It really is about religion ...
 

Barbara has posted a reasonable explanation on why people don't relate to Romney, but even at this juncture in New Hampshire Romney cannot escape questions about his religion:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7893971

A majority of voters will not vote for Romney because he is Mormon and for no other reason!

Then Mormons should leave and form their own country to show the bigots what we think of them.

We're big on complaining things aren't fair, but we never do anything about it. Perhaps we need to be more tribal and react the way the Jewish community reacts.

I don't doubt that there is *some* anti-LDS sentiment laced in, but IMO my good LDS friends shouldn't get too hung up on the religion aspect.

In Iowa the EVs voted for Huckabee, but not comprehensively. The difference between Huckabee's & Romney's support among the EV vote was interesting - Mitt got 20-something percent of the EV crowd (or something roughly equivalent)

As for Romney's attractiveness as candidate overall, it looks like he's not well regarded by the other candidates (which isn't so unusual for a front-runner), and his liabilities - particularly the changing positions - is a big problem, as all the easy shots from other candidates yesterday showed.

Mitt spent a ton of money in Iowa - I'd guess there may have been some backlash against the wealthy (apparently) trying to buy a victory was a part, as well.

Those issues don't appear to be religion-related at all.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7751.html

Just a friendly suggestion here. How about Mormons reflecting a little on why they seem so freaky to those outside the faith? They could learn something from all this. Waxing defensive and self-righteous is rarely a path to increased wisdom. (As we've discussed, rejecting a candidate for his religiuos faith is not ipso facto imoral. In fact, many Mormons are themselves repelled by Huckabee on the same grounds.)

Agreed. How many pro-Huckabee message boards have seen threads stating their unbelief that people would reject his ads with religious symbols in the background?

Yes. Where you stand depends a great deal on where you sit. We would all be very skeptical of a scientologist candidate , for example. I admit I would be, based on what I know about that faith. I think Huckabee saying he is the "Christian" candidate is offensive, but it is a fair area of inquiry.

Wow, that's one voter they quoted there. Hardly representative nor a majority.

I don't doubt that there exist voters who will not look past his religion. However, I think Romney's real challenge is that he alienates the average Midwest/Southern voter with his lack of charisma, his tremendous wealth, and even his intellect. It's fine to be smart, but you've got to play the part of the regular guy. Look at Obama. He's by any account incredibly intelligent. But he's not afraid to lower his diction and even take on a vernacular accent when necessary. It's fine to be wealthy, but you've got to pretend you're not. Look at Edwards. Tremendously affluent, yet spends all his time talking about saw mills. I honestly don't think Romney's interested in playing the part of the game where you pretend you're an average American. The truth is, the average American just plain doesn't run for president, so you've got an uphill battle convincing us you're one of "us." But if you want to connect with the voters, you've gotta try.

I briefly watched part of the dem debate last night. He made reference to splitting his time time between watching the GOP debate and the football game.

I don't think that's a comment Romney would make.

In other words, I think Obama can make himself appear to be able to relate to ordinary middle-class Americans. Romney can't.

Exactly. But frankly, it's not just Obama. Pretty much all of the remaining candidates are finding ways to connect with the middle class, just not Romney.

Your avatar seems to be trying to find a way to connect with me.

I've never known a Mormon who was so wealthy, so privileged, that he couldn't connect to average people. Of course, I've always run in ghetto Mormon circles, so my opinion doesn't count for much.

The guy was a stake president, assigned to motivate and inspire normal people. I would have expected him to be able to communicate better to average people.

Romney just isn't a guy whom you want to lead your platoon into battle. You want him on the backlines running the logistics support.

There are ghetto Mormons?

Of course there are. Not every Mormon is an accountant from Utah, living in the Burbs with 5 kids.

If you are not in a family-friendly suburb with good schools, there is a good chance your ward will be full of ghetto Mormons. A mix of uneducated blue collar, retired folks, immigrant Hispanics, young families of professionals (who will move to the suburbs before the oldest kid is 5), homeschoolers. And then you have the actual poor. The ones who live in ghetto apt. complexes, barely make ends meet, frequently get assistance from the Bishop, work dead-end jobs, and have no education and little in the way of life-skills.

This is the kind of congregation I attend.

ahhh, I see. Here I thought you meant ghetto Mormons were the ones who settle for entry-level Lexus SUVs instead of the loaded model. kee hee!

Regarding your earlier note on the avatar, I tried to change it to a really hot guy yesterday, but I got an error that said "file too large." What's up with that?? Well, I suppose it figures you and Arch would rig it so users can upload "large" women but not "large" men. ;-)

You actually make a good point here. Mormons ought perhaps to consider how we appear to others with the idea in mind that perhaps change may be good. Instead, I hear us quoting that scripture about us being "peculiar." Which, in case anybody didn't know it already, does not, and was never supposed to mean "strange" or "odd" in that scripture.

At the same time, there is a difference between Huckabee and Romney on their approach to religion. Romney is trying to show, to those people that insist on bringing it up, that his religion is not going to be a detriment should he be elected. Huckabee is practically using religion as his campaign slogan. A vote for Huck is a vote for Jesus. And evangelicals are eating it up.

Huckabee is using his religion because he can. Romney doesn't have that luxury. Romney is nothing if not an opportunist. There is no doubt that if Romney were able to leverage his religion to his advantage, he'd be doing it like no other.

This isn't exactly right. Romney in the Speech played up is belief in Christ and advocacy of religious symbolism in public places. Most notoriously, he said freedom needs religion. He chose to pander to the religious right, trying to demonstrate he's like them. In my opinion he's now paying the price for such mendacity.

I am not portraying an attitude of victim hood, rather expressing my dismay at the reality of the whole situation ... 1 in 5 evangelicals voted for Romney ... 30% or more of voters have stated they will not vote for a Mormon and not because of 'those issues' as you call them.

It’s a sad day in America when such bigotry is left unchecked.

This is silly. Grow up. You need to learn the meaning of bigotry. People choose their beliefs. They make a decision to believe as they do, and those with courage of their convictions should be clear eyed about the consequences of their beliefs. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "I won't vote for anyone to lead this country who claims to believe that stuff." There's nothing wrong with it. I bet you have said you wouldn't vote for an atheist. That's fine too.

Romney has no ability to not be an opportunist. Mormons are opportunists. It's how we are. Buying furniture at any RC Willey around the state on free hot dog day is a harrowing experience just trying to get through the front doors.

Your post is wonderfully ironic ... in one breath you criticize what you HOPE is the chruch's effort to appear more mainstream and then here you sincerely plead with the church to change?!

The reality is Mormons are not freaky ... Mormons do not need to change ... Americans in general are ignorant and NEED to change!

Bigotry of any kind must not be tolerated.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070514.gif

Please quit it with the persecution complex. Crazy beliefs about invisible zombies in the sky are just as valid in judging a candidate as are crazy beliefs about anything else. Unless you would happily vote for a scientologist, a wiccan, or a pastafarian you have no right to claim bigotry.

The condescension in your post only further proves how ignorant you truly are … oh the irony. You shun and have turned away from Mormonism in large part because you are embarrassed by it … and who needs to grow up?

This is priceless. I'm going to assume he's kidding.

bigotry - noun - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

A rather broad, but accurate definition of those who won't vote on Romney based on his religion alone. I don't have a problem if someone won't vote for him because he's a Mormon, but I don't think they should get some kind of free pass for it either; however, it's not big enough of a deal to get worked up over it.

I rejected the beliefs, as your post impliclty recogizes (if I thought they were credible or sublime I wouldn't be embarrassed by them). I do think they are embarrasing. But that's a subsidiary point. You would be free to vote against me for president because of this with no offense taken by me.

It's not my fault you are coward who lacks conviction and can only attack a person instead of engage his/her ideas. I'm not going to shy away and condone the bigotry. I am going to point at it and continue to stand up for what I believe despite your desire to belittle and censure.

The reality is we cannot rationalize this discussion into an issue of personal freedoms ... that is cowardice. It needs to be labled what it is -bigotry. Where in fact the man is not even given an opportunity to be voted against because of his religion. There is no freedom of choice, the decision is already made.

I can't even count the wrong statements in there.

Look, here's the point. Bigotry connotes prejudice. Prejudice denotes an irrational unwillingness to engage with or examine an idea before passing judgment. I have engaged with Mormonism and have found it wanting. I'm not bigoted against Mormonism any more than I'm bigoted against a flat earth or flogiston.

Now I'm wrong? How exactly ... lol ... you can't carry on a conversation without definatively stating you are right and someone else is wrong. Think about that woot ... think about it.

And Don't change definitions now that you have been challenged -Il padrino posted the definition -go look at it.

You shunned Mormonism due to fear and cowardice. Own up to it -don't try to make your decision appear as something more.

You mean like this?:

I really hope you realize how little sense you are making. The only fear involved in shunning Mormonism for me was how my wife, entire family, and all my friends would handle it. Why is "cowardice" the default assumption of so many on the Right? Suicide bombers are always "cowards," for instance. I'm guessing that the term is used only because it's insulting, not because it actually means anything.

Also, I'm well aware of the definition of "bigotry," but as discussed before, under the dictionary's definition every single person is bigoted about 99.9% of everything and the term loses all meaning. The dictionary does not define words, it only reflects popular usage. Please explain how you're using it so that it means something other than simple disagreement.

I have to agree with you there. That does fit under the same broad definition.

Please explain why the onus should be on Mormonism to change? Also please explain this contradictory position considering your continued criticism for actions you have deemed as changing to appear more mainstream?

Better yet, nut up and call a spade a spade -it's bigotry in all instances and should not be tolerated.

I don't think Mormonism needs to pander to Babylon. Bad move.

I was trying to take you serious until I read that. I haven't finished reading the entire thread to know if that was tongue-in-cheek or not.

The problem is I am making perfect sense and it vexes you. You want this discussion to be about me -so that you can belittle and hopefully make your self feel better about yourself. I want this discussion to be about bigotry. Interesting difference isn't there?

No really, you're not making any sense. In this case, because you ignored my inquiries about bigotry and tried to make this about you while claiming I'm trying to make it about you and not bigotry.

I don't care if Mormonism changes, just as I don't care if any other religion changes. There is nothing that any religion could do to make me think that they base their doctrines on reason. That shouldn't be an insult, as that's the point of religion. Many find comfort in that; I don't. That I reject Mormonism doesn't make me a bigot any more than rejecting atheism makes you a bigot. You just keep throwing that word around as if it's the ultimate insult without even realizing what it means.

You really believe the world is better off if it is full of people who endeavor to conform? I hope you won't let your desire to put tooblue in place overwhelm your generally open minded attitude ;)

The arrogance of your attitude is comenserate with the attitude of what the world has come to know as the Ugly American.

All I said is Mormons should reflect on why they are unpopular. Look, I give Waters points at least for consistently. He says Mormons should be indifferent to worldly opinion. My advice is for people like you and Mitt Romney who seem to think it matters or care whether the world likes you for your beliefs.

You attacked me from the get go. Your intent was not to engage my idea but to tell me what a fool I am. It's that simple.