Loading ...Romney: “I get speakers’ fees from time to time, but not very much”
flockwoodMitt Romney, speaking in South Carolina about his income, told the crowd: “I get speakers’ fees from time to time, but not very much.”
So, how much is “not very much”?
a.) $27,500 per year?
b.) $82,500 per year?
c.) $192,500 per year?
d.) $275,000 per year?
e.) “Not very much” more than $300,000 per year?
The New York Times reports today: “Financial disclosure forms that candidates are required to file annually shows that Mr. Romney earned $374,327.62 in speakers’ fees from February of 2010 to February of 2011, at an average of $41,592 per speech.”
The full story is here.
January 17th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Times are really bad if Romney has to take a second job that pays “not very much”.
January 19th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Well, considering he could blow that entire wad in one TV commercial blitz, that may not be “very much,” relatively speaking. BTW, what did Obama or others get paid to speak? That’s another “relatively speaking.” I would like to see the full context of his statement.
January 20th, 2012 at 11:39 am
You’re changing the subject. The significant issue isn’t the $374,000. It’s the “not very much” comment. Gov. Romney is correct that the sum is rather small potatoes for a fabulously wealthy presidential candidate. For the rest of us, it is literally a fortune.
Romney’s problem, as explained thoroughly in a previous thread, is the way that he pretends to be someone different from himself. It’s just dishonest. Rich guys have run for office in the past but I don’t recall them being as disingenuous as Romney. Shoot, Gingrich brags about his speaker fees. And yes, President Obama has earned a good bit from sales of his books (as we know from inspecting his tax returns) but he never shrugged that off as pocket change.
January 21st, 2012 at 11:09 am
Sadly, I could retire on one of his speaking fees. How close is he to working America!
February 3rd, 2012 at 2:56 pm
He was speaking relative to expenditures. Obama is spending about $1 billion (really!) on his reelection bid. Romney’s speaker fees wouldn’t even cover the cost of staff donuts in that budget. So, when he says, “Not very much,” he is pretty much dead-on. He could sell off everything he owns, even the clothes off his back and he wouldn’t even cover one-fourth of what the O-man is gonna blow. When he enters office he is going to have to manage trillion-dollar budgets (not to mention deficits). I don’t want some “Joe Six Pack” common man with no experience in real business running the show. We have that now, we need a proven successful pro.
Ted Kennedy was a much richer “rich bastard” than Romney (and never earned a dime of it on his own in private business), yet he constantly identified himself with the “common man.” This is a double standard simply because Romney is conservative.
February 3rd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
“He was speaking relative to expenditures.”
Sorry to keep this thread going but I really can’t let John’s statement go uncorrected. As the transcript clearly shows, Gov. Romney was responding to questions about his income and his tax rate. His remarks had nothing to do with campaign expenditures.
February 9th, 2012 at 9:06 am
Strong words, John. How come the facts are always distorted when the comparison to Obama is present. Ole Mit made roughly 150 million off of managing a hedge fund. Wonder what the value of the fund was? Wonder how many little guys like myself lost on that investment! Seems to me the best way to pick the candidate is to get accurate information from, what, public sources! When you figure that one out, I’ll listen.
February 20th, 2012 at 10:19 am
Perplexed: According to his tax returns, Mitt’s total net worth is about $230 million. As long as he is not printing it, making $150 million in a hedge fund is fine with me. All these investments and moving money around to where it is most productive mean more jobs and more value to the American people and the world overall. He is not pulling money or real value out of the sky. I’m really sorry if you or anyone else was caught on the losing end of such business dealings, but in the long run and overall, more prosperity was produced. There is only so much Romney can eat; the rest of his money is being put to good and efficient use. I would much rather have a person who understands that running things than the current occupant of the Oval Office who thinks he can simply print more and more IOU’s to “stimulate” the economy and thinks ATMs cost jobs.
February 21st, 2012 at 7:05 am
John, couple of things, when you print more money, you devalue the dollar. It make the rich a little less rich and the middle class again takes the hit. If the rich refuse to stimulate the economy, its because of one of 2 things. The risk isn’t worth the gain or they don’t like the President. It should be a game of chess but now its checkers. The Republican party has lost its ideals and now they are a party about the few. The last few Republican Presidents have clearly reinforced this. Republicans call for less government but their actions call for more regulation or more government. I can’t excuse the Democrats either. Clinton had great ideas and brought the country forward in great strides but either poor forethought or an inability to implement what he had in place as President caused great problems in the country too. Lets throw healthcare in the midst of all this too! There needs to be some sort of national investigation on who gets what when a prescription is filled (royalties)and there needs to be justification on why so many Americans are on prescription drugs. These drugs are crippling the work force and have become so addictive that one wonders why they continue to be on the market. In a nutshell, we’re not getting the whole story. Our government has become ineffective because the ability to compromise and effectively govern the masses has virtually disappeared! In my case, I would rather have somebody who has struggled in life in the Oval Office. I really don’t advocate using Frank as a political forum, either.
February 21st, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Well, Perplexed, by posting what seems to me to be purely political stories about Romney, I am inclined to also respond politically. I assume it’s Romney’s connection to Mormonism that influences Mr. Lockwood’s decision to post questionnaires about Mitt’s speaker fees, but I don’t see exactly where the religious connection is in this particular post. I apologize if responding in kind is offensive. In the future, if I make more comments I will try to steer them back to a religious theme. That said, where is the religious connection in this original post? I guess it’s because Romney is one of those weird Mormons. I guess because he doesn’t understand God he doesn’t understand the nature of speaker’s fees?
I don’t think these posts need to always be directly related to religious topics, though. Mr. Lockwood posted a touching memorial to Whitney Houston that wasn’t completely religious in nature. Also other post on Adolph Hitler cronies dyeing and so forth…
Anyway, Perplexed, you make good points in your comments. Our healthcare system is undoubtedly corrupt. One could argue we are only making it more so with more government intervention. Never forget, government is power. It is the force of law, considerably removed from market forces and the will of the individual. It is the disconnect between the person receiving the services or drugs and the person or entity that is paying for them that is at the heart of all the problems. A few people were suffering in the 1960s, so the government tried to “fix” that with Medicare and Medicaid, and it only got much worse from there. Insurance companies do the same, partially because they answer to employers not the person, and also rely on the individual’s understandable ignorance of medical procedures and such. Bringing the individual back into the equation is the answer, and Obamacare does not even approach that.
One more BTW: The Democrats get just as much money, if not more in some areas, from “big business” and “rich bastards” as the Republicans do. Power does not care where it rests, just as long as it retains itself.
February 22nd, 2012 at 6:58 pm
John, consider that Mitt is on a path to overcome an objective. On this path he has to do a number of things to be considered worthy of the position he seeks. Of those things, excelling in a religious organization is one of them. Mindful, this isn’t a calling, this is an obligation to an objective, this is planning, steps, one at time. Is he representing the faith he serves or is he using the faith he participates in to overcome his objective. I think you can see where I’m going with this. If Obama does spend a billion on re-election, he is doing because of his predecessor opening the way for him. When Obama was elected initially, he did 5 bucks at a time.
The point I’m making, is, Mitt is in so deep in a good old buddy network, that electing him will be like putting a noose on the middle class. This, as you know is only my opinion. Mitt wants to be a part of history, Obama wants to make history.
February 23rd, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Perplexed: Obama is just as entrenched in the system as Mitt. He is a puppet whose strings are being pulled by the same people as you claim Mitt is being influenced by. All the candidates want to “make” history. I wish they would just do their job and then get out and let us be free, instead of trying to “fix” everything. Obama thinks he has the power to fix the weather and would love nothing more than to tax or borrow everything he can to do that.
To be completely honest, I don’t know why anyone in his/her right mind would want to run for president. I can see one possible influence on Mitt, though. He grew up in a culture of service within his church. Growing up in this same atmosphere myself, I know whereof I speak. Mormons are exponentially way more involved in their church activities, organization and culture than any other religion or church I know of short of becoming a monk of some sort. We also officially look at the Constitution as “scripture”—we believe God inspired it directly and said so in our canonized scripture to our founding prophet, Joseph Smith. (Not to say that the Constitution is always perfect, but it was the best that could possibly be done at the time.)
Incidentally, our scripture says that “anything more or less than this [the Constitution] is evil.” It helps to keep in mind that the provision for amendments was included in the “not evil” parameters.
So, despite having some of the weaknesses common to all men, Romney is the best bet, in my mind, to uphold the Constitution, and I believe he has shown through his work ethic and service within his church that he will do more or less the job he will be elected to do and no more. As far as the money goes to campaign, that all comes from the same pot as Obama’s anyway: big business, rich bastards, idealistic youth, lunatic fringes, cultural contributers (because Daddy always did it), and so forth.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Explain to me John, is this Mormonism religion a vehicle for religion serving business or a vehicle for business serving religion. The available reading material is kinda sketchy.
March 1st, 2012 at 5:26 pm
I’m not sure what you’re asking there, Perplexed. I think the Jews, or at least some of them, look upon business success as conformation of their religious observances. This would be sort of like a farmer praying over his crops. The Mormon church preaches absolutely nothing about a correlation between financial wealth and standing with God. We do say that you will be blessed for following His commandments, but what those blessings are will be different for each individual. Business success would certainly not be excluded.
However, Mormon put a strong emphasis upon being “industrious.” Our Utah state motto is “Industry” and for good reason. We had to be tough and work hard to colonize a desert, fend off Indians and anti-Mormons, and such. We value self-reliance because we had too. Not just in times past, but even today. I know of instances where Mormons have lost jobs and been denied homes because of their faith. We may loose a potential President of the U.S. simply because of his faith. A commentator has said that if Mitt Romney were Presbyterian he would be the nominee by now. Most people don’t even know or care what church the other candidates belong to.
So, persecution spawns self-reliance and industry, which spawns financial success, which spawns more persecution. Can’t seem to win. I’m glad I only need to report to God.
March 2nd, 2012 at 8:45 pm
It’s a given that Gov. Romney’s faith will influence the decision of a few voters to a degree, some negatively and some positively. However, to keep harping on this theme of the persecution of the Mormon Candidate is overstated, tiresome, and just plain unseemly. It’s long past time to give this complaint a break.
If Romney is the GOP nominee in the fall will the questioning of Romney’s religion be as disproportionately irrelevant for him as it was for other Presidential candidates? In the 2008 campaign the major religious controversy concerned statements made not by the candidate but his minister. Sen. Obama was hounded by the media for comments which he never advocated or endorsed, and it took a major speech to make the subject fade away. In 2004 the big flap concerned whether the Roman Catholic Church would withhold its most holy sacrament from Sen. Kerry. Normally this would be a private matter between church and parishioner, but partisan forces– including those in the Catholic hierarchy– used it for political ends. Shameful.
The most extreme episode, though, was the grilling of John Kennedy about his Catholicism. At least in this case there was a legitimate question– if the teachings of church conflicted with the interests of the state, would the candidate’s faith cause him to choose the former over the latter? Kennedy was both clear and emphatic that he would govern for all Americans. Ironically, most of this year’s GOP aspirants are falling over themselves to assure the party faithful that they would do the exact opposite.
As did Kennedy, Gov. Romney will face many Americans who will wonder how he will balance two competing forces, the rigid dogma of his church on one hand and an American public that by choice is almost completely not Mormon on the other. And as in 1960 it’s a fair question. We have seen how the LDS church can mobilize its followers to affect law. How could it resist the temptation to use this unique opportunity of having one of adherents in the White House? If Mormon theology holds America’s founding documents to be like scripture (which many of us find to be fanciful and even creepy) how does that affect the Mormon’s willingness to accept challenges to the law either by judicial or legislative means? Romney should be prepared to answer those and other questions with thoughtful and thorough explanations on how he will govern according to the law of the land and not the pressures of his church. And he will need to be sincere in his assurances. Given his history of saying whatever it takes to get votes, that may be his biggest challenge.
* * *
John, I think you owe our host an apology. Frank has been enormously fair to the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints and to its adherents. Yes, he has posted a number of articles about Mitt Romney and raised questions about him. That is entirely understandable. Romney has been the frontrunner for the GOP nomination and he has a distinct possibility of occupying the most powerful office in the world in less than a year. Voters evaluate candidates on a number of factors that are not directly related to how they would serve– religion, race, sex, age, economic background, eloquence, even appearance. That may not be not fair but it’s how things have been for many candidates for a long time. Romney is not exceptional.
March 5th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
John, Jesus isn’t running for President.
I’m not questioning any body’s religious belief’s, I am concerned that the Mormon movement is using tactics similar to the civil rights movement in the 60′s, thus an absense of religious values exist and it becomes about economics instead of religion and therefore loses it effectiveness among the masses. Ultimately this will harm the Mormon church.
Jose, your right about the Catholics too. When you get a good one though, you’ve got gold. They are still looking for that one, that’s for the people.
To the naysayers, Obama is the best thing right now, for the people. He represents a majority of struggling middle class Americans.
March 6th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
José, my comments were not intended to disparage Mr. Lockwood. I apologize if they were taken that way. I was responding to Perplexed’s insistence that I keep to a religious theme. I interpreted the nature of this post to not be religious at all. The fact of the matter is, there are not as many posts on Obama’s or any other candidate’s comments as there is for Mitt. I can’t help but think that his Mormon religion is influencing them. I don’t blame anyone for this. We’re weird to most people and that can play to both our advantage and disadvantage.
JFK had some credibility when he said his personal religion would not take precedence over the American people since the only time he attended Mass while in the White House was at his own funeral. Those in the know and the ones in charge of his image knew he didn’t live his religion and the public figured it out, probably subconsciously to some extent, and were therefore not worried. Not so with Al Smith back in 1928 when his Catholicism really hurt him and contributed to costing him the election. It was expected that people practiced their religion back then.
It’s not Mitt’s Mormon doctrine that bothers people as much as it is the fact that he truly lives his religion. A really scary thought, I know. He has done a lot more than just show up to services on Christmas and Easter, like many other candidates. He has served in high callings his his church. Spent two years as a missionary for it in France. He will never drop his church like Obama and Michelle Backmann have done for political convenience (though I don’t blame Obama, Rev. Wright is truly scary).
What is really fascinating is that nobody makes a big deal over Senator Harry Reid’s Mormonism. Those who say they would not vote for a Mormon president are more than two to one Democrats. They might feel differently if it was their “friend of the downtrodden” Harry who was running. So, I guess it is about the man and not his religion, José, but that religion can be a great weapon for either side. There was a big exposé produced by NBC News on Mormonism a few weeks back and how Romney fit into it all. Where was the big production on Santorum’s Catholicism?
BTW: Romney does not always tow the line on what his Church says. Mormons make a really big deal about free agency and the ability to choose, hence we are mostly Republican. Read the latest biography on Romney by the journalist at the Boston Globe (I can’t remember its title at the moment) and it tells about several incidents where he went contrary to what could be argued as the Church’s will and once case in particular where he directly ignored their advice.
The Mormon church has never officially endorsed a candidate for anything. They have participated in social causes they deem as a threat to general morality (what church has not), but have always left it up to the individual to choose. The only issues the Mormon Church has taken a stance on in my lifetime are: 1. Communism; 2. The ERA Amendment; 3. MX Missile; 4. Gay Marriage. I don’t even think we have an official political stance on abortion, though we do classify it as a grievous sin akin to murder in some cases.
March 7th, 2012 at 6:29 am
As I watch the news and read the papers and reflect on the last few years, I truly cannot understand the republican hatred for the sitting President. Can anybody explain this to me?
March 7th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Neither President Kennedy nor Obama campaigned on the basis of faith though each one answered questions on the subject even though it shouldn’t have been an issue. On the other hand, Gov. Romney talks a great deal about how his faith would affect his policies. It is a fair topic because he raised it. And yet you throw jabs at Kennedy and Obama for their personal practices of worship, and then you complain if someone asks questions about Romney’s religous beliefs. John, you ought to understand how wrong that is. Seriously.
It’s interesting that you mention Sen. Reid because he exemplifies a basic difference in how each side considers the candidate’s faith when deciding how to vote. Reid doesn’t make a big public fuss about the fact that he’s a Mormon nor does he go out of his way to hide the fact. He gets elected by Democrats because of how they think he will act in office. Same thing happens in the Senate where the members of the Democratic Caucus picked him as their leader regardless of his religious beliefs. Religion just ain’t that big a deal. I’m sure a lot of progressives don’t even know the difference between Mormons and Moravians. If you asked them whether they would support a politician who votes like Orrin Hatch or Bob Bennett they will say no. But, I’ll bet that if you asked them whether they would vote for a Mormon who pushes a progressive agenda instead of a secular rightwinger they would choose the Mormon, and that’s how it should be.
It’s different on the Republican side where religion is a major factor. The folks who are most suspicious of Romney’s religion are the extremely conservative Protestants. The folks who are overwhelmingly likely to support Romney are his fellow Mormons. There’s your religious prejudice, both positive and negative.
You think that Mormons are discriminated against at the ballot box? Ask a thousand Republicans whether they would vote for a Muslim or an avowed atheist. Would you?
March 8th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Perp, I rather doubt than any Republican would give you an honest answer to the question of why they hate President Obama. If anyone does offer to reply, make sure that they are specific and that they address the following. 1. If they cite some current ill, such as high gas prices, what is their reasoning for attributing the cause to Mr. Obama and not to someone else, such as former President Bush or the current obstructionist GOP members of Congress? 2. In what way do they argue that the alternatives to Mr. Obama (such as Mr. Bush or Gov. Romney) would be notably superior, and why? Mr. Obama isn’t perfect. Talk to some devoted Democrats and they will give you an earful of complaints and disappointments but they will be voting for him in November. On the other hand Mr. Obama is not perfectly bad, either. But talk to the Republicans and you get little but meaningless name calling and buckets of misinformation. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would offer an evaluation of the past administration based on facts. It is possible oppose the President based on an honest assessment of his record. See David Brooks and sometimes George Will. But today’s GOP is dominated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Becks, people who have no regard for truth when it stands in the way of a partisan political fight.
If a Republican President were running for reelection in 2012 and s/he had the exact same record to show, you can bet that the Republicans would find plenty of reasons to brag about their candidate. Killed bin Laden! Saved the world from economic collapse! Saved the US auto industry! Domestic oil production is at the highest level in a decade! Ended the war in Iraq! No more Khadaffi in Libya! And did we mention bin Laden? In fact, some would also mention the passing of a landmark healthcare law, one that finally takes action towards meaningful cost containment and extends coverage to all Americans. And it does all that through private insurance companies rather than–ugh–socialized medicine!
March 9th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Romney virtually never brings up his faith on his own. In almost every incidence it is in response to a question about it. In fact he has been criticized for dodging it too much. Reid talks about his faith all the time. He gives lectures regularly around the country for his church. He speaks at BYU. Like Romney though, he doesn’t usually bring it up unless he’s asked. Faith is private, but it is still a major factor. Bush Jr. was actually mocked by the hard Left for saying that he reads the Bible every day.
José you are making some very general assumptions here. I would vote for an atheist or a Muslim if I felt they were the best person for the job. That’s sort of like saying I wouldn’t vote for a woman or a black simply because they are a woman or black. That’s ridiculous! For the vast majority out there religion is not an issue. But journalism and the media is all about sensationalism, so if they can stoke some little spark of racism or sexism into a bonfire, they will do all in their power to do so. Romney was elected governor of what could be argued as the most liberal state in the union. He could win the Presidency, but those that don’t like him are going to use any weapon they can get their hands on. The lunatic fringes of both parties are not going to vote for him because of his religion, but the fact of the matter is more than twice the number of Democrats are not going to vote for him versus Republicans simply because of his Mormonism. These people wouldn’t vote for him anyway because of his politics, but they are using religion as an excuse to not bother to investigate. The people of Massachusetts, to their credit, took him up on the issues and found he was alright, despite his weird Mormon faith.
So, the gist of it is this: If Harry Reid ran for President, there would be much less mentioning of his Mormonism (probably about half as much) because that weapon wouldn’t work well on the the “consumer” base of liberals. What little mention there would be would be aimed at the ultra evangelical Right who wouldn’t vote for him anyway. It’s all about politics and weapons to use in the game.
March 10th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
“Romney virtually never brings up his faith on his own.”
Perhaps what you mean is that Romney doesn’t mention the Mormon religion. True. But like virtually every other GOP contender, Romney has talked a lot about his faith in less specific terms when catering to conservative Christians. That’s smart, politically, but not really admirable. When a candidate makes anything a campaign issue then he or she should be prepared to field questions about that issue. Religion included.
“…more than twice the number of Democrats are not going to vote for him versus Republicans simply because of his Mormonism…”
The gap is a lot narrower than that. In a 2011 Gallup poll the breakdown was 27% of Democrats and 20% of Republicans for an average of 22%:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/hesitant-support-mormon-2012.aspx
Are there any groups which suffer more discrimination than Mormons? Glad you asked. Homosexuals would be rejected by 32% of American votes, and atheists by 49%. Unfortunately, Gallup did not poll voters about a hypothetical Muslim candidate. I expect that score would rank pretty high on the prejudice scale.
As you point out we have two fine examples of Mormon politicians being elected by largely Democratic constituencies: Romney as Governor of Massachusetts (back when he professed to being a moderate) and Harry Reid as the US Senator and leader of the Senate Democratic Caucus. That’s solid evidence that Democrats pay a lot more attention to the candidate’s politics than religion.
March 11th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Most people won’t vote for Romney because he’s filthy rich. He only represents the portion of America that controls the wealth and is presently aiding in the suppression of the economy simply because the thought of a black man as President repulses them. There, I said it. Its not about religion, its about arrogance!
March 11th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
John, thank you for mentioning the LDS church’s statement regarding the MX Missile system back in 1981. I do not remember that particular story. It is a very interesting episode.
March 12th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
More recent polls put the gap much higher between Democrats and Republicans who say they won’t vote for Mitt. I can’t find the reference right now, but there was a big front page story on it here in Salt Lake City. It was 27% Democrats and 12% Republicans who wouldn’t vote for Romney based on his religion.
The main reason Democrats are “accepting” of Reid is because of his politics and the main reason for some of them (a minority, granted) for rejecting Romeny is religion. No surprises here. As you say, it’s all about politics in the end.
Yeah, the MX Missile was an anomaly one might say. I was all for it, but then I was only 12 at the time. Our church proved to be right in the long run, we didn’t need it. Though we are certainly not anti-defense or anything like that. (That and we probably didn’t want Utah to be on the Russkies first-strike list.) Religion: it’s all about self-preservation in the end.
March 12th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Perplexed: I’m sorry you feel that way. Though not rich myself, I’ve met quite of few “rich bastards” and they’re really not all that bad. Just good at what they do. In some cases the best in the world at it. Good for them, because we all benefit in the end when any one of us excels.
March 12th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Regarding the study mentioned in the Salt Lake Trib, the article says this:
“The Trinity College study was based on a 1990 survey of more than 113,000 Americans, and a follow-up survey in 2008 of more than 53,000 Americans.”
Trinity College seems like a perfectly fine liberal arts school but the bulk of this survey dates back nearly a quarter of a century and the update is also older than the Gallup one. I looked at the 2008 Trinity survey to see exactly how they asked the question and could not find that information. The wording of the question is critical. If you asked a typical American voter whether they would vote for a Mormon, many might answer no because most Mormon politicians advocate policies which are different from their own preferences. For those folks it’s not really religious prejudice but instead is based on valid political disagreement.
The Gallup poll removes that ambiguity in its question:
“If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a [fill in the blank], would you vote for that person?”
No loopholes.
Gallup has been conducting this kind of poll since 1937. They have added a few categories over the years. The list now includes:
Black, Woman, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Hispanic, Mormon, Gay or Lesbian, Atheist
Mormons were added to the list in 1967. The most recent poll was less than year ago.
You say that Democrats vote for Reid because of his policies and that a minority of Democrats will not vote for Romney because of his religion. That is all very true, but a fair person will acknowledge the rest of the truth. There is also a sizable number of Republicans who reject Romney because of his religion and a significant number who support him just as determinedly because he is a Mormon. Also, Mormons don’t have it nearly as bad as some other minorities. No one disputes that there is discrimination, only that it’s not nearly the big deal that you keep making it.
March 13th, 2012 at 8:15 am
The poll in question was in the Deseret News here in Salt Lake City. It quoted the earlier 2011 poll you mentioned where the gap was much less. It then quoted a newer poll conducted in very late 2011 or early 2012 which showed the gap widening to double after Romney started to get known again. I read the story in the trusty old fashioned print edition of the Des News but can’t seem to find it on their lousy website. Maybe the info was wrong and they burned all the hard copies and purged the web, I don’t know. Anyway, it was their contention that we’re being picked on more by Democrats. But then again, the Des News is owned by the Mormon Church, soooo….
Anyway, discrimination exists for sure, but you’re right it is not as big a deal as it once was. Even many of the hard-line evangelical preachers who say we Mormons are a cult [who threaten their salaries] say they will “hold their nose” and vote for Mitt if they have too. So that’s an improvement for sure—they used to shoot us.