An Open Letter to the Romney Skeptics

Dear Mitt Romney skeptics, and especially my fellow evangelicals,

Do you remember how it felt when the economy began to implode in those anxious, waning months of 2008?  We were coming down to the wire in the election contest, and the candidates we had to choose between were Barack Obama and John McCain.  Given the choices, of course, I supported McCain.  I still think he would have made a far better President than Obama has proven to be.

But as the very foundations of the American economy were shaking and falling away beneath our feet, and we faced the very real possibility of a Second Great Depression, how desperately I wished that Mitt Romney had emerged from the primary as the champion of the GOP.  The presiding President and his party took the heat for the financial crisis, and McCain worsened the situation when his actions and statements inspired no confidence in his stability and expertise on economic matters.  The election turned in Obama’s favor when he gave the impression of solidity and strength in the economic crisis.

Romney, however, had something Obama couldn’t even begin to claim: a brilliantly successful career in the private sector, and a world of experience specifically in the financial sector, where our most intractable problems lay.  Between McCain and Romney, Romney was touted by the conservative commentariat as the conservative option, and I remember feeling as though the liberal media, independents and even some Democrats who were able to vote in primaries had shoehorned John McCain onto the GOP ticket.  If Romney had been at the top of the ticket instead, I still believe we would have avoided the lamentable Obama Presidency; compared to a business titan, Obama would have looked like the inexperienced pretender that he was, and he could not have stood up to Romney’s economic expertise in the debates.

Well, we’re still in the midst of an incredible mess as a country.  Our financial house is in shambles.  Tax reform, regulatory reform, streamlining government, changes to our energy and immigration policies, will all help.  But the character of the American people, the moral substructure that provides the necessary, nurturing environment for our democratic free market, has also disintegrated.  Our problem is not merely political; it is also cultural.  We need to rediscover the virtues of the free market, and we also need to rediscover the economic virtues.  That is, on the one hand, we need a President who understands how companies grow and flourish, who understands how the economy works and what provides the predictability and clarity and the space for innovation that the market demands; and on the other hand, we need someone whose personal integrity and whose socio-political principles will strengthen the family, enrich the workforce, and restore our collective commitment to responsibility and initiative, stewardship and thrift, diligence and creativity.

Yesterday I wrote a response to some common misconceptions about Romney and his candidacy.  Next week, I’ll address at greater length some other objections to Romney in greater detail.  Please subscribe or follow on Facebook or Twitter.  I cannot, in this one letter, get too far into the weeds, parse everything Romney has said on the environment, or etc.  The purpose of this letter is simply to set forth, in broad outlines, why I think Romney’s the right guy for America.  The Presidency is a position of enormously important economic, global and moral leadership.  In all three of those areas, I firmly believe that Mitt Romney is the leader we need.  He also, not coincidentally, stands the best chance of defeating Barack Obama — and if there’s one thing conservatives agree upon right now, it’s the profound importance of installing new leadership.  As the country staggers toward decline, we need someone who can pick us up, rally the American people behind a positive and hopeful vision, and deploy all of his intelligence and experience and skill to move us toward a better future.

Mitt Romney Part 1: Economic and Global Leadership

Those who know him personally attest, without exception, that Romney is an extraordinarily intelligent, boundlessly competent, and thoroughly hard-working man.  He built a towering reputation in the business world, accomplished a near-miraculous turnaround of the Salt Lake City Olympics (which was mired in scandal and red ink and on the verge of collapsing), and took an extremely liberal state (Massachusetts) that was deeply in debt and restored it to fiscal health and a budget surplus in the course of four years.

In the business world, Romney specialized in turning around failing companies, and he did so with great success.  Sometimes, yes, that means eliminating jobs — but you eliminate jobs in order to avoid eliminating entire companies and all the jobs they provide.  You make companies more profitable, more competitive, and thus more sustainable.  You eliminate jobs now so that you can keep paying the salaries of those who remain, and ideally add more jobs again later.  In other words, sometimes the most pro-jobs thing you can do is cut a job that allows a company to survive.  Romney’s experience in executive management, and in the financial and investment sector, are precisely what we need right now, when we are faced with enormous managerial challenges in reforming the government and its entitlement programs and enormous economic challenges in rebuilding a thriving private sector and restoring the millions of new jobs it should be producing each year.

36 economists, recently asked to rate Obama’s performance on the economy, rated him mostly “poor” and “fair.”  Asked which of the Republican candidates would be best, two-thirds chose Romney, one chose Gingrich, and the others gave no response.  In other words, of the leading economists who offered their thoughts on who could best turn around the American economy, 24 out of 25 chose Romney.  This is not just happenstance.  Romney knows the economy through and through — and everything our government offers, from the most basic services and social safety nets all the way to military and national defense, depends upon a thriving economy.  The business community will welcome the news of a Romney presidency, and it’s easy to see why when you take a look at Romney’s economic plan — a marvel of creative, pro-growth economic conservatism.  If you haven’t read it, you really should.   I’m particularly encouraged that we could have a President who understands the financial sector, since so much of our fate is now tied together with the financial giants.  Romney is the best prepared to rebuild a thriving, job-producing economy.

On matters of foreign policy, Romney’s positions are consistently conservative, consistently show a solid appreciation of America’s unique role in the world, and consistently support our allies and promote a strong national defense.  On what I consider some of the most important matters facing the next President: Romney believes that a strong America that sets the international agenda and promotes the interests of democracy and the free market are in the best interest of the world; he favors a stronger, more multi-layered national missile defense system than Obama; he favors a stronger military, increasing the Navy’s ship-building rate and replacing the aging equipment of the Army, Air Force and Marines.  His positions with regard to Russia and China, rogue nations, and the threat of radical Islamic Jihadism are clear, smart, and, again, consistently conservative.  Romney, I’m convinced, will establish an excellent team and represent us well on the international stage.

Mitt Romney Part 2: Moral Leadership

This weekend there are articles — fed by opposing campaigns — meant to slime Romney’s record for Iowa evangelicals.  I can’t address every criticism, but let me deal with abortion in particular to show how many conservatives have accepted a false impression of Romney’s positions.

It’s true, as he has explained many times, that Romney’s views on abortion have changed.  I really don’t care in the slightest what his views were 17 years ago, or even 10 years ago.  Sometimes the most passionate advocates are converts to the cause (Reagan and Henry Hyde come to mind).  The question, of course, is whether we can trust that he is, right now, honestly representing his stances.  But if his convictions were feigned, if he were adopting positions for political convenience, why in the world — it makes no sense whatsoever — would he have changed those positions when he did?  Romney was Governor of one of the most liberal states in the union from 2003 to 2007.  Essentially, the first time that he was confronted with a “life” issue as Governor, in 2004, he did his research (as he always does) and came to the conclusion that his earlier support for abortion access was ill-considered.  Having come to this viewpoint, he has acted in a pro-life manner consistently ever since.

Now, if you were actually, secretly pro-choice, and wanted to be an effective Governor of a blue state, and then change your views on abortion in order to situate yourself for an eventual Presidential run, wouldn’t you wait until later in your Governorship?  Wouldn’t you wait until after you’ve dealt with some of the most nettlesome life issues?  Remember that this was not 2010 or 2011, when conservatives were on the ascendant, and when Romney needs to appeal to the Hard Right.  This was 2004, when any person in Romney’s situation, if he wanted to run for President, would be thinking more of moderation and nuance.  Remember, too, that Romney’s wife Ann has multiple sclerosis, which many people were saying embryonic stem cell research could address.  So, wouldn’t you proclaim yourself pro-life but open to stem-cell research and the morning-after pill?

That’s not what Romney did.  Against the roaring outrage of the liberal establishment in Massachusetts, and against the will of the very powerful research universities in Boston and Cambridge, Romney vetoed a bill that would have expanded support for embryonic stem cell research.  He could not condone “embryo farming” that treated “innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited.”

Yet this issue has been thoroughly demagogued.  Let me give an example.  Yesterday I mentioned the superficial caricaturing of Erick Erickson, and he just gave us a great example of the genre.  The title was: “Mitt Romney Didn’t Just Give Planned Parenthood Money, He Gave Them Extra Power.”  Erickson makes a non sequitur reference to $150 Romney gave Planned Parenthood seventeen years ago, when everyone acknowledges he supported access to abortion (and of course Planned Parenthood does other things too, so there may be more to the story here.)  But the real smoking gun, for Erickson, comes in three parts:

  1. Romney appointed “to the Massachusetts bench” a fellow named Matthew Nestor, who once touted himself as pro-choice.  But really, Nestor was appointed to the Cambridge District Court, where he would deal with low-level misdemeanors, and would have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion law.  Romney sought judges who would be tough on crime, and Nestor recently made news for sending a Democratic State Senator to jail.
  2. After vetoing a law that would have expanded access to the morning-after pill, Romney “slid back and signed a bill that expanded state subsidized access to the morning after pill.”  But, again, not really.  The report Erickson cites says the measure “could expand the number of people who get access to family planning services.”  For legal analysis, I turn to David French: “The bill he signed was merely a request for Massachusetts to get federal reimbursement for services it was already providing at cost to the state — the state was paying $5 million per year already and had a chance at a 90% federal reimbursement.  This is no change in Mass law but an attempt at cost-shifting to the feds.  It did not pay for abortions.”
  3. And third, the coup de grace for Erickson: Romney, two years after his conversion in 2004, “expanded access to abortion and gave Planned Parenthood new rights under state law.”  But again, this is so defiantly superficial that it’s outright misleading.  Romney’s health care law only made abortion more accessible in the same sense that it made all health care more accessible; but since there was already a court ruling in Massachusetts requiring taxpayer funding of abortions, the expansion of state provision of health care arguably did nothing to make abortion more accessible.  Moreover, in the midst of crafting a very complicated law that required a lot of compromise across the aisle, Planned Parenthood was actually given 1 of 14 slots on a payment rate advisory board.  They were not given “new rights”; their power was merely advisory, and it had no authority over abortion-related matters.

Again, there are areas for legitimate disagreement here.  Some conservatives think Romney should have defied the court ruling that mandates taxpayer funding of abortions — but Romney, with great justification, believes that Governors are executives who execute the laws that are passed by the legislature and interpreted by the courts.  But this latest piece from Erickson is just another in a long line of weak-sauce attack articles that prop up one-sided Potempkin-Mitts in order to knock them over and benefit other candidates.

Romney has been very clear throughout the debates and countless interviews: he believes life begins at conception, opposes Roe v. Wade, will nominate pro-life judges, would overturn the Mexico City policy, and will oppose embryonic stem cell research.  Most importantly, he supports the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which may be the best approach presently available to protecting the lives of a great swath of the unborn.  See Romney’s own statement on his pro-life views.

I’ll write about same-sex marriage later next week (where the case against him is even weaker), but the sum of the matter is this.  I lived in Massachusetts for the whole of his governorship, and Romney consistently stood up for social conservative causes against enormous pressure from the Far-Left legislature and the Far-Left Boston Brahmins on Beacon Hill and Harvard Yard.  Which shows greater courage and greater conviction?  Holding thoroughly conservative views in a conservative state, or fighting for conservative values in a blue state?  Which is a better predictor that a candidate will maintain his social-conservative positions when he gets into the left-leaning Beltway?  And which candidate will be more sure to keep his word once in office: one who was never really questioned on the sincerity of his views, or one who still has to prove himself to supporters?

But personal morality should not be overlooked here, either.  I cannot tell you how many stories I’ve heard from Romney’s friends and acquaintances about his integrity, his compassion, his selflessness and generosity, and his excellent family values.  These mean a great deal to me.  If we would restore the moral underpinnings of our society, we need someone who represents those virtues.  I also value — let’s call it what it is — all the pastoral experience Romney gained as a major leader in Boston Mormon circles.  I grew up watching my (elder and pastor) father deal with all the same issues Romney would have dealt with: crumbling marriages, wayward children, alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual infidelity, depression, and the like.  I’ll add Mormonism at greater length in another post, but I’m actually very glad that his experience in the Mormon church has given Romney this experience speaking wisdom and healing into broken lives and broken relationships.

Mitt Romney Part 3: The Power to Beat Obama

Finally, don’t fool yourself.  Obama is a formidable campaigner.  He will have a massive war chest at his disposal and a media, entertainment, academic and labor establishments that will still much prefer him to a Republican.  The Left Wing will get fired up over Obama again, and we’re going to need all of the eloquence and intellectual firepower and presidential gravitas that we can get.

I know conservatives differ on this, but Romney is the only candidate that I’m confident can beat Obama.  Look at the latest numbers from Rasmussen, where Romney beats Obama by 6 points among likely voters (45% to 39%) while Gingrich and Santorum are 10 points behind the President (37% to 47%).  That’s a 16-point swing.  Remember: Barack Obama has not really begun to campaign yet.  This is going to be a hard-fought, tooth-and-nail electoral contest, and only Romney has the resources, the organization, the skills and the credibility to be a clear favorite over Obama.

I respect conservatives who support other candidates, but I firmly believe that Mitt’s the right guy at the right time.  We need to get past the superficialities, get past the misinformation, and see that we have in Mitt Romney an excellent candidate for this particular historical moment.  Is he perfect?  Of course not.  Do I defend what he has said and done in every particular?  Not at all.  But it gives me great comfort to know that the leading candidate right now is the one with the best chance of turning our economy around, the one who will represent us well on the international stage, the one who stands for the right values, and the same one who has the best chance of beating Obama.

This is a rare confluence of fortune.  Let’s not steal defeat from the jaws of victory here.  Sincerely,

Timothy Dalrymple

 

About Timothy Dalrymple

Timothy Dalrymple was raised in non-denominational evangelical congregations in California. The son and grandson of ministers, as a young boy he spent far too many hours each night staring at the ceiling and pondering the afterlife.
 
In all his work he seeks a better understanding of why people do, and do not, come to faith, and researches and teaches in religion and science, faith and reason, theology and philosophy, the origins of atheism, Christology, and the religious transformations of suffering

  • Larry

    Tim … just remove it. I reread your post. I have the same opinion but I clearly misread the paragraph I cited. I feel like Emily Litella.

    • Jay

      Larry. As a moderate conservative (time has warped the meanings of those words since the incident I mention) I served as a Bishop in the Mormon Church in the early ’70s. Faced with members desiring abortion, I studied the Church position and interpreted mixed messages. Reluctantly I discouraged them, but I did not threaten them with discipline should they chose to go forward. Reason? I saw then abortion as a solution to their problems.

      Sometime thereafter I changed my mind, and it was not caused by some epiphany or dramatic experience. I am now strongly pro-life, with only the qualifications since proscribed by the Church. Had I expressed my fore and after positions at the time, I would clearly be accused of hypocrisy in some circles.

      My mind was changed. I know what was in my mind. You know what was in Governor Romney’s mind? I must believe you have other reasons for disliking the man, and accusing him of political expediency is reading his mind the way you want to see it–at least on this one issue. You feel strongly, and I’d frankly like to know why, for my own consideration.

    • Timothy Dalrymple

      No worries, Larry. I removed it. Thanks!

      • Larry

        Thnx … and “never mind” ; )

  • Migel

    Political Fragments seemed to have hijacked the philosophical ones?

    • Timothy Dalrymple

      I do a bit of both, Migel! I tend to write on faith, philosophy, politics and culture. I had a few political posts I wanted to get up before the Iowa caucuses.

  • Mike

    Thanks, Tim, for publishing these posts. They have been very helpful to me as a conservative who has been struggling to reach a firm conclusion about the relative qualities of the candidates. I have been coming around to Romney based on the reasons and considerations you have so eloquently addressed. The last sticking point for me is the individual mandate in the Massachusetts health care reform, and his continued insistence it was good health care policy–despite its (as I understand it) adverse impact on the health insurance market in that state. Perhaps, with its dysfunctions preceding that reform (including prior bad policy already “baked into the cake”), Massachusetts health care would have been worse without those reforms? I do not know. I do, however, have concern that even if Romney truly does think that the Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, if also thinks individual mandates are good public policy, he might look for other ways to impose this obligation on states–for example, through conditions imposed on states for receiving federal funds relating to health care or other areas. In any case, I am nearly persuaded. I look forward to reading the rest of the case! (And Happy New Year to you and your family.)

    • Doc

      Mike, the “individual mandate” meme is a straw man argument. It is referenced as if anyone who would support such a mandate at the national, state, or even local level, would be somehow unworthy to hold office. In fact, legislative bodies at all levels of government pass individual mandates every time they convene. Some are acceptable, some are rediculous, some are supported by the vast majority of the electorate, others are very unpopular. But just because something might be labeled an individual mandate, does not mean it is bad.

      Apparently in MA, the people supported mandating that the 7 percent who didn’t have private health insurance, should be required to to purchase it or to meet certain exemptions of the mandate allowing for a government subsidy.

      States can mandate all sorts of requirements that the federal government cannot mandate as stated in the 10th Amendment to our Constitution. This is an important distinction and one that is often overlooked or discounted by those who wish to paint Governor Romney’s position with the broadest of brushes.

      Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we lived in a utopian society where we had the freedom to do anything we choose to do without any governmental mandates restricting our freedoms. Unfortunately, we live in a very real world in which governments do have laws (mandates) intended to protect us from various dangers and inequities. In my state, I’m mandated to purchase a drivers license befor I can drive a car, or to purchase a fishing or hunting license before I can do those things. I’m even mandated to purchase certain insurance and to pay property and sales taxes to support government programs and services.

      Whether you like a particular individual mandate is a matter of opinion. The people of MA support their health insurance mandate. It was passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. As a conservate, I support the rights of states to pass such laws. As a conservate, I even support the notion that people should take responsibility for their own health care if they can afford it. That is what the MA law mandated.

      • Timothy Dalrymple

        David French wrote a nice piece on Mitt’s health care plan here: http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Mitt-Romneys-Health-Care-Advantage-David-French-05-17-2011.html

        Hope you check it out!

        • Mike

          Thanks Tim (and Doc). Good comments and thoughts. The comparison to auto insurance and user licenses is not persuasive to me, personally (similar arguments have been made in the courts in defense of Obamacare under the Commerce Clause), but the general point about state “police power” as compared to federal authority is well taken. David French’s piece was very helpful to contextualize the Massachusetts health care reform. As someone with a long background and keen interest in law, I have read his writing for many years with great interest.

          In any event, I am fully persuaded that Romney would be an outstanding nominee and an excellent president. I also have great respect for Rick Santorum’s courage and integrity (e.g., taking unpopular stands in support of his convictions), and would be pleased if he were the nominee as well. But, if I had to “pull the lever” this month (though I am not an Iowan, New Hampshirite, or a South Carolinian…), it would be for Mitt Romney.

          Thanks for the insights in your posts and the comments they have inspired.

          In any

          • Mike

            As a follow up, Mitt Romney has sealed it for me with his speech on Tuesday night after winning the New Hampshire primary. (I am also pleased that Santorum has not joined in with the anti-Bain demagoguery. He is a class act, and a man of integrity.)

    • Aram

      ROMNEY’S “Business experience” consisted of buying companies, laying off workers, stripping pension funds, and taking the companies public again – 80% of which shortly went bankrupt.Check this ut on you tube:
      “THE STORY OF TWO MEN TRAPPED IN ONE BODY”

      • Agkcrbs

        Well, that’s clearly untrue. Do you believe it, or just spread it around to unethically promote some other candidate, or maybe socialism itself? Socialism doesn’t work, friend.

        The exact numbers of Romney’s business past are yet to be fully researched, but what is known is extremely favourable. Yes, obese employment is shed when business is down, typically allowing the remaining jobs to survive. Yes, benefits are haggled over in nearly every firm. And actually, a fair amount (much fewer than your stated figure) of Bain Capital’s extensive list of acquisitions DID later go through bankruptcy, but mostly after passing through the hands of subsequent owners, and usually several years later, often during downturns or industry threats. Many of those emerged anew from bankruptcy, and in aggregate boast thousands of employees today. Many tens of thousands of other jobs bearing the Romney stamp have remained viable. You may have heard about AmPad, but do you know anything about Gartner, SSI, Steel Dynamic, or ABRY? No? You can research these puppies ( http://documents.latimes.com/bain-capital-investments/ ) to your angry little heart’s content, and realise how ignorant you are about why “the Bain way” made both Romney and America more prosperous. Despite your spitwads, he really does know business.

  • http://www.teapartytn.com/worldgovernment.html bobbyb

    My question and concerns are , why did Romney meet with the Bilderberg Group? It seems they are preparing him to continue to push their agenda if Obama loses.David Rockefeller from the mouth of Obama,Obama goes to the CFR controlled by Rockefeller for advice. The CFR and the Bilderberg Group control the President and a larger majority of the senate and house. How can America be restroed when regardless of who is elected will continue the Bilderberg agenda?

  • George C

    Much appreciated, Tim. Thanks for taking the time. My vote really doesn’t matter in California, but it really is hard to sift through the rhetoric and pundit-pounding that is out there to know what’s really the deal with Romney. His past and positions shifting looked like a person of political convenience, rather than a principled person who would do the right thing. I’ve been looking to support a candidate with the right life principles rather than the right positions, because the former will guide the latter, whereas the latter can just be had to political/personal convenience (read: Newt)

    I’m taking a second hard-look at Romney and I just downloaded with Economic plan. I don’t want a rookie learning the ropes in the WH this year, but I also don’t want someone who will compromise our way to another TARP bailout or TBTF banking situation, that got worse. I feared Romney might be that person. On Obamacare, I take him at his word that he’d repeal it, no matter how similar his MA plan was to the national plan.

  • Verl Doman

    Open Letter to Evangelicals in Iowa:

    Commonality Between “Mormons” and Evangelicals

    I am very concerned about the future of our nation and I worry that political choices are about to be made that are based upon false impressions rather than truth. In writing this letter, I emphasize that I am not acting in any official capacity or representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Mormons”) nor any political party but am acting as a concerned individual citizen.

    I am a little surprised and somewhat dismayed to learn that we (LDS) of are so misunderstood by those not of our faith. At this important time in history I am hopeful that a little better understanding may affect the important political choices before us in the near future.

    Though our concept of the Godhead is not exactly the same, we do believe in the same Heavenly Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. The difference is that we believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct divine individuals while the doctrine of the Trinity suggest they are all one substance.

    We both certainly worship the same Jesus of Nazareth and base our faith on His teachings and rely on His saving grace. Though we have a little different definition of being born again we wholly accept the emphasis by Jesus, “…Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) Our Second Article of Faith states: “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” We, along with you, emphasize that faith in Christ is the first principle of the gospel of salvation.

    I am sure we share the same views on freedom of religion. Our eleventh Article of Faith states: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

    Some have expressed a concern that a “Mormon” president may be overly influenced by the leaders of the Church. In this regard, it is important to understand that the LDS Church is active in over 165 countries in the world, each having their own form of government. Our twelfth Article of Faith states: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Though the leaders of our church encourage us to be actively involved there is a strict policy to not promote political leanings from the pulpits and it is certainly not going to come from the leaders. We will stand up firmly when it comes to moral issues.

    I am confident that the members of both of our faiths realize that trust is a critical prerequisite to effective leadership and that moral integrity is essential in fostering trust. Our thirteenth Article of Faith states: “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” I believe that belief in and an adherence to these qualities is also imperative for effective leadership.

    We too believe in the sanctity of the family and perfect fidelity between a man and a woman married as husband and wife. (Exodus 28:14; Matthew 19:5) Both of our doctrines have strong resistance to abortion.

    We join you in our belief to follow Biblical teachings in serving the Lord by sharing the gospel throughout the world (Matthew 24:14), and feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, ministering to the sick and to those in prison. (Matthew 25:31-46) Our volunteer welfare program is designed to care for our own needy members. In addition, members of the LDS Church have donated over a billion dollars in cash, food, medicine, and clothing which has been supplied to the suffering in the world.

    Thousands of volunteer service missionaries are helping in third world countries, drilling wells, teaching modern agricultural methods, providing training in neo-natal care saving thousand of babies from infant death, providing tens of thousands of wheelchairs to the crippled in afflicted parts of the world, providing and teaching cataract surgery and offering early response with food, water and supplies to disaster stricken areas in the US and abroad.

    We believe in following the Biblical teachings regarding the avoidance of strong drink (alcoholic beverages). (Mark 10:6-9; Isaiah 28:7)

    We join you in believing in the power of prayer. (Matthew 6:9-13, 7:7; James 1:5-6) We believe that this country was discovered and founded under the direction of God and it is clear that our leaders desperately need His help to meet the critical challenges facing this nation today.

    We join you in our serious discomfort with the out of control debt now piling on this nation. Our concern is tempered by our belief in the Biblical teaching of the Law of Tithing (Malachi 3:8-12) and the practice of this principle makes it possible for the thousands of temples and meeting houses (over one per day being built) be paid for as they are constructed; no debt.

    It should be also noted that Mitt Romney has had some unique leadership experience as he served not only as a full time missionary in France for two years but has also served as a bishop (similar to a minister or pastor) and as a stake president (leader of a dozen or so congregations) for many years. During his time of service and that of others serving in such capacities along with those from the congregation assisting in the organization and activities of such are not paid for their service even though they may be involved up to 20 hours or more per week.

    We join you in our beliefs concerning the need for individual freedom which carries with it personal opportunity, responsibility and accountability necessary for a free society to thrive. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)

    I hope all who read this will open their hearts to the truth about these matters which I think we share, matters that correlate directly with character and honorable leadership.

    I sincerely hope that none will let misconception or misguided prejudice influence their critical political choices.

    Verl Doman – verldoman@gmail.com

    • Timothy Dalrymple

      Thank you very much, Verl! I’ll give this some thought as I prepare a post on Romney’s Mormonism and whether that should concern evangelicals.

  • Derrick

    Good post. It convinced me. If Ron Paul (woot woot!) has been knocked out by the TN primary, then I’ll go for Romney. I’ve been looking for someone else to support (just in case), and I lost sight of Romney amidst all the criticism.

  • Valerie Rhodes

    I am familiar with some of your work, but today is my first, I believe, visit to this blog. Hugh Hewitt gets the credit because that is where I began the trip to get here. This post is just what I needed to affirm my recent decision to support Governor Romney. I think I knew I would end up with him all along.
    One final point and the primary reason for posting- up until 6 months ago or so, I was a big fan of Erick Erickson. His developing arrogance,and noise making are more than I am willing to tolerate. Regrettably I am feeling the same way towards a man I truly admired-Glen Beck.
    Thanks for your very helpful article.
    Valerie Rhodes

    • Timothy Dalrymple

      Thank you, Valerie. Primaries are always tough, because they place us on opposite sides from those we often support. I’m eager to have this primary behind us. I too have felt frustrated with Erickson, but I’ll try to highlight his work too when it’s good and right.

      In any case, welcome!

      -Tim

  • gene

    Since the courts ruled everyone who claims EMERGENCYhas to be treated…there is no win-win solution!
    Mitt said there were people making $75,000 or more
    getting freebie medicnine. the mandate sure stopped that,didn’t it!
    Gene

  • CJW

    Oh well, at least this attempt at historical revisionism is clearly presented as wishful fiction. If only govt were the same as big business, except not big – so why shouldn’t the GOP and its fundamentalist partisans just come out and say they plan to outsource democracy, privatizing it to the highest bidder. That way, hero Romney doesn’t even have to leave the private sector to become president.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X