• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Romney Less Popular than Bush

A

Anonymous

Guest
October 1st, 2012


What does it mean for Mitt Romney if he's less popular than George W. Bush ?
By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Here's something that ought to give Camp Romney heartburn.

There's a poll out that finds the Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney, is less popular than George W. Bush.

This Bloomberg News survey shows the former president with a favorability rating of 46% compared to 43% for Romney.

Bush gets an unfavorable rating of 49%. Romney gets 50%.


Bush's favorables are also higher than Joe Biden, Paul Ryan and the Republican Party.

It's well-known that Romney's favorability numbers are lower than President Obama's. Many believe Romney - the mega-rich businessman who once tied his family dog to the roof of his car - just can't connect with a lot of voters; but less popular than George W. Bush?

For starters Romney and his campaign have done everything in their power to try to make Americans forget about George W. Bush and his eight years in office. Romney avoids mentioning the former president's name, and Bush was nowhere to be seen at the GOP Convention in Tampa.

That's because for many Americans Bush's presidency brings back bad memories of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the dismal response of the federal government to Hurricane Katrina, the conditions that allowed the financial crisis of 2008 to happen and on and on.

Just a few months ago a CNN/ORC Poll found Bush to be the least popular living ex-president.

But somehow he still gets higher favorable ratings than the Republican who wants to be president.


Here’s my question to you: What does it mean for Mitt Romney if he's less popular than George W. Bush ?
 

Mike

Well-known member
The media didn't sway me like they did some, but it would be hard to have a higher rating than Bush. No sooner had he got us the "Dot Com" recession 911 hit.

He had a lot on his plate from then out. I think he did an admirable job.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Knowing the new Republican Party's policy of limiting the size of their tent by not wanting anyone that thinks or acts differently than most do- and their fear of anything/anybody different - in glancing over the survey one question really stood out as one of the reasons that Mitt is not liked as much as old GW...

When the survey asked what their feelings were to the Mormon Church- very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable the net results surprising came back with 33% favorable, 27% not favorable and 40% not sure...

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rhMzOK9Gexhs
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Knowing the new Republican Party's policy of limiting the size of their tent by not wanting anyone that thinks or acts differently than most do- and their fear of anything/anybody different - in glancing over the survey one question really stood out as one of the reasons that Mitt is not liked as much as old GW...

When the survey asked what their feelings were to the Mormon Church- very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable the net results surprising came back with 33% favorable, 27% not favorable and 40% not sure...

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rhMzOK9Gexhs

Visit the Lunatic Underground and voice an opinion that differs from their marching orders. You'll see who's got the biggest tent.

As for religion, I suspect it will carry as much weight with voters on election day as your claims of being a conservative carry with posters here.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Mike said:
The media didn't sway me like they did some, but it would be hard to have a higher rating than Bush. No sooner had he got us the "Dot Com" recession 911 hit.

He had a lot on his plate from then out. I think he did an admirable job.

:agree: Plus we didn't have all these terrorists killing Americans either.

And Romney has never served in government office, so how could
anyone know how much they like him at this point? Geez, give the guy
a chance. That's what the libs all said about Obama....give him a chance.
Well, he's had his chance and he screwed up royally. So why not admit
it and give someone else a chance? Romney is no politician and that's
just fine with me. He has a lot of admirable qualities, and he's not
been raised with Communists. Plus he loves America.
:shock: I'll take a "Mormon over a Moron any day." :D
(not that Obama is a moron, really, I just detest his plans for
our country's future).
 

TSR

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Knowing the new Republican Party's policy of limiting the size of their tent by not wanting anyone that thinks or acts differently than most do- and their fear of anything/anybody different - in glancing over the survey one question really stood out as one of the reasons that Mitt is not liked as much as old GW...

When the survey asked what their feelings were to the Mormon Church- very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable the net results surprising came back with 33% favorable, 27% not favorable and 40% not sure...

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rhMzOK9Gexhs

Visit the Lunatic Underground and voice an opinion that differs from their marching orders. You'll see who's got the biggest tent.

As for religion, I suspect it will carry as much weight with voters on election day as your claims of being a conservative carry with posters here.

I disagree WW as religion will carry alot of weight with "some" Rep's and "some" blue dog Dem's. They will be a minority but in a close race they could be very important.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
TSR said:
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Knowing the new Republican Party's policy of limiting the size of their tent by not wanting anyone that thinks or acts differently than most do- and their fear of anything/anybody different - in glancing over the survey one question really stood out as one of the reasons that Mitt is not liked as much as old GW...

When the survey asked what their feelings were to the Mormon Church- very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable the net results surprising came back with 33% favorable, 27% not favorable and 40% not sure...

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rhMzOK9Gexhs

Visit the Lunatic Underground and voice an opinion that differs from their marching orders. You'll see who's got the biggest tent.

As for religion, I suspect it will carry as much weight with voters on election day as your claims of being a conservative carry with posters here.

I disagree WW as religion will carry alot of weight with "some" Rep's and "some" blue dog Dem's. They will be a minority but in a close race they could be very important.

Well, if Romney's religion is such a hurdle to some pubs and some blue dog donks that they hand the presidency to Obama once again, then the country gets what it deserves.
 

TSR

Well-known member
I have to reply to the likeability thing, imo it was the only reason Bush was as close to Gore as he was in the popular vote. Bush was much more likeable than Gore in the debates. Its the same today, Obama is much more likeable than Romney. Romney's only chance--to change that in the debates, if he doesn't, its over.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Mike said:
The media didn't sway me like they did some, but it would be hard to have a higher rating than Bush. No sooner had he got us the "Dot Com" recession 911 hit.

He had a lot on his plate from then out. I think he did an admirable job.

:agree: Plus we didn't have all these terrorists killing Americans either.

And Romney has never served in government office, so how could
anyone know how much they like him at this point?
Geez, give the guy
a chance. That's what the libs all said about Obama....give him a chance.
Well, he's had his chance and he screwed up royally. So why not admit
it and give someone else a chance? Romney is no politician and that's
just fine with me. He has a lot of admirable qualities, and he's not
been raised with Communists. Plus he loves America.
:shock: I'll take a "Mormon over a Moron any day." :D
(not that Obama is a moron, really, I just detest his plans for
our country's future).

So being Governor of a State isn't government office... :???: But I do agree tho--like with Palin it doesn't prepare you for national office or working on an international basis....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Mike said:
The media didn't sway me like they did some, but it would be hard to have a higher rating than Bush. No sooner had he got us the "Dot Com" recession 911 hit.

He had a lot on his plate from then out. I think he did an admirable job.

:agree: Plus we didn't have all these terrorists killing Americans either.

And Romney has never served in government office, so how could
anyone know how much they like him at this point?
Geez, give the guy
a chance. That's what the libs all said about Obama....give him a chance.
Well, he's had his chance and he screwed up royally. So why not admit
it and give someone else a chance? Romney is no politician and that's
just fine with me. He has a lot of admirable qualities, and he's not
been raised with Communists. Plus he loves America.
:shock: I'll take a "Mormon over a Moron any day." :D
(not that Obama is a moron, really, I just detest his plans for
our country's future).

So being Governor of a State isn't government office... :???: But I do agree tho--like with Palin it doesn't prepare you for national office or working on an international basis....

Governor isn't a Federal Office, but with the screwups Buckwheat's made, those couple of years didn't help him either.

Heck, he's even caused Europe to go broke......................... :lol:
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Mike said:
The media didn't sway me like they did some, but it would be hard to have a higher rating than Bush. No sooner had he got us the "Dot Com" recession 911 hit.

He had a lot on his plate from then out. I think he did an admirable job.

:agree: Plus we didn't have all these terrorists killing Americans either.

And Romney has never served in government office, so how could
anyone know how much they like him at this point?
Geez, give the guy
a chance. That's what the libs all said about Obama....give him a chance.
Well, he's had his chance and he screwed up royally. So why not admit
it and give someone else a chance? Romney is no politician and that's
just fine with me. He has a lot of admirable qualities, and he's not
been raised with Communists. Plus he loves America.
:shock: I'll take a "Mormon over a Moron any day." :D
(not that Obama is a moron, really, I just detest his plans for
our country's future).

So being Governor of a State isn't government office... :???: But I do agree tho--like with Palin it doesn't prepare you for national office or working on an international basis....
What was Obama's record to prepare him? Oh yes I forgot he was a community organizer.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Mike said:
The media didn't sway me like they did some, but it would be hard to have a higher rating than Bush. No sooner had he got us the "Dot Com" recession 911 hit.

He had a lot on his plate from then out. I think he did an admirable job.

:agree: Plus we didn't have all these terrorists killing Americans either.

And Romney has never served in government office, so how could
anyone know how much they like him at this point?
Geez, give the guy
a chance. That's what the libs all said about Obama....give him a chance.
Well, he's had his chance and he screwed up royally. So why not admit
it and give someone else a chance? Romney is no politician and that's
just fine with me. He has a lot of admirable qualities, and he's not
been raised with Communists. Plus he loves America.
:shock: I'll take a "Mormon over a Moron any day." :D
(not that Obama is a moron, really, I just detest his plans for
our country's future).

So being Governor of a State isn't government office... :???: But I do agree tho--like with Palin it doesn't prepare you for national office or working on an international basis....

Personally I would take a Governor over a Junior Senator that voted PRESENT more than he did yes or no on a issue. At least the Governor had to make a few decisions and deal with the fall out UNlike Obama who seems to get to blame others for everything. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TSR said:
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Knowing the new Republican Party's policy of limiting the size of their tent by not wanting anyone that thinks or acts differently than most do- and their fear of anything/anybody different - in glancing over the survey one question really stood out as one of the reasons that Mitt is not liked as much as old GW...

When the survey asked what their feelings were to the Mormon Church- very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable the net results surprising came back with 33% favorable, 27% not favorable and 40% not sure...

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rhMzOK9Gexhs

Visit the Lunatic Underground and voice an opinion that differs from their marching orders. You'll see who's got the biggest tent.

As for religion, I suspect it will carry as much weight with voters on election day as your claims of being a conservative carry with posters here.

I disagree WW as religion will carry alot of weight with "some" Rep's and "some" blue dog Dem's. They will be a minority but in a close race they could be very important.


Minister Critical of Romney and 'Mormon Cult' Suggests Third-Party Options
Bill Keller of LivePrayer.com Says Christian Voters Should Avoid Mitt Romney Due to His Faith



By Stoyan Zaimov , Christian Post Reporter
May 2, 2012|3:19 pm


Christian minister Bill Keller of LivePrayer.com, who has frequently spoken out on the so-called dangers of voting for presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney in this year's general election due to his Mormon faith, suggests that the only real option for Christian voters are third-party candidates.
Keller recently compared the choice of voting for Mitt Romney or for President Barack Obama as "flipping a coin where Satan is on both sides."


"How can anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ vote for our current president who in every word and deed has proven to be a true enemy of God on every major spiritual issue of the day," asked Keller, who has been just as critical of Romney and his Mormon faith.

"The Republican choice will be a member of the satanic Mormon cult who will never have to say a word for his cult to take advantage of their ultimate goal since they were founded 200 years ago, and that is to gain mainstream acceptance, giving them all the ammunition they need to aggressively seek converts to their cult's beliefs," Keller said.


Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/minister-critical-of-romney-and-mormon-cult-suggests-third-party-options-74193/#ivwLsfUREtZ0mYcv.99

Rick Perry Endorser Calls Mormonism A ‘Cult’ And Planned Parenthood A ‘Slaughterhouse For The Unborn’
ABC News’ Michael Falcone, Jonathan Karl and Amy Bingham report:

Presidential candidate Rick Perry spoke at the Values Voter Summit, a gathering of hundreds of social conservatives in Washington, on Friday, but the evangelical pastor who introduced him stole the show, sparking a controversy in the process.

It was no ordinary opener from the prominent Southern Baptist Convention leader, Pastor Robert Jeffress, who endorsed Perry on Friday. Jeffress praised Perry for defunding Planned Parenthood in Texas, calling the provider of women’s health and abortion services, “that slaughterhouse for the unborn.”

He also lauded Perry’s “strong commitment to biblical values.”

“Do we want a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric or one who is skilled in leadership? Do we want a candidate who is a conservative out of convenience or one who is a conservative out of deep conviction?” Jeffress said. “Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person — or one who is a born-again follower of the lord Jesus Christ?”

Jeffress called Perry a “genuine follower of Jesus Christ.” The pastor did not mention Perry’s rival Mitt Romney by name, but he told reporters after his remarks on Friday that Mormonism was a “cult.”----------

Friday was not the first time Jeffress, a pastor at a Dallas megachurch, has made disparaging statements about Mormonism.

Back in 2007, Jeffress had this to say about Romney: “Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.”

In 2008, Jeffress asserted that Mormons worship ”false” god and said: “I believe we should always support a Christian over a non-Christian.”



Former Mormon Agrees With Baptist Minister That 'Mormonism Is a 'Cult'


By Allison Summers , Christian Post Reporter
October 10, 2011|10:30 pm

Former Mormon Tricia Erickson agrees with Baptist minister Robert Jeffress' recent comments that Mormonism is a cult, and said she believes the American people do not know what they are in for if they elect Republican presidential nominee and Mormon Mitt Romney into White House."Because the wisdom, judgment and discernment of our president may be crucial to our survival, would it not be prudent to examine his fundamental foundation and beliefs?" asked Erickson in a commentary written for Christiannewstoday.com. "And if his beliefs are distorted, why would it not be critical to our existence to protect our country from being placed in the hands of such a person?"

Jeffress, the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, recently made headlines after telling reporters Friday that Americans should not vote for Romney because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and by doing so they would be "giving support to a cult."


Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/former-mormon-agrees-with-baptist-minister-that-mormonism-is-a-cult-57772/#ZF3iWCiP4RdeeA0L.99

Yep TSR-- and these are just a few of hundreds of articles- many written in Christian publications that are challenging Romney because of his religion...
I agree it may not be a big factor-- but the main bunch it will be a factor with are the base of the Repub party so could be a decision maker...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Evangelicals for Mitt


Why We Support Mitt

Editor’s Note: The summary below is based primarily upon our first support statement, drafted when this site launched in 2006. It holds up well, we think, but since 2006 the case for Mitt Romney has only grown stronger. While EFM believes that cultural issues are — and will remain — central to the life and health of our country, we cannot focus on cultural issues to the exclusion of the very real economic and military challenges we continue to face. While the surge has led to a fragile victory in Iraq, our economy has not fared so well. Between now and the date when Governor Romney decides whether (or not) to pursue the Republican nomination, we will often speak of the “relentless logic” of his candidacy. After all, which (potential) candidate combines his level of proven economic expertise with the right character, temperament, resolve, and commitment to life and the family?

We want a candidate who shares our political and moral values and priorities, can win in 2012, and can govern effectively thereafter by articulating and implementing an intelligent, values-based governing strategy. This is just what Mitt Romney did as governor, this is just what Mitt Romney did in business, and this is what he would do as president.

Governor Romney Shares Our Political & Moral Values

Political and moral values are informed by — but not the same as — one’s religion. That’s why we are not casting our lot with the person whose theology we like most. History shows that to be a poor approach.

For example, in 1980 voters had two choices: a divorced movie actor who did not regularly attend church and was not on good terms with all of his children, and a once-married Southern Baptist whose evangelicalism was at the core of his public identity. Voting on the basis of whose religious doctrine was better would have meant electing the second guy — Jimmy Carter — over the first, Ronald Reagan. Excluding those who don’t hold to orthodox Christianity would also have meant excluding such great Americans as Thomas Jefferson — who denied the divinity of Christ — from positions of authority. But Is anybody going to argue someone else should’ve written the Declaration of Independence?

We need a president who embraces a comprehensive and positive values agenda: standing for the sanctity of life, protecting traditional marriage, defending religious liberty and basic human rights at home and abroad, combating poverty and disease within the world’s poorest communities, fighting for better quality of life for our citizens, and winning the War on Terror.

We need a president who has the right economic values. We too often place the economy and culture in completely separate spheres, content to worry about “social issues” when (and only when) our paychecks are secure. This is exactly the wrong approach. Governor Romney understands that the health of the economy and the health of the family are inextricably intertwined. There can be no long-term prosperity without healthy families, and it is a profound moral problem when we pay for the sins of the present by bankrupting our children

Governor Romney Can Unite the Conservative Movement and Forge a Winning Coalition

If the debacle of 2008 taught us anything, it’s that you cannot abandon the base and win an election. We must unite fiscal and social conservatives within the same tent. We cannot argue over which of the self-described “wings” of the party are most crucial. At its best, the Republican coalition combines a fierce commitment to national security, sound economic conservatism that is responsive to changing economic conditions, and an abiding commitment to life and the family. When this coalition breaks down, when any one of the three “legs” of the stool break, we lose. And lose big. In 2008 we nominated a national security conservative who knew very little about the economy (and was dangerously prone to ineffectual bouts of populist outrage), seemed to enjoy skewering fellow Republicans, and held many religious voters in near-contempt. In the next primary season, we must choose better.

But there’s more than that. Above all else, the president has to lead — he has to be a good executive. Fortunately, Governor Romney has been a leader longer than he has been a politician. Prior to his political career, Governor Romney helped to launch the very successful Bain Capital — which helped launch such successful franchises as Staples and the Sports Authority — and then led a turnaround at Bain Consulting. He also saved the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City which, prior to his leadership, were mired in debt and corruption but subsequently became one of the most successfully-run Games in memory.

And he’s governed in a difficult political environment, too. Massachusetts is the most left-wing state in the union. If you think Bay State Democrats aren’t any different from their Arkansas or Alabama or Tennessee counterparts, try defending traditional marriage or vetoing stem-cell funding up in Boston, as Governor Romney did, and see what they do. But Governor Romney did — in addition to helping turn the economy around, opposing driver’s licenses and in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants, and defending Catholic Charities’ right to restrict adoptions to man-woman couples. No other candidate has a record of such successful, across-the-board conservative leadership—especially on such hostile terrain.

Summing It All Up

Mitt Romney has been a standout conservative governor of a very liberal state. He believes in the traditional family, and he has fought for it — just ask Massachusetts’ pro-family leaders. He’s admitted he was wrong on abortion, and is now solidly pro-life — as his record in Massachusetts testifies. He also opposes embryonic stem cell research’s speculative and open-ended carelessness with human life. He’s shown courage under fire in several challenging situations, and has lived out his values (both publicly and privately) during a time when other Republicans, sadly, have not.

In addition, we challenge our readers — friendly or hostile — to name one national political leader on either side of the aisle with a better record of business and economic leadership than Mitt Romney. We do not know what the economy will be like in 2012, but if it’s anything like it is today, who would you want at the helm? The former community organizer we have today? Or the founder of Bain Capital, the man who rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics, and the Governor who brought a state back from the brink of bankruptcy?

In other words, he’s not just a man evangelicals can support — he’s the best choice for people of faith. It’s not even close.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Why Evangelicals Are Supporting Romney

August 28, 2012 By Timothy Dalrymple


Does evangelical support for Mitt Romney require evangelicals to elevate political partisanship over theological integrity? Does this show that evangelicals are willing to compromise their core theological beliefs in service to their political agenda?

I don’t think so — but some have suggested it does. As the Republican national convention is underway, it’s worth revisiting this issue:

Jonathan Merritt wrote back in early June:


What’s surprising in 2012 is the relative lack of anxiety on the other [non-Mormon] side, among evangelicals who for years considered Mormonism a “cult” that was to be feared, not embraced.

In fact, the relative ambivalence among prominent evangelicals about this new “Mormon moment” — and the fact that Romney’s campaign could mainstream Mormonism right into the Oval Office – could radically shift the dynamics on America’s political and religious landscape.

My friend and Patheos blogger Scot McKnight said that Merritt “nails it.” He goes on: “the evangelical voice has grown strangely silent on Romney’s Mormon faith, and it is for one reason: politics too often matters more.”

I disagree. Conservative evangelicals (progressive evangelicals are another matter, of course) are supporting Romney because they’re showing a measure of political maturity.

First of all, evangelicals like myself who supported Romney throughout the primary know that other evangelicals were hardly holding their fire when it comes to Mitt’s Mormonism. I can’t tell you how many emails and messages I received informing me that Mormonism is a cult and that supporting Romney for the GOP candidacy was doing the devil’s work. Robert Jeffress is commonly cited as the voice of the evangelical extreme on this issue, but while I stringently disagreed with labeling Mormonism a “cult,” what Jeffress articulated at the Values Voters Summit in 2011 was a reasonable position: Given two equally qualified conservatives candidates, one Mormon and the other evangelical, he would prefer an evangelical. But Jeffress made clear even then that, were Romney to win the nomination, he would have Jeffress’ full support over against Barack Obama.

Let’s not forget that some Christian conservatives were so concerned by what looked like the increasingly likely prospect of a Romney presidency that they rallied in a Texas conclave in order to come to a consensus on an alternative to support. While Romney’s representatives were invited, the conclave was a microcosm of the primary, where social conservatives lurched from one bad candidate to another, in search of a Not-Mitt to support.

Once he won the primary, however, was it hypocritical of conservative evangelicals then to support Romney? Are they showing that they care more about the election of a conservative than the salvation of souls?

Of course not. There’s no compelling reason to believe that Mitt’s election would lead more people to convert to Mormonism. George W. Bush did not make Methodism more popular, and Barack Obama has not made the United Church of Christ more popular. There’s no evidence that John F. Kennedy swelled the ranks of the Catholic church, and no one seemed terribly concerned that Joseph Lieberman as Vice President would lead more people to become Jewish.

Granted, you might say, but Mormonism is on the fringe in a way that Methodism and Catholicism are/were not. This would “mainstream” Mormonism, and thus would lead more people to take Mormonism seriously as a religious option. To which I say: So what? Let them learn about Mormonism and make a decision. I’m not afraid of people learning more about Mormonism and its distinctives from historic Christianity. And if Americans learn that Mormons are by and large ordinary and honorable people, that’s a good thing, in my book. Besides, a Mitt Romney presidency is just as likely to turn people off from Mormonism as it is to turn them on to it.

Perhaps evangelicals are supporting Romney because they understand that they’re voting for a President and not a Pontiff. Perhaps they’re supporting Mitt for the Presidency because, you know, they actually think he’d be a better President than Obama. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. While I would be uncomfortable with a satanist in the White House because I do fear that his fundamental values and beliefs would lead him to make decisions I would regard as morally objectionable, I have no reason to believe that the distinctive Mormon christology would lead Romney to make the wrong executive decisions.

Evangelicals are supporting Romney because they’re grownups. Many wanted someone else to win the primary, but evangelicals are not merely mashing their sour grapes. They’re supporting the man who is, by a hundred miles, a far better man for the White House than Barack Obama. We recognize the importance of evicting Obama from the White House; we understand that we’re not endorsing a theologian but electing an executive; and we’re prioritizing issues like protecting the unborn and rebuilding a flourishing economy and culture over having someone in the White House who thinks about the Trinity in the same way we do.

That’s not hypocrisy. It’s maturity.

Romney’s speeches at places like Liberty University have made a difference, as Romney has begun to project the kind of full-orbed vision of American renewal, from its moral and cultural roots to its families and communities and businesses and economy, that conservative evangelicals are eager to support. Obama’s decisions and statements with regard to the HHS mandate and same-sex marriage have only strengthened evangelical support for Romney as well.

In the last analysis, evangelicals find themselves facing in this election just as they have for two generations an inexorable logic: (a) Abortion is the supreme moral issue of our time. (b) The Democratic Party is unequivocally the party of abortion. (c) Electing a Democrat (even a pro-life one, which Obama is not) is strengthening the party of abortion and prolonging the abortion regime in America. (d) Ergo, the only hope for serious progress on the abortion issue is in electing Republicans.

But it’s not only the abortion issue. On many issues, Romney gives conservative evangelicals the best chance for progress. When you consider the fact that he is also a man of extraordinary personal integrity, even more remarkable intelligence and competency, and an extremely successful business leader with precisely the kind of economic experience this country needs, there’s no question why conservative evangelicals would support Romney: because they’re not stupid.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Pub base voter: Let's see, Obama the Islam-loving anti-American and his disastrous policies which have saddled the country with debt as far as the eye can see, or Romney and his "cultist" Morman religion?

Yeah, I'll take Obama.

:lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Christians Must Vote for Mitt Romney
Friday, 11 May 2012 09:27 AM

By Cynthia Dunbar

Newt Gingrich’s exit from the Republican presidential primary last Wednesday left voters with clear battle lines. Americans are confronted with the choice between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

With that in mind, I find it inconceivable that any evangelical could still act as though there is any choice left about which candidate to support.

As a seasoned political activist who has fought in the trenches against impossible odds for righteous public policy, I am saddened by the division within our alleged “Christian” ranks.

Jesus taught that a house divided cannot stand (Mark 3:25). If we, as the corporate body of Christ, are going to be effective in the culture war in which we find ourselves, we must be shrewd as serpents (Matthew 10:16).

In this election year, we find ourselves with only three realistic courses of action:

Don’t vote;
Vote for Obama; or
Vote for Romney.
However, as Christians, we cannot with good conscience abstain from voting. After all, Christ has called us to take the gospel as a testimony to the nations (Matthew 24:14).

It is critical to note that he specifically said it is to be a testimony to “nations” and not merely “people.” This means we are mandated to not only evangelize the individual people, but also to apply the gospel to every aspect of our nation, including its government.

Additionally, Christ called us to be salt and light to a lost and dying world (Matthew 5:13-16). Consequently, these admonitions don’t afford us the luxury of simply “sitting this one out.”

I have heard it characterized by some as though the American people are once again faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils. However, I do not find this to be an accurate assessment.

I would like to suggest that evil is not an entity; it is an absence. As cold can only be defined as the absence of heat, and darkness the absence of light, then, likewise, evil is the absence of Christ.

Consequently, our political choice is not between two evils; rather it is between which man’s policies align more closely with the teachings of Christ than the other man’s. When you judge the fruit of each candidate’s policies according to their political adherence to the word of God, which we know to be Christ himself (John 1:1), then our course of action becomes imminently clear.

It is crucial that we, as the corporate body of Christ, act cohesively in supporting the clear tenets of scripture in order that we may sway the course of our nation into its calling as a city set on a hill, a beacon of hope to the nations.

This was the understanding, vision, and effectiveness behind the Founding Fathers of our nation.

For evangelicals, this election, like every election, is so much more than mere partisan politics. It is about choosing the candidate who most closely aligns his policies with what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “primitive principles of Christianity” or what C.S. Lewis spoke of as “mere Christianity.”

Only when nations align with the most basic teachings of the Bible concerning the appropriate authority, function, and policy of civil government can righteousness be established. After all, we know that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to all people (Proverbs 14:34).

Sin, promulgated through governmental public policy, is allowed to exist only when God’s people are either ignorant of the standards for civil government established in God’s word or refuse to speak up and hold our governing authorities accountable to those standards.
Cynthia Dunbar


I fear Christians today may be guilty of both.

Unfortunately, to make either mistake is a sin and causes a blight upon our land. The righteous and biblical principles of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of family and marriage, and the uncompromising support for the nation of Israel unquestionably must be upheld!

In every election, the person who most closely aligns with these positions is the person who must receive the unanimous support of devout, Bible-believing Christians.

Admittedly, while neither candidate perfectly aligns with these positions, as no candidate ever does, there is still an obvious demarcation. This demarcation is so obvious that I shouldn’t even need to say which candidate Bible-believing Christians must support.

However, just to make sure there is absolutely no confusion, there remains only one option if Christians are going to vote according to scripture and not politics, and that option is Mitt Romney.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Christians Must Vote for Mitt Romney
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
 
Top