Outgoing Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney announced on Wednesday that he has filed with the Federal Election Commission to form an exploratory committee for a possible 2008 presidential bid (“Mitt Romney says files papers for White House run”). Romney is seen as more socially conservative than Republican poll-leaders Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, and has recently made headlines with his crusade to ban same-sex marriage in his home state, the only state that has legalized it. He may face some hurdles, however, in winning over the conservative base of the GOP. Romney is a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), which has traditionally been out of favor with conservative Protestant sects in the U.S. He will also need to overcome a history of flip-flopping on social issues such as abortion, which he declared in 1994 should remain “safe and legal,” although he now supports its criminalization.
Do you think Mitt Romney’s religion will be an asset or a hindrance with social conservatives? Will Massachusetts’ reputation as one of the bluest of blue states drag him down, or has he done enough to dissociate himself with Northeast liberalism? What else do you think might give Romney an edge over the likes of Giuliani and McCain?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
How can you vote for anyone who's integrity, character .... does not measure up?
I think unfamiliarity and discomfort about his Mormon beliefs will affect a number of voters.
A more interesting question is could someone with no religious identification be elected president these days.
I suppose Romney's biggest religion problem will be that so many people don't know much about Mormon's and their teachings. His opponents and the press will probably try to play off people's fear of the unknown and the misunderstood.
Unless there is some scandal or big mistake like his father made he probably stands as good a chance as any. It's really early in the contest.
I think it should be clear that a person's faith and belief system is not a predictor of their charachtor. I would much rather have a fair and intelligent atheist or agnostic as a public official than have a bigoted ignoramus in a position of power which they could abuse in the name of their religion.
R
Despite our Consitution, religious litmus testers abound! Specifically, Article VI, section 3:Some 30 years back, I spent a about a year and a half working in Utah. If you ask me, the local folks were some of the finest people I've ever known (and I have lived or worked in eight US states). In particular, I was impressed by their devotion to family, community, and a healthy lifestyle.
Maybe Jeanne O'Neill likes heated debates about her "core belief system" over lunch, but theological minutae never seemed to work their way into our conversations. The only "differences" I remember being expressed had to do with dietary practices.
For example, at the work site, we were provided only coffee "fixins" (a pot, grounds, and filters -- never brewed coffee). The explanation? "Since we don't drink it ourselves, I'm sure we don't know how to make a good cup of coffee." Can you think of a gentler, more polite way to say, "We differ"? Some folks of another flavor of Christianity might have called me a sinner, destined for a personal Dark Roast over hellfire.
OK -- that was 1975-77, and this is now. Maybe 30 years of listening to caustic remarks from the Jeanne O'Neills and Patricia Wilsons of this world have embittered these good folks. Maybe they've taken a gut-wrenching turn to The Dark Side.
Frankly, I doubt it. The young LDS missionaries seem as clean-cut and relentlessly cheerful as ever, which is as much evidence to the positive as Patricia Wilson's feud with her sister is to the negative. What evidence does Jeanne O'Neill cite? Just "the drastic difference between my belief of who Jesus Christ is..." My bet, Jeanne, is that this hateful attitude got spoon-fed to you from a pulpit somewhere.
If the reactions here are any measure, then Reed R's comment that:...is spot on. It's almost embarassing to read Americans say such narrow-minded things openly.