority religious status.

By: California Condor

California Condor — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:05:07 +0000

Well, now McCain is done. Romney’s prospects are as good as ever. I suppose the question now is: would the Clinton campaign machine start an anti-Mormon whisper campaign if Hillary goes against Mitt?

By: Jorge

Jorge — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:16:36 +0000

Obama 08

By: John Taber

John Taber — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:39:53 +0000

Now when it comes to institutional religion OTOH, the Southern Baptist Convention seems to want to set off a few flares when we do something significant, like open a new temple. Such was the case with the Raleigh temple in 1999, which I lived across the street from at the time. The nearest Baptist church, there at the Apex town crossroads handed out literature, and took out a couple of ads in local (small-town) papers, saying that “Mormons aren’t Christian”, etc. Best I can tell, though, it was met with a collective shrug.

That church had that year built an addition to their building, that had more floor space than the temple.

If any candidate speaks at Bob Jones University, Brother Romney will have a golden opportunity to say, “I couldn’t even step foot on campus, or enroll my children there if I wanted to. How dare you . . .” Southern Republican primary voters won’t give two hoots, but it will get national attention like nothing else.

By: Chad too

Chad too — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 08:10:22 +0000

Having been immersed in Carolina Culture for the last dozen years doesn’t make me all-knowing about things Southern, but what experience I have had leads me to think that the worst thing the McCain camp could do is make a big issue about Romney’s religion because it would give Romney a chance to defend himself. If McCain says nothing, then the Ed-Decker driven picture of Mormonism in the minds of Southern voters goes unchallenged. If that happens, Romney loses in the South.

Confrontation is rarely the Southerner’s way of doing things. Good-ol’-boy networks are seldom the result of organized this-is-our-point-of-view planning. They’re made with a wink and a nod and the understanding that, though they can’t throw all y’all (

By: Brad Kramer

Brad Kramer — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:02:25 +0000

I think it’s much less likely that the Democratic nominee will come after Romney’s Mormonism than McCain because I don’t see Obama doing it and any of the other candidates run the risk of reinforcing stereotypes that liberals hate religion. Then again, McCain also has some of the same baggage. The only anti-Mormon mud slinging that we’re likely to see will come from someone who won’t be mistaken as anti-religious as a consequence–a hardliner conservative dark horse during the primaries. If McCain feels like he’s sufficiently cast off the anto-religious cloak, he might try it, but I don’t think it’s likely beyond that. I think Romney’s problems will come from his being manifestly willing to make curiously providentially-timed changes in his fundamental beliefs on any number of salient issues. Though it is possible that an attack that emphasizes his almost laughable flipfloppery will connect it with his loyalty to his “authoritarian” church.

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:39:20 +0000

An interesting political post, Jonathan. One political sciencey observation: much of these sorts of issues arise because of frontloading. Our presidential election system requires candidates to run not so much national campaigns as “50-state” campaigns–except not really, since not all of those states are equal either in terms electoral votes or influence on media perceptions and consequently interest group-giving. Navigating the early primary season while building momentum, and doing so in a way that won’t hurt you later on, is especially difficult, and the questionable influence of Mormon voters on either the Republican primaries or the general election in a few now-possibly-toss-up states in the Mountain West, makes things even more crazy. In the case of McCain vs. Romney, consider the line-up; in the first month he has:

January 21, 2008 – Iowa
January 28, 2008 – New Hampshire
February 5, 2008 – Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia
February 5, 2008 – Florida, Michigan
February 12, 2008 – Tennessee
February 16, 2008 – Louisiana
February 19, 2008 – Minnesota, Wisconsin

So the same week that McCain, or someone else, is campaigning in a state where anti-Mormonism might presumably work (North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama), they will also be campaigning in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, where it wouldn’t. I sure don’t envy McCain’s campaign manager!