Mitt Romney & a Democratic Outreach Opportunity
I met Mitt Romney once, years ago. I liked the old moderate Mitt Romney. The new hard-core Mitt Romney, not so much. As the campaign went on, his positions and rhetoric reminded me of why I left the Republican Party. Nothing personal, mind you. I can still like Mitt as a person, just not as a candidate. Whether the moderate Mitt or the conservative Mitt was the real Mitt Romney, who can say? Maybe both were in turn.
Imagine if Mitt Romney had instead, like Michael Bloomberg, left the Republican Party and charted an independent course. Such a move would have freed Mitt from the seemingly insurmountable hurdle of a Latter-day Saint getting past the powerful Southern Evangelical wing of the GOP, an obstacle that would likely have derailed a Bloomberg candidacy as well. Could a moderate, independent, and well-financed Bloomberg-Romney ticket have emerged to capture the imagination of the country and some Western electoral votes? It would have been interesting.
To return to the campaign that was, whispering attacks against Romney in the Bible Belt may have sobered Mormon Republicans and caused some of them to question if the GOP should be their permanent home. Harry Reid and Mitt Romney share the same religious faith, but not the same party and political outlook. The Democratic Party hasn’t had a problem with Harry Reid’s faith, and that contrast may resonate with some Latter-day Saints. A message of principled moderation, inclusion, and real compassion could go a long way in the Mormon West. The Udall family is a prominent name in the Democratic Party in the West and an old Mormon family name. Maybe years from now the first Latter-day Saint in the White House will be a Democrat.
Check out some interesting links on related topics:
Your Personal Note:
I am LDS. And a "DLC Democrat". I would say that Obama has a better chance to get LDS votes than any Democrat over the last 30 years. He needs to address concerns they may have head-on (many tend pro-life, although they not be as militant about it as some other Religions). They like enforcement of the border, but do not have antipathy towards those trying to better their life, so they want immigration enforcement to be humane.
In short, they are ripe for the picking by Obama.
Posted by: Jim (Blue Dog Oregon) | Feb 9, 2008 3:36:04 PM
Here is an article that argues that Mormons could leave the Republican Party at the presidential level this year in reaction to the rejection of Romney by the GOP partly on the basis his of religion.
That effect may be a bit exaggerated, but my sources in Idaho do tell me that a lot of Idaho Republicans are frustrated after opening their hearts and wallets to Mitt. Some now feel they have nowhere to go as far as the presidential campaign is concerned.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Feb 10, 2008 9:15:21 PM
Now - all of my thoughts below being said, I am totally dismayed that Obama seems to support the Freedom of Choice Act and is opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act. So, do we vote for him or not?
And did you see the latest article in the October Ensign by Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Apostle Russell M. Nelson entitled "Abortion, an Assault on the Defenseless"? In 2006, there were over 5.5 million LDS members in the United States. With a torrent of lies coming in from the Republicans about Democrats, and now with this article essentially making this a One Issue Only election again, I feel we are doomed in most of our elections, no matter what other wonderful blessings our candidates have to offer the people. It is wrong to base our choice of candidates on this one issue only, but it will be the case with most LDS.
I truly, really feel that until we let go "of the bloody hand of abortion", we will not ever get elected by the majority of LDS or even of Evangelicals in this country. We can, we must, change our position on it!!
“The wrongness of centering the election of public officials around this one issue only.”
OK, here is what my research has brought: Please refer to the following statistics on abortion rates from Johnston Archive (stats compiled from CDC, Dept of Health, Office for National Statistics, Census Bureau, etc.):
PARTY: PRESIDENT: TERM: RATE:
Republican, Nixon, 6 years, 11%
Republican, Ford, 2 years, 23%
Democrat, Carter, 4 years, 28%
Republican, Reagan, 8 years 28%
Republican, HW Bush, 4 years 27%
Democrat, Clinton, 8 years 23%
Republican, W Bush, 5 years 20%
From 1969 to 2005 (last year of National Records), Republicans have been in office for 25 years, Democrats for 12. The Republicans have been “in power” twice as long as Democrats, yet we still had about 760,000 abortions in the US (2005). If the Republicans are so against abortion, then why does the abortion rate during the years of Presidency for Republicans and Democrats seem to rise and fall regardless of which party is in office?
For one thing, the President does not have executive power to change it. Only the Supreme Court can over turn Roe V Wade (1973, during Republican Nixon’s Term) and none will do so based on the Constitution, and the Republicans who have been in office have given no legal cause for it to be over turned, whether they say they disagree with it or not. So even if the next president gets to add judges, the law will not be changed.
But the biggest reason is this: each and every election year the Republicans use Abortion as a wedge issue to try to win votes from those of us who are anti-abortion. It doesn’t matter that their other policies have disastrously hurt the American people nor do they seem to care about anything except helping the rich. And when they win, they don’t really do anything about abortion. (There were almost 4000 abortions in Utah in 2006!) Why should they, when it’s one of the most powerful issues they lean on to help them get elected. If they actually did something about it, then all the other important issues would actually be emphasized, and they would be judged on their other selfish issues, as they do not really represent the best interests of the “you’s and me’s” in this nation.
McCain has said “… in the short term, or even-the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." (And he also said “Ban on same-sex marriage is unRepublican; leave it to states.) McCain is also much less pro-life because he feels that the bottom line of a corporation is more important than the health and well-being of people when it come to environmental choices. Education is not one of his priorities – but war is. McCain's life seems so centered in himself, graduating from Naval Academy because of his father, being able to be a pilot because of his father even though he graduated about last in his class of over 600, marrying a swim-suit model, coming home from that horrendous five years in prison, then marrying beauty-queen Cindy (after we know he had an affair with her), and then just a few years ago almost getting “involved” with young lobbyist Vicki Iseman until told to 'back-off' by his advisors. That, to me, does not represent family values. Nor does beauty queen Palin’s decision to leave her family to politically aggrandize herself.
Obama has said “We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)” (And he also said “Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry.”) Obama also is much more pro-life in that he wants to curtail environmental toxins and pollutions that assault our defenseless little children and cause birth defects, cancer, and other major health problems and the pre-mature death of thousands of people every year. And 3/4th of women who get an abortion do so because they feel they can’t afford a child. Obama wants to make it less likely that women will need an abortion because he will ensure they get the support they need to raise that child. Obama also values and will ensure education as one of his top priorities. Obama's life has been one of truly caring about people and trying to make a difference for good, of helping people, of taking the "high road" of integrity, bettering himself through education so he could be more useful for others, and having a sincere desire to truly bless the lives of the American people.
Posted by: Gwendolyn Lee | Sep 28, 2008 9:45:09 AM
Mitt Romney for president?
Posted by: Carl | Jan 23, 2012 4:14:46 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)