Despite comprising about 7 percent of the state’s population, they made up more than one-quarter of the GOP caucus electorate, and entrance polls showed Romney winning a stunning 95 percent of their vote.

In other words, half of Romney’s vote in Nevada came from fellow Mormons, and he could have won the state’s caucuses even if he hadn’t gotten a single vote from anyone else.

Because Mormons vote in unison and because they turn out in large numbers, a state like Nevada is virtually impossible for any of Romney’s opponents to win.

OK, forgive me, I only majored in chemistry and minored in mathematics so I might not be as good as this as a political reporter at the Washington Post but let’s assume 100 votes in the caucus.  25% of those votes are Mormon and 95% of those are going to vote for Romney.  That’s 22 votes.  But last polls in Nevada had Gingrich at 25% – or in our model 25 votes.  So how precisely does Romney win if only Mormons vote for him?  And then, all those non-Mormon votes that Romney just gave up are gong to land somewhere.

And what about that canard that “Mormons vote in unison?” The most quoted Mormon pundit this cycle is Joanna Brooks.  She has risen to the defense of Mormonism many times, but she also is not afraid to take it head-on, and I could be wrong, but a Romney vote is not likely from her.  Mormons in Nevada, all 140,000 of them may vote more or less in lockstep, but in California, or urban Utah – I’m not buying it.  Will the majority of Mormons vote for Romney?  Sure, but not in lockstep.

What is all this really?  Just an attempt to paint Mormons as a creepy cult.  Obviously any large group that would be that single-minded would be both creepy and cultic.  (Unless of course you are a knee jerk liberal, in which case spouting the “party line” is just reasonable.)  The latest raft of stories that attempt to be balanced by calling all the Mormon attention a “mixed blessing (LA Times) or wearing out the alliterative “Mormon Moment” meme (Politico) by their very nature make Mormons seem “odd” because they have to be explained.  I am sure Lowell could cite any number of misunderstandings and misrepresentations in these pieces, but I am concerned that the very existence of these articles, even if correct, has a subliminal effect.

There are also attacks that are far less that subtle.  Dana Milbank writes about a cousin Romney has never met that has some “issues” to say the least.  Here is the funny part:

This isn’t necessarily bad news for Mitt Romney. In most cases, family antics are more embarrassing than politically damaging. And the emergence of a “crazy cousin” might remind voters that Romney, a candidate who too often comes across as programmed, is just like the rest of us.

In other words, “This isn’t really news, but I just spent a whole column on it reminding you that Romney is a Mormon and some people don’t like that.”  I don’t know what’s worse, that people write such transparent drivel or that a significant number of people fail to see through it.

In the meantime, Romney has come out hard defending the Catholic Church against the latest assault by the Obama administration in an op-ed.  Coverage here, highlights here, full text here.  But there remains a messaging problem.  This is only making it through the conservative outlets.  (The left-leaning outlets have their own truly misleading spin.)  The MSM just is not covering the issue left, right or center.

Romney alone has a big enough profile currently to push this issue onto the front pages.  Should he do so?  I am sure many are thinking that since this is a part of the larger issue of Obamacare that handling that issue will handle this one.  True enough.  However, it is not all about the issue.  Romney, as the frontrunner and presumptive nominee, needs to begin his efforts to unite Republicans.   Getting loud and proud about this issue can go a long way to accomplishing that.  Not to mention it is the perfect opportunity for Romney to get indignant – something that a lot of voters seem to want to see.  To borrow some papal language – This ruling is anathema – it is worthy of strong emotion.  Romney has said “It’s not worth getting angry about.”  There is wisdom in that – anger often clouds judgement, but somethings are so heinous that they are repulsive and they deserve a visceral response.   This is one of them.

Vic Lundquist at Mitt Romney Central wrote yesterday about how many people of very serious, non-Mormon Christian faith are supporting Romney.  It’s an impressive list.  But it needs to expand.  The ruling by HHS is the perfect open door for Romney to move from being the Mormon candidate to the candidate of faith.  For some of us he has been that for a while, but a lot of people still need to get the message.  The op-ed is a great start, but unless Romney pushes hard on this – really, really hard – it will languish within the wide circle that is his supporters.  That circle needs to grow for the general.

Lowell adds . . .

Romney as the candidate of faith is an interesting idea. I agree that he should step forward as a faith-friendly, but at this point in the race he should not try to out-Santorum rick Santorum. I think the time will come when people of faith (well, most of them) will turn to Romney as their guy.

What does seem clear is that Romney himself is the one who decides on his message and the language he will use:

“There are a lot of people who make suggestions to the governor and provide drafts to him, but the governor uses a heavy red pencil” in his speeches, said spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. “Everything that he says — whether it’s at a news conference, a debate, or a formal speech — flows from his own pen. He is ultimately his own speechwriter.”

For his own reasons (at which I can only guess) Gov. Romney has taken a very measured approach to discussions about faith.  I can’t say that I blame him, since he can’t say anything right about that subject in the eyes of so many people, including prominently the MSM that filters and repackages his statements.

Even on the conservative side there is constant niggling about what Romney says, as is evident in Stephen F. Hayes’ latest explanation of why Romney makes conservatives nervous.  Predictably, Hayes concludes his piece wishing Romney were more like someone else.  At least this time it’s a living person, Marco Rubio, and not Ronald Reagan, who never made mistakes or misstatements and was consistently and reliably conservative on every issue. (Insert eye-rolling smiley face here.)

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Speaking to supporters on Monday, Gingrich was defiant. Enraged by Romney’s “dishonest” television ads, he pledged to stay in the hunt until the convention, almost out of spite.

[...]

Indeed, as Romney said tonight, addressing his cheering supporters, “a competitive primary does not divide us, it prepares us.” If he’s right, Florida will have been a tumultuous stepping stone. If not, his negative ads, along with Gingrich’s barbs, may be only the start of an extended, bitter battle.

But a wounded animal tends to lash out and not exercise strategery.  Consider this tweet from an obvious Newt supporter:

This is why I can’t stand Mitt and a lot of his supporters…they are whine like a toddles and have the same level of self awareness of one.

COPY EDITOR!  Honestly, I thought I was bad at typing and spelling (Thank you Lowell!).  Anyway, we spent all last week looking at Gingrich’s total lack of self-awareness among his many other character flaws.  Fortunately, people are not bears.  When wounded they lash out, and they lash out with the increased vigor of an adrenaline rush.  But such adrenaline rushes also tend to block out the higher functions of the cerebral cortex.  Thus we get, “I know I am, but what are you.”  If this is what we have to worry about from a wounded Team Gingrich, I have better things to worry about.

Such as…

Mitt Romney may have taken his opposition to sound bit heaven to this morning.  He did an interview with CNN, from which a single sentence has been excerpted and is already being tweeted and facebooked and spread throughout the land:

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it.”

Now, it’ll be interesting to watch this.  Romney is, of course, talking on a policy level, not a personal concern level.  But that doesn’t undo the damage such a quote can inflict.  I also think that is a much more potent weapon in the general than it is now.  So, will it be held in check or will its power be wasted by Team Gingrich?

Whatever, Team Romney needs to get on this fast and hard or else “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” is going to join “I was for the 47 billion before I was against it,” in the pantheon of killer sound bites.

Of Course, It’s Nonsense…

The benevolence of the Mormon Chruch should be more renown than it is, but nobody wants to pay attention to the good stuff about the LDS.  A South Carolina professor has now studied the vote out of that state and found that religion played a significant role.  Well shucks, we know that – and the results out of Florida confirmed it.  But people suspicious of Romney’s faith are running out of places to go.  Friend David French pointed out in a special piece for CNN that Evangelicals will soon be abandoning Gingrich in droves:

But they also understand that we don’t discard our core values for the sake of political victories. Fidelity, honesty, humility and charity matter.

No one doubts that God forgives, but only God knows Newt Gingrich’s heart.  We only know his actions, and we know that he has a history of deceiving even those who are closest to him.

Three other Republican candidates are anti-abortion. Three other Republican candidates have been faithful and honest in their personal and professional lives. With honest alternatives to choose from, evangelicals will soon abandon Gingrich.

Santorum is a good man that deserves a better shot than he has received, too late now.  Paul is a good man, but a political looney tune.  They have no place to go but to Romney.

A lot of people are worried about a divided Republican base, fortunately…

The Left Will Unite Us

The really no longer relevant NYTimes has been carrying a series of blog posts about Mormonism.  They have many ominous titles:

• A Male Dominated World
• Can a Candidate be Too Perfect?
• It May Look Good on Paper
• What Is It About Mormons?
• Mormon’s Double Legacy

My favorite is the horror movie title sounding, There is a Dark Side To Mormonism.  (Can you hear the organ sting?)  These are all far-left hits pieces about Mormon being “anti-gay” or believing that the sexes are actually, you know, different from one another.  This is all stuff we conventional Christians hold very much in common with Mormons.  I believe come the general election, given this kind of attack, we will see our similarities more than our differences.

Besides, according to the left we are all crazy:

Coming this spring: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science — and Reality by Chris Mooney.

Of course.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

John McCain made some comments about what role it make have played in South Carolina.

“We haven’t had time to do a real analysis of the Romney race in South Carolina, but once we break that down, there was some element of anti-Mormonism in that vote,” McCain asserted. “I’m not saying all of it, but there were elements there. There was nothing that Mitt Romney could have done.”

Well gee Senator, why not just read this blog – we had that figured out last Monday morning.  Of course, the Aussies agree with us.  But as a lengthy CNN blog post notes, Evangelicals are quite different in different regions:

Conservative Christian activist Ralph Reed has called the Bible Belt home for decades, but he grew up in Miami in the 1970s, when the city was emerging as a diverse megalopolis.

Among his middle school friends were Jews, Catholics and Methodists.

Then, at age 15, Reed’s family relocated to the sleepy mountain town of Toccoa, Georgia, so his dad, a doctor, could take a better-paying job.

“It was very conservative,” says Reed, who now lives outside Atlanta. “At first – as would be true of any 15-year-old – I didn’t like it. I think it was a culture shock.”

Ultimately, the mostly evangelical residents of Toccoa shaped Reed’s faith, helping lead him to Jesus in his 20s. But in terms of his faith-based organizing, the well-known activist drew more on his experiences in hyper-diverse Miami.

“Later on in life, when I became a leader in the Christian Coalition, I had a greater appreciation [for] ethnic and religious diversification,” Reed says.

I am reminded of Lowell’s comments on how Utah Mormons are often quite different than Mormons in other parts of the country and especially in urban areas.  Had I a degree in sociology and political science it would be an interesting study to try and figure out if the whole divide is a urban/rural thing more than a religious thing, or if those things could even be separated?  Maybe its a three-way thing – rural Evangelicals-rural Mormons-urban people united in faith?  I don’t know, but it would be an interesting study.  Besides, I thought liberals ruled the urban areas?  They most certainly know how to get nasty on this point.

Remember our old “friend” at Slate, Jacob Weisberg with “the founding whoppers of Mormonism“?   Well, Slate is back with an explanation of Mormon belief concerning the afterlife, under the headline:

What’s Hell Like for Mormons?
No man on Earth can understand it.

No, there’s no snark there, none at all.  The sheer lack of respect such a headline conveys requires a Christian of any stripe to stand up and object.  I mean, even if I don’t agree with the Mormon view, mere civility – a Christian virtue – demands that I point out their lack of civility and defend the victims of it.

The general is not going to be any fun at all.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

A South Carolina paper and CNN look at Evangelicals in South Carolina that are going out of their way to support Mitt Romney.  Says the NYTimes:

Four years ago, Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith was a point of considerable concern, if not contention, for many Republican voters in South Carolina, a state where many voters are evangelical Christians and one that is known for its bare-knuckled politics.

With two days until this year’s South Carolina’s primary, the issue of Mr. Romney’s faith has not vanished, though it is not nearly as prevalent as it was in 2008.

That’s very true and it is very heartening to read stories out of South Carolina about people that are reasonable, because not all of them are:

A prominent South Carolina evangelical endorsed Rick Santorum on Wednesday, and slammed Mitt Romney for his Mormon faith.

The criticism from the Rev. Huey Mills, the head of the South Carolina Association of Christian Schools, is the must public attack on Romney’s religion in the state so far.

“My attitude is first ‘anybody but Romney,’ and second, ‘let’s get Santorum elected,’ said Mills, whose organization includes 85 schools in South Carolina. Mills told The Hill that Mormonism is a “cult” and said he could never vote for Romney partly because he is a Mormon.

That’s really unfortunate, particularly when Santorum is coming under fire for his Catholicism.  Any campaign has way too many adherents for the campaign to respond to stupid statement by any one of them; however, given the circumstances, and the fact that this made an outlet as prestigious as “The Hill” I think it would behoove the Santorum campaign to issue a statement along the lines of,  “We welcome the support of all people, as especially the support of those that agree with us on crucial social issues.  This includes the Reverend Huey Mills.  However, this candidate and his campaign do not agree with the statement made by Rev. Mills regarding the Mormon church, nor do we find such rhetoric is appropriate for this or any campaign.”

But back to the positive stuff.  There is much being written about Romney’s donations to the LDS church.  Much of the coverage is trying to make it look sinister, both by the nature of the transactions and by the fact that they went to that particular church.  I view these donations as nothing but good news.  To have a candidate this extraordinarily generous is something this nation sorely needs.  To have a candidate that understands that people can care for each other when they have the resources better than the government can may be the most vital element of this election cycle.

And as things turn out, I am not alone in my distaste for last weekends confab of “Evangelical leaders.”  Jeffrey Weiss asks an interesting question:

But beyond the politics, this is an unusual opportunity to see whether the people the media reports usually describe as “conservative Christian leaders” are actual leaders. No question that some of the attendees at the weekend event were well-known spokesmen. And that they get quoted plenty.

But how many people do they actually lead?

If the polling is any judge (and Weiss contends it is) not many.  David Neff points out:

I believe that Christians have an urgent duty to engage the social, economic, and moral threats to a healthy society. That requires a wide variety of political action. However, one thing it doesn’t call for is playing kingmaker and powerbroker.

By conspiring to throw their weight behind a single evangelical-friendly candidate, they fed the widespread perception that evangelicalism’s main identifying feature is right-wing political activism focused on abortion and homosexuality….

I am jealous for the reputation of evangelical Christians.

I don’t agree with everything Neff says, but he has a point in there.  Such actions do identify the church as a political instrument instead of a spiritual one , and it can, and in this case probably has, tarred the reputation of us all.  And conservative pollster Dr. David Hill kicks things up a notch:

My critique of the religious leaders in the GOP today, dare we call them the Pharisees, is that they are doing more to hurt the cause of the Kingdom of God than they seem to recognize. Personally, I think the greatest public affront to the Trinity is the many divisions we see in the Body of Christ — the church. And as I have reflected on the history of those divisions, going back to the earliest centuries of the church’s development, the splits most often occur at moments when political and religious people and policies become intertwined to foster disunity. Today’s Pharisees need to re-read John 17:21 and grasp the importance of oneness: “I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one — as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.” As long as Christ followers are divided by lesser issues, like who deserves the GOP nomination, why would unbelievers be turned around?

[...]

Make no mistake about the Pharisees’ strategies, though: This anti-Romney stuff is more theological jihad than ideological critique. But if mainline Christians cannot even agree on the nature of the last days and afterlife, how do they credibly progress to a political posture critiquing Mormon Christology? Matthew 7:3 says it well of hypocrisy: “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own?” I doubt the extra-biblical notion of purgatory that Catholics such as Santorum and Gingrich presumably endorse. Should I therefore publicly and stridently oppose their nomination because they might encourage others to believe in purgatory? Heaven forbid.

That deserves a hearty “AMEN!”

There, I have cleansed my intellectual palate.  Have a great day.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

See, here is the thing – Artillery is best to prepare the battlefield, but once the armies are engaged it can harm your troops as much as the opposition.  And speaking of artillery, that brings me to the subject of TV ads.  There is so much written about them – we lavish attention on them as if they are the sole means in which the average voter is influenced.  And yet, in this age most voters can get on the internet and see all that discussion about ads, and fact-checking, and spin and….  Not to mention TV ain’t what it used to be in terms of viewership.  With all the options on cable you can now target your base much more effectively, but I truly wonder if TV is the heavy artillery it used to be.  Come voting time it is not the base you need to reach.

What’s more, it is looking increasingly like the Romney troops on the battlefield are an M1 Abrams on a WWI trench field – sort of rolling over everything and too tough for any of the fire it is taking to be effective.  Consider all the polling data, and discussion of polling data in places like here – here – here – here – here and here.  Nate Silver who spends a lot of time looking at polls says:

I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say that Mr. Romney has a 98 percent chance of winning the nomination. But the odds attributed to him by the betting market Intrade, which now gives him a 90 percent chance, may if anything be too conservative.

It is going to take a lot of “fire” to deal with something like that.

The fact that even with their much vaunted meeting to “settle” on a candidate, Evangelicals (at least as the press defines them) cannot seem to get their act together is also contributing to the apparent inevitability of a Romney nomination.  Many “Evangelicals” are spreading out like wildfire to say they are still for someone besides Santorum.  Despite appearances, there is even a Catholic/Protestant dust-up over the meeting itself.  You can read more coverage here – here – here – here and here.  Two key factors at play here.  One is the Evangelicals are not, nor have they ever been, the monolithic demographic that pundits and political consultants want them to be.  Secondly; however, is that much of this is driven by a need amongst some in the Evangelical community to attract attention to themselves.  I could step up in the pulpit over this second observation, but will resist the temptation

Most astonishing of the Evangelical spread out’s was the silly man himself – Robert Jeffress on Hugh Hewitt:

HH: Well said. Twilight’s Last Gleaming. Now let’s get to practical politics. There was a big meeting in Texas this weekend. I talked to Tony Perkins about it.

RJ: Right.

HH: You took a pass.

RJ: I did. We had a representative from our church there, and I respect what they’re doing. And I’ve said consistently that Christians ought to have a higher standard than William Buckley. You know, he had his doctrine we ought to elect the most conservative candidate who’s electable. I’ve been saying, Hugh, we ought to look for the most consistently conservative Christian with character. And you know, I think Mitt Romney’s nomination is inevitable. I said on MSNBC Saturday the fat lady hasn’t sung, but she’s in the green room warming up. You know, so, but I think, but still, we have an opportunity, maybe, to select somebody else. If it’s Mitt Romney? Look, in November, we may have to hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils. [Emphasis added]

Romney’s “inevitability” is becoming a theme in a lot of coverage.  So what to make of the “Mormon Question?”  Some are still working hard on it.  I think there is a lot of insight here:

It’s become reflexive for social-conservative voters to insist that Mormonism isn’t an issue, that it’s Romney’s record of flip-flops and Massachusetts’ individual insurance mandates, but polls tell us that evangelical Christians don’t trust Mormons. To ignore the religion issue is like ignoring President Obama’s race. No one who cares what other people think would admit to caring that Obama is (sort of) Black, but there are still a lot of bigots in the world. To declare that we live in a post-racial world because we’ve had black men and women serve in the most sensitive and important cabinet posts, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the United States Supreme Court and in the White House is just absurd. Race matters.

And religion matters.

It shouldn’t – but it does.  It’s all in how you play it.  Race was played in the last election – defensively – and it has a lot to do with how Obama won – it imparted a certain teflon quality to him.  Religion will not play that way.  Open opposition against religion is too plain.  As one insightful Mormon points out:

Liberals, not evangelicals, will have the bigger problem with Mormonism

When you see the likes of Robert Jeffress talking about Romney inevitability, even with the cracks about “lesser of evils” and “holding noses” you have to think that observation is very true.  It is interesting that as the President tries to look more religious, others are lining up to attack all religion.  There is some pretty ugly stuff out there (warning some of these links feature very offensive advertising).  It is going to take a lot of energy on the part of ALL religious people to overcome this onslaught.  We have to get over “holding our noses” and become enthusiastic if we are to prevail in the war.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

• WaPo has a photo album.
• Newsday says, “Be Vewy vewy quiet….”
• The NYTime goes theological.
• Saturday, we mentioned Bob Jones University – yesterday CNN could not get what they wanted out of Bob Jones III.

But Romney is not alone.  The long knives are also out against Santorum.

The facts on the ground; however, remain largely unchanged.  Nationally, Romney’s polling is looking better and better.  And even a paper as left wing as the LATimes has figured out that those in the stop-Romney camp are not really to force they think they are.

More as it develops.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

South Carolina has clearly changed.  Evangelicals cannot make up your mind(?!), but the polling seems to indicate the voters are well on their way to doing so.   Things get personal and the voters make it clear it is time to unite.  We seem to be able to get it together on issues, so why all the sturm und drang when it comes to picking a POTUS nominee?  Why do we still see things that try to help but don’t help – like this.

It seems like the voters have figured out what the apparent Evangelical political leadership cannot.  Those leaders went and picked Santorum to hoist their banner yesterday.  Now, don’t get me wrong – I like Santorum.  In point of fact Santorum is probably closer to me on a whole host of issues than Romney – but this is not about who looks like me – this is about who can win and move the ball closer to my goals.  Unlike some of the other goofs in this thing, should Santorum somehow prevail, I would not have to hold my nose to cast my vote in the general – but at this point it seems pretty apparent he is not going to prevail – So, “What’s up ‘Evangelical Leaders’?”

Even The Left Has It Figured Out

They have a Romney book coming out.  Here’s all you really need to know:

Mitt Romney‘s business career, faith, family and 2008 presidential campaign get a closer look in “The Real Romney,” a book coming out Tuesday on the GOP front-runner by Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman.

If it is from Globe reporters, you can bet it’s a hit piece.  As the WSJ look just link reveals – its thesis is not reportage, but finding fault.  And despite the fact it does not come out until Wednesday, the advance copies littered about the pundit class are giving them all sorts of ammo.  WaPo hit hard and Maureen Dowd went low, even for her:

Romney’s religion pulls a curtain over parts of his life story because some important moments for Mormons are restricted to Mormons. After Mitt and Ann were married in Michigan in 1969, they flew to the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City for a ceremony where Mitt wore white robes and they were “sealed” for eternity. But Ann’s parents were not Mormon, so they were not allowed inside to see it.

Oh yeah, and they are warming up the racism knives too.  It seems apparent that the left has also figured out that they will be facing Mitt Romney in the fall, and they are preparing for war.

And So, “Evangelical Leaders”…

…there is little left to say.  We have said over and over and over again on this blog, but apparently you have chosen to ignore it.  I have no rhetoric left.  This video is dedicated to you.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The event here was to focus on veterans and patriotism, but one woman who came to see Mitt Romney this evening wanted to ask him a personal question, she said.

“Do you believe in the divine saving grace of Jesus Christ?”

Murmurs went through the packed room, before Romney, a Mormon, responded: “Yes I do.”

The crowd applauded.

I guess some people never learn.

The Cheapest Mormon Shot Ever! This piece from The Daily Caller.  The headline contains the words “Mitt Romney’s underwear,” but the only mention of Romney in the piece concerns some of his activities in college and trying to draw lame comparisons to Obama’s refusal to discuss his deeply socialistic roots from his university days.

Biggest Outrage on the Mormon Front To Date – Either Campaign! From the Pages of World Magazine:

It’s not because of his Mormon religion that Bible believers are wary of the candidate. That was so 2008. They’re over it. After three years of Barack Obama, having a Mormon in the White House doesn’t look so bad to them.

Evangelicals are wary because they are looking for a reliable conservative to replace the sitting president, not someone who will cut deals with Democrats, Massachusetts-style. They want someone who will take the side of the unborn, support biblical and traditional marriage, and preserve what remains of our moral environment. They want a champion who will reign in government spending, cut the debt, and free up business to get the economic engine turning again.

That’s World Magazine friends, founded by Joel Belz – author of the “Mormons lie” meme. And “It’s not because of his Mormon religion!”  Now, who’s lying?  Just askin’.

Cagey! Richard Land’s comments from yesterday that for some, Romney “was not Mormon enough,” have been widely reported.  But they need to be read in context:

A leading Southern Baptist figure predicted Friday that Christian conservative leaders won’t rally around an alternative to Mitt Romney until after next week’s South Carolina primary, while warning that the former Massachusetts governor is “not Mormon enough” for most socially conservative voters.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said during a newsmaker interview on C-SPAN that evangelical leaders hope that the Palmetto State primary Jan. 21 will whittle down the GOP presidential field and make it clear whether they should rally around Romney rivals Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry before Florida’s primary later this month.

Dr. Land does not endorse candidates, ever.  But I sure have run into him at a lot of Romney events.  So what happens if so-called “Christian conservatives”  (I’m Christian and I’m conservative, but that is a discussion for another time)  don’t rally around an alternative until after South Carolina?  Think about it.

Same Old Same Old. CBS punches it’s Mormon ticket.

Speaking of Forked Tongues! “Mormons are racists, I just know it, and the fact that Romney appeared at Bob Jones University in 2007 is proof.” (paraphrase)  Romney’s not dropping by BJU this campaign, proving he has an Evangelical problem.  (BJU is Fundamentalist, not Evangelical, but the press never could tell the difference.)  So, was he racist and now he’s not?  Does that mean he is still a Mormon?  I guess this just proves that the left-leaning MSM cannot keep their stories straight.

So, what to conclude? I think this National Journal headline hits it on the nose – “The Stars Align for Romney in a Changed South Carolina“  Yep, anytime the situation is this confused, your watching desperation moves.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

There’s no more time for talking about stopping Mitt Romney. We’re going to do it next week in South Carolina or he’s almost certain to be the Republican nominee, whether conservatives like us want it or not. It’s up to you, right now.

Combine that with:

A near-panic has taken hold among some core conservative activists, who are now scrambling to devise a strategy to deny Mitt Romney the Republican presidential nomination.

Newt Gingrich, and “core conservative activists” are no longer running for POTUS, they are running simply to STOP ROMNEY!  Why?  You can talk RINO and flip-flop all you want, but come on.  The Mitt train has a pretty big head of steam – politically the smart move might be to get on board and try to affect its course.  Trying to stop it will just damage you and the train.

Unless, of course, your motivation is about something other than your issue agenda.  In which case you are playing directly into the left’s hands – see below.

Back to the original post…

What “uptick?” you ask.  Why the uptick in Mormon coverage, of course.  Let’s start with Chris Cillizza:

But, as the campaign shifts to South Carolina, Romney faces by far his toughest electoral test. That much has become cemented — or maybe congealed — as conventional wisdom.

There’s been much less exploration of why South Carolina is so tough for Romney, however. That’s where we come in. There are two data points that make the case pretty convincingly.

First, South Carolina’s electorate is simply less friendly for Romney than either Iowa or New Hampshire.

Exit polling from the votes earlier this year showed that 57 percent of Iowa Republican caucus-goers considered themselves “born again/evangelicals”; just 22 percent of New Hampshire GOP primary participants said they were “born again/evangelical”.

In exit polling from the 2008 South Carolina primary, 60 percent of primary voters said they were evangelicals and Romney won just 11 percent of their votes — below the 15 percent he got statewide. (Among non-born agains, Romney took 20 percent — overperforming his statewide number.)

Evangelical voters have long been Romney’s most difficult voting bloc within the Republican electorate due, almost certainly, to born agains skeptical (at best) view of Mormonism.

The electorate in South Carolina is not only more stocked with evangelical voters than Iowa or New Hampshire but it’s also at least as conservative.

In 2008, 69 percent of Republican primary voters said they were either very or somewhat conservative. In New Hampshire in 2012, just 53 percent of primary voters described themselves that way; in Iowa the number was 83 percent but remember that the definition of conservative in Iowa is likely different (and less conservative) than it is in South Carolina.

That’s “press speak” for “Evangelicals are pretty bigoted about this stuff, but they are too slippery to just say so.”  South Carolina is the land of the political dirty trick, especially when it comes to religion.  Remember last time:

In South Carolina, many Republicans received bogus Christmas cards, purporting to be from the Romney family, that cited controversial passages from the Book of Mormon. Others received an eight-page anonymous document that described Mormonism as a religion built on hoaxes and compared founder Joseph Smith to the Prophet Mohammed. An e-mail circulated among Republicans, urging them to “trust your instincts” about Mormonism: “Those dark suspicions you hide deep inside yourself about Mormonism are trying to tell you something.”

Lowell adds . . .

It’s Friday so I hope I’ll be forgiven for some light-heartedness. I saw this, and figured it had some real potential as a Gingrich campaign graphic:

If I had any Photoshop skills I’d insert Newt’s face.

But seriously, here are the latest Rasmussen numbers for South Carolina:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters in South Carolina findsRomney ahead with 28% support, but now former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in second place with 21% of the vote.  Support for former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum who was in second a week ago has fallen back to 16%, putting him dead even with Texas Congressman Ron Paul who also earns 16%.

Viewed together with John’s analysis above, these are fascinating numbers. In the brief interview excerpt shown at Rasmussen’s site, the pollster says his data show that the most powerful factor for conservative voters in South Carolina is the candidate’s ability to beat President Obama in the general election. Elsewhere, Scott Rasmussen himself does a little deeper dive into the data:

The conventional wisdom suggests that tea party supporters have a “my way or the highway” attitude and Establishment Republicans just want a winner, but the data shows that the opposite is true.

Looking ahead to the Florida primary, 94 percent of tea party Republicans say they will vote for whomever wins the GOP nomination. Only 77 percent of non-tea party Republicans are willing to make the same pledge. This commitment to party loyalty comes even though tea party activists are less convinced than others that Romney is the strongest general election candidate. Similar results have been found in survey after survey in the 2012 primary season.

If he’s right, and the desire to beat Obama overpowers voters’ jitters over Romeny’s Mormonism, that’s a positive sign.

And finally: Gallup says “Mitt Romney has widest lead to date in GOP race.”

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The Good News!

SCOTUS Unanimous for Religious Freedom

Romney won the evangelical vote in New Hampshire, Pew poll finds – and yet…

The Bad News

Campaign against Romney’s Mormon Faith Could Get “Nastier” – just about EVERYBODY expects such in South Carolina – consider…

From the Washington Post:

South Carolina’s less visible politics are often darker than even the brutal attack ads that are running out in the open. Tompkins [ed note: Warren Tompkins, Romney’s strategist in the state} refused to address just what the campaign would do in the face of surreptitious attacks on Romney’s Mormon faith. His team has already sent out mailers emphasizing that he’s been steady in his faith. It’s a contrast with Gingrich, who recently converted to Catholicism.

“We just have to be prepared for anything and everything and be disciplined with the message and how to cut through the misinformation,” Tompkins said.

Asked if he was prepared for a whisper campaign about his Mormon religion or other aspects of his background, Romney said: “Politics ain’t bean bags and I know it’s going to get tough and no one’s going to be happy if things are said that are untrue. But I know that is sometimes part of the underbelly of politics.”

Not to mention bad puns from ABC – “Psalm Before the Storm as S.C. Evangelicals Get Set”

So here’s my question – if the Bain attacks are helping the Obama campaign, does getting braggadocios about South Carolina, which will clearly suffer some sort of religious effect, reflect a reliance on religious bigotry and does that reflect on the candidate’s character?

Lowell adds . . .

John’s right, the Pew poll about the Evangelical vote in New Hampshire is good news. Looking closely at the numbers, however, suggests that there may be a greater Evangelical impact in South Carolina. In New Hampshire Romney won 39% of all voters and 31% of Evangelical voters.  Rick Santorum had 9% of all voters and 23% of Evangelicals.  Only Romney had more voters in the Evangelical column.  Interestingly, Ron Paul was right behind Santorum with 21% in that voter group.  If Evangelicals in South Carolina break down along the same lines, Romney wins.  If they don’t, the race there could be very tight.  I wish my crystal ball worked better….

Regarding the general election and the expected tactics of Romney’s left-of-center opponents, I would love to be wrong, but I also think Patrick Mason’s comments (John links to them above) will turn out to be prophetic:

“Certainly they’ll pick up on the history of polygamy,” Mason told American News Report. “They’ll say that Mormonism is anti-democratic, that’s its hierarchical, that’s its patriarchal. There will probably be stuff that it discriminates against women, that it has a history of discrimination against blacks, that it’s homophobic. I think those are the kind of critiques that we’ll see from the secular left. But those are people who weren’t going to vote for Romney anyway.”

No, they won’t ever vote for Romney but what will the impact of those attacks be on the independent voters who hold the key to the election?

Meanwhile, Fox News reports that a Pew survey also suggests that my fellow Mormons believe the country is ready to elect a president who’s a member of our church. Randall Balmer, a Columbia professor and expert on American religious history who’s quoted in the story, seems to have captured the essence of what’s ahead:

A nearly unanimous number (97 percent) of Mormons surveyed describe themselves as Christian. But a Pew survey in November showed one-third of non-Mormon U.S. adults said Mormonism is not Christian, and 17 percent were unsure.

“Mormons think they’re more fully mainstream than other Americans think they are,” Balmer said. “I don’t question their status in American society but there are vestigial prejudices against Mormons, particularly from Conservative Evangelicals.”

But Balmer asserts that the Iowa caucuses, where Romney placed first, may be a barometer for Evangelical voting in 2012. “Many evangelicals were willing to set aside principle for pragmatism for a candidate who has the best chance of winning against President Obama.”

(Emphasis added.)  Setting aside “principle for pragmatism?” I think Balmer may be right about how Evangelical voters will decide; I hope so, anyway.   But I’m not sure I would state it the same way.   Is voting for someone based primarily on his or her religious beliefs really exercising religious principle, or is it simply confusing secular and religious issues?

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.