Religious Right lambastes Romney for not getting involved the Chick-fil-A kerfuffle
Oh, that this would actually weaken social conservative support for Romney. Seems doubtful it will, though, since, no matter how namby-pamby and questionable and not-really-Christian he is in their eyes, he's still not That Man Who's In The White House Now.
Embedded Link
Catholic League Chief ‘Astonished’ By Romney Chick-fil-A Stance
The Romney campaign s decision to duck the Chick-fil-A controversy over gay-marriage appears to have reopened old wounds with social conservatives, who were never fully sold that the former Massachuse…
Google+: View post on Google+
42 view(s)
The choice for the fundamentalistas isn't just Romney or Obama, though. It's Romney, Obama, vote third party, or don't vote. That most of them won't vote for Obama is a given, but that they will vote for Romney doesn't automatically follow from that. One thing really hurting him with this Republican demographic is his own personal religion: fundamentalistas tend not to like or trust Mormons.
I don't know, I think it was a pretty smart move on the part of the Romney campaign to remain mum on the issue. I've also seen no evidence that 'fundamentalists tend not to like or trust Mormons'. Besides, I think Romney's religion isn't a huge deal breaker when compared to giving Obama another term.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/evangelicals_mormons_and_mitt.php?page=all (evidence that fundamentalists don't like Mormonism).
As noted above, this demographic isn't going to vote for Obama. The question is whether they'll vote for Romney versus not voting.
Given the primary season commentary, there's little doubt that there's plenty of mistrust of Mormons among some on the Right. Less than of Obama, sure, but enough I can see some sitting the election out. Counterproductive to their cause, but no less so that Leftwingers who decline to vote for Obama because he's not Liberal enough.
Can I say that, as much as I hate Romney this is just total bullshit. The culture just demands that our candidates and celebrities have some sort of response to freakin' every fleeting news trend.
I disagree. I mean, celebrities, sure, who cares? But political candidates should have, and express, opinions. That more or less is the job they're running for – especially when it's as big a position as the Presidency. A Congressional candidate, for example, can be forgiven for not having strong opinions about things that happened in other states; they're supposed to be focused. But until the US loses a little more influence, the President is global, and yes, I want to know how they feel about everything.
+Kingsley Lintz Frankly, the fact that the latest outrage of the day isn't high on Romney's radar is a point in his favor, as far as I'm concerned.
I'd like to see a candidate say about an issue: "I can see valid arguments on both sides. On balance neither side is persuasive to me. So if elected, I vow to do absolutely nothing about this issue."
Actually, +Kit Malone, there are some fundamental issues in terms of social activism and legal discrimination with the Chick-fil-A case that raise it above simply "the latest outrage of the day" — though, to be fair, there are so many such outrages that it's easy to lose track of them.
+George Wiman, that would, indeed, be refreshing. Too often, politicians (as an extreme of individuals) take up a giving cause more for posturing and political effect than how they actually feel about it.
I actually agree with +Kit Malone on this. I get your point that it contains kernels of what might be true legal discrimination and social activism issues, but I don't think they are truly "real" in this case. It seems to be far more a series of publicity stunts on all sides:
> on the CfA side, a shrewd move to activate what they view as their core customer base, moving to capitalize on the free publicity the vocal opponents provide them.
> on the political side, not much more than simple pandering to constituent bases when they know (or should know) full well that sanctions won't hold constitutional muster since there is no evidence of true discrimination on the part of CfA in employment actions or other protected classes. And as a private company, they can do what they will with their profits — but should know actions have consequences.
So, when it is boiled down, it remains a simple, though currently blown out of all reasonable proportion, "boycott" movement. Customers can vote with their feet when they don't like what a company does with the money they are given.
Along the lines of +George Wiman 's comment, +The Bruce, Mile High, it would have been nice to have heard (maybe prettified a bit) even that much. I disagree that it's not real, but I also agree that pols can't and shouldn't, commentate on everything that occurs. Regardless, they are where they are.
+Kingsley Lintz While I agree with you, it seems that political candidates have to be very careful about which opinions they express. If doing so might result in fewer votes, they will likely remain silent.
Of course, if they stay too quiet, +Scott Randel, then they might lose votes, too. It's almost like they have to be political in their responses to things …
As +Dave Hill recognized, this problem with a core constituency isn't limited to Republicans. Progressives aren't real happy with Obama either. This may be a low-turnout election and/or one in which third party candidates do a lot better than usual. Right now it looks like Obama is probably going to win a second term, but I expect the shit to hit the fan during that second term regarding public protest.