Mitt Romney

Bryan Fischer just cannot understand how any evangelical could possibly support Mitt Romney for president, but he does have a theory:  Romney is "preying on evangelical weaknesses."

As Fischer sees it, the only logical explanation is that evangelicals are so darned nice that they will believe anything anybody tells them and so Romney can lie to them with impunity because he knows they are so "dull" and "uninformed" that they will never figure it out:

Mitt Romney is actually preying on evangelical weaknesses. He is taking advantage of the inherent niceness in evangelicals. Evangelicals are portrayed as these people who are these flaming bigots, these hardliners, these Victorian prudes, these bluenoses, they're just angry at everybody and they walk around judging and condemning everybody. Evangelicals are not like that; they are the nicest people that you can meet, they're kind, they want to give people the benefit of the doubt, they're willing to take people at their word, they're willing to bend over backwards to accommodate other people and Mitt Romney knows that.

So he knows that evangelicals are nice people and he can take advantage of that niceness by telling them what they want to hear. And they lack enough discernment that they'll believe what he tells them. Mitt Romney tells them he's a champion on the sanctity of life, they'll believe him just because they heard him say it and they want to give him the benefit of the doubt ... Governor Romney is more responsible for the fact that we have same-sex marriage in the united States then anybody else on the planet, yet evangelicals are dull enough, uninformed enough, undiscerning enough that they are supporting him.

Religious Right activists are positively giddy over the new momentum behind Rick Santorum’s candidacy for president, and Maggie Gallagher today praised the former Pennsylvania senator as “a latter-day Rudy suddenly lifted above his Notre Dame teammates in a fantastic photo finish.” Gallagher said that the left wants “to go after him with a hatred unlike anyone else has yet generated in this race,” writing that progressives “hate him with that special ire reserved for his virtues, not his vices.”

On Tuesday night in Iowa, he stood before the cheering throngs like a Republican Rocky, or better yet, a latter-day Rudy suddenly lifted above his Notre Dame teammates in a fantastic storybook finish. On Tuesday night, for the first time, Rick Santorum was a contender. And a contender like nobody has yet seen in this race.

…

I have not yet endorsed anyone in this presidential race. And unlike some values voters, I am not anti-Mitt Romney. Romney is a fundamentally decent, extremely capable man, who fought hard for marriage in Massachussetts [sic]. If he is the GOP nominee, I can vote for him with great good will and a clean conscience.

But when the guy who has taken more hits than any other for standing up for life and marriage fights his way with nobody's help from nowhere to, well, Tuesday night -- you have to cheer.

The left, which thought it had buried Santorum years ago, is going to go after him with a hatred unlike anyone else has yet generated in this race. They hate him with that special ire reserved for his virtues, not his vices.

They will go after him not just to defeat him, but to smear his good name, to associate it with their own muck, to take a decent and honorable man and try literally to make his name mean mud. They will not succeed.

…

I am not anti-Romney. But after Tuesday night's victory, count me as pro-Rick.

Meanwhile, Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance penned a column lauding Santorum and couldn’t help herself from taking digs at Romney’s Mormon faith:

Santorum’s appeal to women and evangelicals centers on a desire for authenticity. Rick’s been consistent in behavior and record. His stance on the sanctity of life and traditional marriage gained the voters’ attention.

…

Many of my Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) members respect Mitt’s savvy business skills, but they are having a hard time wrapping their minds around him as a whole package.

They can’t ignore that it was the former Massachusetts governor who championed health care reform that cost the state $4.3 billion and 18,000 jobs. Nor can they ignore his past support for so-called “domestic partnerships” or the fact that after the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s paper tiger ruling on “gay marriage,” he ordered Justices of the Peace in the state to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples or be fired.

With evangelical Christians being one of the largest voting blocs in America, “the Mormon thing” may be an issue, but I am not convinced this is what has held him back. However, some of my CWALAC ladies would love to understand the whole “eternal pregnancy in heaven thing,” which, admittedly, to me sounds more like damnation than heaven.

We frequently hear from conservative commentators that Religious Right voters have no problem with supporting a Mormon politician and any anti-Mormon sentiments actually come from the left and the media. But today on American Family Radio’s The Matt Friedman Show, Rick Scarborough of Vision America said he refuses to support Mitt Romney in the primary because he is a Mormon. Scarborough is a prominent endorser and ally of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whose campaign earlier this year promoted the fiercely anti-Mormon pastor Robert Jeffress, and is best known for organizing “patriot pastors.” Scarborough previously signed a letter with other Religious Right activists opposing Romney, and told Friedeman that he disagreed with Chuck Colson and Franklin Graham for saying that voters should not reject Romney outright because of his faith.

Like Jeffress, Scarborough said he would ultimately vote for a Mormon over Barack Obama but would certainly not support Romney “as long as there is another candidate” because Mormonism is “so outside the realm of normal, theological boundaries.”

Watch:

Friedeman: I’m asking you here, with Franklin Graham and Chuck Colson coming out and saying Mormonism isn’t that big of a deal in this presidential election, do you agree?

Scarborough: I do not agree. I respect profoundly both of those men for a myriad of reasons, but I do not agree with that statement. Right now, the most prominent spokesperson for our values in the radio field is Glenn Beck, who is an avowed Mormon, and now the leading presidential candidate is an avowed Mormon. Because of the state of the spiritual life of our country right now, I just think that’s a place I don’t want to go. And the other side of that is, what is not spoken are some of the details of Mormonism, which will be aired completely in a presidential race and I think it will make it difficult if this man secures the nomination for him to be elected just because there are some aspects of the doctrines of Mormonism that are so outside the realm of normal, theological boundaries, that I think it will be a real issue if he got the nomination. Now if the choice comes down for me between a Mormon and Barack Obama, I’d vote for the Mormon every time, but I’m certainly not going to support him as long as there is another candidate.

Mitt Romney has attempted to thread the needle on whether gays and lesbians have a right to serve openly in the military, saying he staunchly opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell but is not willing to reinstate the policy. In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, Romney called Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military,” but then in 2007 Romney claimed he originally found the policy “silly” but effective, and has since criticized attempts to repeal it. In a June debate Romney dodged a question on whether he would reverse the repeal, until he finally told the Des Moines Register editorial board this week that he would oppose the restoration of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

While his halfhearted and milquetoast stand may not surprise the vast majority of Americans who supported the policy’s repeal, it has not played well with Religious Right activists who want to see Don’t Ask Don’t Tell reinstated.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness recently started the Military Culture Coalition along with other conservative leaders to oppose repeal efforts, denounced Romney for his position of supporting Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in principle but not its reinstatement:

Donnelly questioned Governor Romney's comments to the Des Moines Register, noting that "The military does not work that way. Flawed policies that impose heavy 'complicating features' on the backs of military men and women cannot and should not be switched on and off, depending on the direction of political winds or promises made to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activists of either political party."

She added, "Sound policies that reinforce morale and readiness should be maintained at all times. A long list of what Governor Romney calls 'complicating features' were caused when the 2010 lame-duck Congress voted for Obama's LGBT Law and related policies. Current problems and those yet to come are no more acceptable now than in the midst of a shooting war."

Sandy Rios of Family-Pac and the former head of Concerned Women for America mocked Romney for the “audacity” to say he is more conservative than other candidates while revealing a complete lack of conviction regarding his views on open service in the military:

As the issue of allowing gays to openly serve in the military raged last year, Mitt Romney let it be known he roundly opposed the idea. He was outraged ... incensed. Many conservatives were certain this was the real Mitt revealing himself after years of having to pretend to embrace gay rights as governor of Massachusetts. With this messy business of his position on gay rights out of the way, they could at last breathe a sigh of relief and support the man they thought looked and sounded presidential and had the credentials to turn the economy around.

But now that has all changed. In an interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board last Friday, the former Massachusetts governor explained that it wasn't the concept of having gays openly serve in the military that had troubled him ... only the fact that the change was being made in a time of war. Now that the conflict is over, he would not, as Commander in Chief, do anything to change it.

…

As if to drive his point further, Romney added that Gingrich's "unreliability" hadn't just been 14-15 years ago, but in the last 2-3 years. Yet Mitt Romney's latest leap from conservatism had only taken place a few days prior. What kind of audacity does it take to stand before a news agency editorial board and brag in the face of the evidence that you are the most conservative candidate?

…

One could go further back with Romney's liberal/conservative iterations, but these are current examples which, in the case of gays in the military, goes back not a few years but a few days. Surely it is a quantum leap to assign him the mantle of conservatism in the current race.

Truth and honesty are inconvenient at times, but they are as much a part of conservative values as any position on the economy or national defense. Dishonesty and deceit are basic disqualifiers -- and bend as we may to excuse the inexcusable, in Romney's case, they are very hard to ignore.

Not to be outdone, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association went after Romney and Ron Paul, who voted in favor of repeal last year, calling them “non-starters as candidates”:

If evangelical Christians simply vote their values, there is simply no way they can cast a vote for someone who is in favor of legitimizing homosexual behavior in the military.

In the GOP field, there are just two candidates who support the presence of sexual deviancy in our armed forces: Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Romney told the editorial board of the Des Moines Register last Friday that he is just fine with sexually aberrant behavior in the military.

…

Bottom line: for values-driven voters who claim to be conservative and to draw their values from the Judeo-Christian tradition, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both likely to be - and should be - non-starters as candidates. If a voter only claims to be a social conservative but isn’t one in fact, then a vote for Romney or Paul is not likely to be a problem.

On her radio program on Friday, Janet Mefferd took issue with the idea that Religious Right voters have a "bias" against Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith, insisting that if anyone has a bias against anyone, it is Romney who has a bias against Evangelicals.

Citing Romney's refusal to attend the Thanksgiving Family Forum, Mefferd asserted that Romney is avoiding Religious Right audiences because he doesn't want to have to address questions about his faith. 

She then cited a comment she had posted on her Facebook page suggesting that Romney's Mormon belief that he'll "one day rule [his] own planet as a god" means he thinks he is above having to answer questions while running for President:

I guess if you believe you'll one day rule your own planet as a god, it's irritating to have the little people on earth question your quest to head up a "mere" country. You really have to wonder if his Mormon theology -- work your way to godhood by your own righteousness -- contributes to his lack of interest in being scrutinized.

And then, for good measure, she (again) defended Robert Jeffress who made news for calling Romney a member of a cult:

First of all, if there is any sort of bias - and I keep reading these stories saying the Evangelicals have a religious bias against Mitt Romney - I think Mitt Romney has a bigger bias against Evangelicals then Evangelicals do against him. He won't do interviews. He won't go to forums where they are going to talk about faith. Why not?

I made a comment on Facebook, and I really think there is something to this: if you have a theology that says someday I am going to be righteous enough to be a god and rule over my own planet, then I suppose if you're going to be the leader of the United States, that's a step down and maybe you don't want to be scrutinized? I don't know. I don't know that there is any link there, but for whatever reason, Mitt Romney is really not putting himself out there, he's not reaching out to Evangelicals at all, not that I can see. And I think that needs to be brought up to his campaign and say "you know, Newt Gingrich is willing to go to Evangelicals and talk about his life, and talk about his policies, and talk about his positions." thus far, Mitt Romney has done everything he can to not be scrutinized and to not be asked these questions.

And when the Mormonism issue was brought up by Robert Jeffress saying Mormonism is a cult, what did Mitt Romney do? Oh, Rick Perry you should repudiate that pastor who said that. Well, it wasn't Rick Perry's position, it was Robert Jeffress' position - and it was the right position, as a matter of fact.

Mefferd can't understand why Romney might be reluctant to stand before the Religious Right and answer questions about his faith while she simultaneously mocks Mormon theology and calls it a cult.

I think she just answered her own question.

• Brent Bozell says the protesters at UC Davis “wanted desperately to be pepper-sprayed.”

• Michael Medved crosses conservative activists by pushing for Mitt Romney.

• Even during the economic downturn many Religious Right groups increased their spending.

• Maggie Gallagher explains how to explain your disapproval of marriage equality over Thanksgiving dinner.

• Which of course distracts from the real reason of Thanksgiving…to celebrate capitalism.

One of the strangest recent developments in the GOP presidential race is the insistence from Religious Right leaders who have been hostile to both Mitt Romney and his Mormonism that, should Romney become the Republican nominee, it will be the Left and the Media that will launch bigoted attacks against his faith.

Bryan Fischer has had it out for Romney because he meekly denounced Fischer's unmitigated bigotry at the Values Voter Summit, and Fischer has been warning that a Romney nomination will mean "the end of the Republican party as a political force" ever since.

At the same time, Fischer has also been trying to use Romney's faith against him but struggling to do so without resorting to the open bigotry that is his standard operating procedure because even he knows that blatant anti-Mormon bigotry is not popular among the Religious Right. 

Which explains his latest column, in which he says that Romney refused to attend the Thanksgiving Family Forum because "he did not want to do anything that would highlight the theological gulf between his religious convictions and those of the orthodox Christians on the platform."

But this is really just cover for Fischer to go after Romney's faith by imagining a scenario in which it is the "winger-left media" that will attack "the more unusual aspects of Mormon theology":

One thing conservatives should be mindful of is that even if they hesitate at this stage of the game to talk publicly about the more unusual aspects of Mormon theology, the winger-left media will share no such delicacy should Romney get the nomination.

Should he become the conservative standard-bearer, we will be barraged with stories about the unorthodox theological views of Mitt Romney and the LDS church. The left will make sure America knows that Mormons believe that there is not only a Heavenly Father but a Heavenly Mother, with whom the Heavenly Father sires spirit children.

The left will make sure America knows that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan, as offspring of the Heavenly Father and Mother, are brothers. The left will make sure Americans know that Mormons believe that both Satan and his brother Jesus presented plans of salvation to the Heavenly Father, and that Satan rebelled when the Heavenly Father chose the plan of Jesus.

They won’t hesitate to probe Romney on whether he believes that American Indians are the descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel and whether he believes Jesus visited this continent to appear to them at one point. (Advances in DNA testing have proven that there is no Hebrew lineage among the native American tribes.) He will be probed on whether he believes that Jesus will return to Independence, Missouri, as the LDS church believes, rather than Jerusalem, as the Bible teaches.

So, if Romney secures the nomination, conservatives need to prepare themselves for what will be an all-out theological onslaught from the left on Mitt Romney’s theology. Remember that they were relentless in hounding Michele Bachmann about her theological views on submission in marriage. They were relentless in hounding Attorney General John Ashcroft about his Pentecostal beliefs. They won’t hesitate to bash Romney about the head and shoulders regarding his religious convictions, all in their effort as Ministers of Propaganda for the regime to re-elect Barack Obama.

If Fischer thinks he is fooling anyone with this pathetic charade, he is less self-aware than we ever could have imagined.

Will tea party and Religious Right activists unite in their shared loathing of Mitt Romney? Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation sent an alert to members today pleading with them to support his chosen candidate, Newt Gingrich, over Romney. “If Mitt Romney wins the primaries, the Tea Party has lost,” Phillips writes, “and it does not matter whether it is Obama or Romney who wins the election, as there is very little difference between the two.”

The philosophy of the Tea Party in the primary season can be described in three words. Anybody but Romney. Unfortunately, this is a very bad strategy.

Is Romney now an acceptable candidate?

No! Absolutely not.

…

Seventy to seventy five percent of Republicans want someone other than Romney. That number is higher among Tea Party supporters. Obama’s numbers are tanking so badly that almost any Republican who can fog a mirror is going to be in good shape next year.

But before we get to the general election, we go through the primaries. If Mitt Romney wins the primaries, the Tea Party has lost and it does not matter whether it is Obama or Romney who wins the election, as there is very little difference between the two.

Granted Obama hates America and Romney at least likes America, but beyond that, from a policy standpoint, there is little difference between the two. The number of advisors that worked for both Romney and Obama is stunning, or appalling, depending on your point of view.

Romney gave Massachusetts Romneycare, which has almost bankrupted the state. His spending on welfare programs would make Obama proud and of course, he supported cap and trade and imposed draconian, job-killing environmental regulations on Massachusetts businesses.

We need a President who is committed to ripping socialism out of government, which excludes Romney who wants to grow and manage big government.

…

I encourage everyone in the Tea Party movement to come on board now and join me in supporting Newt for President.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, who was reproached by Romney at the Values Voter Summit, dedicated yesterday’s Focal Point to warning about a potential Romney nomination. AFA’s Michigan leader Gary Glenn already signed his name, along with other Religious Right leaders, on to a letter pleading with GOP voters not to nominate Romney. Fischer argued that Romney’s nomination will mean “the end of the Republican party as a political force” and that he has no chance of defeating Obama as a result of his well-documented flip-flopping and public perception of his Mormon faith:

Coverage of the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit this year was dominated by stories of Robert Jeffress’ criticism of the Mormon faith; Bryan Fischer’s unabashed bigotry; and the infighting that rose to the surface when Bill Bennett rebuked Jeffress and Mitt Romney, tepidly and not by name, denounced Fischer. The press coverage of the Religious Right conference was so completely focused on Jeffress and Fischer that the FRC even asked members to pray that the media will stop reporting on the story.

Today FRC president Tony Perkins used his radio alert today to defend Jeffress, who made it clear that Romney’s Mormon faith was a reason he endorsed his chief rival, Rick Perry. “His rational; all else being equal a Christian leader is to be preferred over a non-Christian,” Perkins said, “I whole heartedly agree.”

Listen:

Do you have the freedom to choose between Christian and a non-Christian candidate? Hello, this is Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Texas pastor Robert Jeffress created a firestorm when he declared at the Values Voter Summit he was voting for Rick Perry because he was a Christian. His rational; all else being equal a Christian leader is to be preferred over a non-Christian. I whole heartedly agree. So did the first justice of the Supreme Court John Jay who said it was in the "interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Many so-called journalists have gone apoplectic claiming such a bigoted position violates article 6 of the Constitution, how absurd. The article reads, “Congress may not require religious tests for an office." The Constitution restricts what the government can require, not what individuals can consider. If voters can consider a candidate's party and that party's platform, they can consider a candidate’s religion and the tenets of that faith. We should prefer mature, qualified Christians for public office over those who reject the orthodox teachings of scripture.

This prompts the question: how would Tony Perkins feel about the competence of a Jewish leader over a Christian one? Perkins and the Religious Right always talk about their Judeo-Christian coalition and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is Jewish, addressed the Values Voter Summit and is seen as a rising star in GOP circles. So much for that.

And would it impact Perkins’ decision in the Republican primary? During the Jeffress spat, Perkins told CNN’s John King that he does not consider Mormons to be Christians: “Well, let me say this, John. I do not see Mormonism as the same as Christianity. Now, whether it’s defined as a cult, I don’t know. I would say it’s not Christianity the way evangelicals view Christianity. There’s a distinction. There’s no question there’s a theological distinction between Mormonism and Christianity.”

If Perkins thinks that Christians should be given preference over non-Christians, and that Mormons are not Christians, is there any difference between his view and Jeffress’ view on Romney’s candidacy?