One thing became clear talking to conservative Republican voters while traveling with Mike Huckabee in eastern Iowa this week: Concern about Mitt Romney's Mormon faith is real.
Some, like Larry Michael, a retired Marine living in Vinton, Iowa, say they're unlikely to caucus for Romney because they fear others might hold Romney's faith against him: "Sad to say, it works against him," Michael said. "Huckabee's a Christian. No problem there."
He was undoubtedly referring to voters like Glenda Gehrke, a retired church receptionist from Evansdale, Iowa, who said of Romney: "He may have the right values. But Islamic terrorists probably have the right values, according to some people. They're probably against abortion and against gay marriage. But we wouldn't vote for them, would we?"
Gerhke told Huckabee: "This country and this world needs a president who would be able to pray to the God of the Bible and He would be able to hear his prayers and we would have that protection over this country. I'm concerned that Mitt Romney, most Christians believe that is a cult, and would his prayers ever even get through?"
Huckabee, wisely, told Gehrke: "I'm gonna leave that to Mitt Romney."
While some reporters were agog at Gehrke's remarks, most voters at the Cedar Falls event didn't bat an eye. How widespread feelings like Gehrke's are is hard to say, but Michael's concerns seemed pretty typical.
I am a conservative Christian in the northwest, and I am shocked and saddened by the ignorance out there. Who knew this kind of suspicion and intolerance existed in our country? Romney's values are stellar and his qualifications are impressive. Yet we may be denied the services of this good man because some can't see past where he chooses to worship. Saying Romney's prayers may not "get through" is presumptuous. What is the matter with these people?!
Posted by: Brenda | November 09, 2007 at 07:44 PM
Interesting that Huckabee is now embrasing faith the way that the MSM was baiting Romney to do.
Talk about loading up a shotgun. This whole thing is going to backfire on Huck.
When it comes right down to it, there will always be disagreement over religion. There always has, and there always will.
Interesting to me that this exchange casts light on the misinformation out there and people's reluctance to find out from the source what is true and what is junk. A casual observer of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS will quickly observe that one of the main tenants of that faith is its fierce tolerance and acceptance of other religions and other people's faith choices.
Too bad so many on the 'religious right' are too busy telling mormons that they're 'going to hell' instead of engaging in a meaningful exchange of beliefs leading toward mutual understanding. By the way, understanding does not equal acceptance - not in the least.
Mitt is the most presidential candidate in the race. He's running a superb campaign. He's lined up the key support and endorsements necessary to lead in ALL of the early states. All I can say is that if Mitt pulls this off and is the nominee - I'll sleep very comfortably at night. I wish I could say that about the rest of the GOP field...
Posted by: Jeff | November 10, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Mitt Romney doesn't have a chance at all to win the presidency. If you want to check out a real candidate with real values, check out Hillary Clinton. You won't be disappointed.
Posted by: Vote for Hillary Online | November 10, 2007 at 06:37 PM
Well, if we're not careful, while all this arguing and posturing about religion is going on Ron Paul is going to do a tuck and run manuever and dash to the finish line. And that's exactly what needs to happen. Yeah I know I 'm not sitting in the "Dr. No" fan club but I see this religion rhetoric dragging the party across the coals. And it's getting hot in here.. I am a believer, Christian conservative....and I choose to look at the solutions as the "Dr" does. The religion card is old and tired. The new religion is Success. and its more needed now than ever. The only thing about Paul is really noone WANTS to be bothered with his answers to America's problem....the "we'll just hire some help for that mess" mentality is whats killing America. ALL the hard work has not been done. Freedom has a price EVERDAY.
Posted by: paige | November 10, 2007 at 07:49 PM
what was I thinking......it is clear this blog is full of "learning" journalist that are being taught the craft of biased reporting...they have also graciously decided who the most important candidates are for us....wasn't that sweet?
Posted by: paige | November 10, 2007 at 07:57 PM
Our freedom is based on our freedom of religion its our constutional right and how can these people hold that against Mitt Romney I live in Utah but I am not a mormon, I am a bapatist, so I believe that we need to overlook the religion part of it and look and see what he has done in the past and give him a fair chance.
Posted by: Jim | November 11, 2007 at 10:04 AM
I would like to comment about Mitt on these 3 things;
1) Romney's values are stellar and his qualifications are impressive.- posted by Brenda
2) Mitt is the most presidential candidate- by Jeff
3) casual observer of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS will quickly observe that one of the main tenants of that faith is its fierce tolerance and acceptance of other religions and other people's faith choices.-also by Jeff
1*Brenda, Mitt is a flip-flopper extraordinaire, as Gov of Mass, he was pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, now he's against, how convenient. And as a vet(US Air Force, 1973-79), I would consider myself a failure as a father, if I had raised 5 strapping young sons & none (not even one)had ever served in the military. I question his commitment to this Country & to Midwest values like; God, Country, Family, Hard work. As an elite, he raised his sons in like manner, I hold that against him, when kids are dying in Iraq & Afghanistan, his kids didn't stand up, even my pastor's kid up & joined the US Army, & just got back from Iraq.
2* Jeff,just because you can talk in front of a TV camera, don't make you presidential, then Fred Thompson's gonna win hands down. As a flip-flopper, what does Mitt stand for? and will he stand for it tomorrow or even if he gets elected, what will he stand for then?
3* Jeff, I would believe that statement, if mormons didn't send thousands of kids every year as missionaries, if they were really that tolerant, they would let people discover Mormonism on their own, only via their TV commercials, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir & free copies of the Book of Mormon
Posted by: WildBlue | November 12, 2007 at 01:51 AM
Just re-reading 1 comment by Jim, & felt I should dissect it, then comment;
1) Our freedom is based on our freedom of religion its our constutional right
2) and how can these people hold that against Mitt Romney
3) I live in Utah but I am not a mormon, I am a bapatist,
4) so I believe that we need to overlook the religion part of it
5) and look and see what he has done in the past and give him a fair chance.
1* while many of the early settlers left England & France to avoid religious persecution, our rights flow from the idea that we, as humans have unalienable rights; namely, life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. all other documents were meant to safeguard those via laws, limits on government actions, division of powers, and the understanding that neither man nor State was perfect. 'Freedom of religion' is just 1 part of the 1st Amendment, of our Bill of Rights.
2* I think we can judge people in part by the beliefs they hold dear (both good & bad), because as adults, we can make our own faith choices & that tells us a little about the person, its a puzzle piece, that we fit in our hopefully whole picture of the person we must remember, these people are putting themselves out on the open marketplace, saying "VOTE FOR ME", so we get to poke, pinch, smell & get a taste-test before we commit to one over the other candidate. if freedom of religion is so high up your list, Jim would you vote for Mitt, if he was a voodoo priest or a satanist? all other things being equal?
3* I'm not sure what a 'bapatist' is, I hope its like a 'berean' that tests everything against the Scriptures. Nonetheless, what does living in Utah & not being a mormon have to do with anything? are you implying that you know many mormons & they can be trusted? then say it.
4* since the Republican Party has for over 40 years stood for values, I'm less inclined to vote for Mitt because of his flip-flopping & the fact that none of his boys enlisted, I met mormons in the service, so I know it ain't church, its the up-bringing & that tells me a lot more about him, that I don't like. See McCain or even Jim Webb, both Senators had boys that enlisted, I value that on both sides of the political aisle, more that to which party they align themselves with, since to me, they have raised their boys to believe in this Country enough, to possibly die for it in this time of war, this Country was founded by people willing to fight for & defend ideals that it stood for, ideals that I espouse & served for, and still believe in.
5* give him a chance? flip-flopper that he is? at least Guiliani stands by his choices, & is running on his record, Mitt ran away from all his; pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage
Mitt has 3 pluses; he ran a successful co, rescued the SLC Winter Olympics Committee & served as gov of Mass. those are 3 strong pluses, in politics, we have only his record in Mass as an indicator, what does it say about the man? to me that he's a competant executive, but a political chameleon
thats where McCain, Guiliani & Huckabee do alright by me, though I lean for Huckabee, & McCain a close 2nd
Posted by: WildBlue | November 12, 2007 at 02:41 PM
WildBlue:
Romney did change his position on abortion and regrets his former position. He never advocated gay marriage but was and is for equal rights for gays in jobs, housing, etc. I don’t know enough about the gun issue yet.
His sons served as missionaries. As a non-Mormon, you will never understand what this entails. Nonetheless, let me try. They gave up their lives for two years, went to parts of the world that they did not choose and learned the language. They did not watch TV, movies, listen to rock, stay up late, sleep in, or call their girlfriends. Other than a few hours a week to do laundry or buy groceries, they worked non-stop. These young men come home better disciplined and prepared for college, careers, and to be better husbands and fathers. And they did this at their own expense. A by-product of these missions is the spread of goodwill towards America into homes all over the world. I know this because my three sons served as missionaries in remote, poverty-stricken countries and I am very proud of them. No, it’s not physically as dangerous as the military, but my oldest son walked down streets in Mexico where the police would not go. I know of a missionary in that area who ended up with a knife in his head. Why does the LDS church send out missionaries? The answer is Matt. 28:19-20.
We owe everything to our military. My father and brother are veterans. I don’t attempt to compare a soldier to a missionary, but don’t discount the valuable service of either.
Posted by: Brenda | November 12, 2007 at 03:00 PM
Brenda: Not sure how McClatchy feels about quoting the competition on its own blog, but here are a few excerpts from the Boston Globe, check links for the full articles:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/14/romney_retreats_on_gun_control/
Romney retreats on gun control
Ex-governor woos Republican votes
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | January 14, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/19/romney_joined_nra_in_august/
Romney joined NRA in August
Was advocate of gun control
By David Abel, Globe Staff | February 19, 2007
Posted by: WildBlue | November 12, 2007 at 03:34 PM
Brenda: I'd like to comment on these 2;
1)His sons served as missionaries. As a non-Mormon, you will never understand what this entails. Nonetheless, let me try. They gave up their lives for two years, went to parts of the world that they did not choose and learned the language.
2) We owe everything to our military. My father and brother are veterans. I don’t attempt to compare a soldier to a missionary, but don’t discount the valuable service of either.
1* the Peace Corps also sends people out to strange & foreign lands, I am not impressed, LDS inculcates that as a duty to your church, but what about a duty to your Country? which brings me to:
2* being Mormons did not stop your Father & Brother from joining the service, what stopped Mitt's kids?
I could see that if Mitt had had only 1 boy, he would have still brought him up patriotic, and dissuading him from joining the service, but 5 boys? not one in the service? I question their up-bringing, because to me, they were brought up to be elites, people who have no concept of war, duty, honor, or real sacrifice
these kids were brought up to lead Fortune 500 co's, but not for sacrificing other peoples' sons & daughters in wars, whilst theirs are all nice & comfy in the home front
you don't make good life or death decisions that way, life if not a video game where you have 10 lives, where you can get up again & start fighting after being killed off
Posted by: WildBlue | November 12, 2007 at 04:06 PM
Brenda: is the only reason you would vote for Mitt, because you are both mormon? or because he shares values you trust? why? I'm a Midwesterner that moved out to California as a teen, most of my friends & family, (& extended in-law families) have kids in the military, I value that as a barometer of core values
I have a keen distrust of elites or people that think they are too good for us little guy, average joe-types.
and as a side note, I feel that the military should be made up of all kinds of people, not just rural kids, Southerners, Blacks & Hispanics
a Country where only a few share the sacrifice of the many; may not be a Country worth dying for in the future, I think that’s what happened to Rome, they let the mercenaries guard them, then they turned on them, namely the Ostrogoths, Vandals, Visigoths, Franks, Saxons, etc... In history it was called “the Fall of Rome”
read the book:
AWOL
The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service -- and How It Hurts Our Country
By Kathy Roth-Douquet, Frank Schaeffer
http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780060888596
read this commentary against:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed080207c.cfm
a small excerpt:
August 2, 2007
Examination of 'Elites' and the Military AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service—and How It Hurts Our Country.
by Tim Kane, Ph.D.
read this commentary for:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,102491,00.html
Nation's Elite AWOL From Military
Joe Galloway | June 23, 2006
A new book expands on a familiar subject: the absence of America's elite and its governing class -- and their children -- from the ranks of our nation's military.
Both authors believe that the answer lies not in drafting America's young people into service but in asking them to serve, challenging them to serve, asking them to take an ownership of freedom and democracy that, in the case of many of the elite, their parents weren't willing to accept.
As Roth-Douquet told me: If the military life could turn around a dyed-in-the-wool East Coast liberal like her, there must be something there that makes all the sacrifices worthwhile.
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
Read the book
Posted by: WildBlue | November 12, 2007 at 05:40 PM