Deseret News | Reader comments: Romney, McCain attack anti-Mormon 'push polls'

Reader comments
Romney, McCain attack anti-Mormon 'push polls'

sales executive | 6:07 a.m. Nov. 17, 2007

[the Orem-based company that was making the telemarketing-type calls into New Hampshire.] The Federal Government will not let me make a sales call for an insurance referral to someones mother/sister. (no call lists) but I can call someone and tell them not to vote for a man/woman because he/she is a Mormon or Jew or 'whatever'.
Ever heard of a law coming back to bite you on the back-side?
Political poetic justice.

Boycott Western Wats | 7:16 a.m. Nov. 17, 2007

Employees of Western Wats who are LDS should quit and talk to their bishops about help while finding other work, and bishops should help them. This is disgraceful.

Hello | 7:47 a.m. Nov. 17, 2007

I have not recieved a phone call like that, yet. It seems the more press Mitt is getting the more satan and "his people" are trying to rally anyone who will listen to speak negitive about the Church.

By the way I don't care what religion the President to be is.

Comments continue below

Sad as it might sound, | 11:20 a.m. Nov. 17, 2007

it wouldn't surprise me to find the Romney campaign behind the push-pull calls. It's a great way to get a sympathetic press, and get one's name before the public without having to purchase advertising. Just the type of thing a tyical politician would do (and, when push comes to shove, a "typical politician" is exactly what Romney is.

RE: Sad as it might sound | 11:35 a.m. Nov. 17, 2007

What's your evidence? Let's hear it, please! Otherwise, kindly stop casting unfounded negativity.

Just wondering | 11:51 a.m. Nov. 17, 2007

But if Romney was trying to get sympathy for himself, it would seem that he would also be getting sympathy for McCain. Maybe it was somebody who is running against both of them.

I also have a question, I always hear about the Mormon "Secrets" but nobody says what they are. I'm talking about the Mormon haters who keep insisting that there are secrets being kept from even the LDS's. What are the Mormon secrets? Certainly all of those who claim that there are Mormon secrets should be able to tell what they are. What DNA proof do you have about the secrets. And I don't mean revealing what goes on in the temple ceremonies, anybody who choses to take that path in life know what goes on, they are not secrets.

Zina | 11:53 a.m. Nov. 17, 2007

Obama has had to put up with a lot of smear too. People have spread untrue rumors about his religion, his education and his patriotism. Even Romney has participated in this by playing association games with Obama's name. If he is insulted by these tactics perhaps he should not engage in them himself.

Henry Drummond | 12:28 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

I see two issues here.

One is that political candidates should be responsible for what they say about other candidates. The law makes it very easy for anyone to hide by getting a political action committee to do this type of work for them.

Secondly the electorate should reject those candidates who stoop to such tactics. Let's not forgot that George W. Bush did similar things to John McCain in 2001 and the electorate gave him a free pass.

I have worked on major political campaigns in both parties. I have heard how these type of tactics are justified. Frankly it is justified on the basis that others are doing it and that it works.

The electorate will ultimately decide how bad this gets. Even though I am not a supporter of Mr. Romney, I'm glad to see this sort of thing getting a lot of scrutiny and I hope those responsible will be called to account.

Mike | 1:26 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

We won't have to speculate for long who was really behind this push polling. With the New Hampshire Attorney General's office beginning its own investigation, Western Wats' confidentiality agreements won't mean squat if they determine laws may have been violated.

Besides, you can be sure that there are some employees at Western Wats who are Romney supporters and Mormons and very disgrutled about what's happened. Sooner or later someone will talk.

ladyblueyes | 1:32 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

It must be Hillary's campaign - if she smears enough republicans, then she's sure to be seen as 'the lesser of evils.'

LOL! Sorry - let's bring the Dems into this because it could just as well be them! Or maybe it's Ross Perot trying to get his own back since a Bush was put in the White House against his wishes.

Sorry - speculation runs rampant. Maybe it was Al Sharpton!

Anonymous | 1:37 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

So a company in Utah County was placing the anti-Mit calls- does anyone else find this a little odd and not surprising at the same time?

But don't wait to get this call yourself!

Call a Utahn (or an Afgan) if you really want to know what happens when you elect religious extremists.

GrammaJules | 2:17 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

Does this have to even be from another candidate? I know that there are a lot of evangelist groups that are very anti-Mormon. Who is to say that some of these groups that are constantly attacking the church would not take a step like this? Don't forget the swift boat and Kerry, they did that all on their own.

Anonymous | 3:20 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

Mormons do believe the BOM is more perfect than the Bible, they baptize the dead and Mitt should know this well. What's the rub here? They weren't lying about your beliefs.

Sean | 3:23 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

How do we know it was Western Wats? When pressured how do we know that the person that was asked just gave a name of one of their competitors?

Who ever is behind this, I hope they are caught and face the full wrath of the people.

Sue Winmill | 3:33 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

I used to work for a telephone survey company and as far as I know, the research company itself doesn't sponsor the surveys, someone els does. Of course. I think whoever is sponsoring the survey should fess up and anytime a survey is being conducted, it should be open about who is paying for the survey to be done.

evidence | 4:04 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

It was the Romney folk who did this and I have the evidence. I buried the documents behind a small grassy knoll in Roswell.

Emma | 4:07 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

Zina, you might find Obama more interesting if you bothered with a little research. Louis Farrakhan and Obama went on a trip together, just do a google search. Obama is infinitely more frightening than any other candidate, even preferring the socialist Hillary to him. I consider the church Obama attends to be quite racist in it's pro-black rhetoric.

Here is a quote from onenewsnow:
Trinity's critics, though, say it emphasizes black causes to a fault.

Fran Eaton, who writes for the conservative blog Illinois Review, singled out Trinity's 12-point value system, which includes a commitment to "pledge allegiance to all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System."

So yes, Obama's religion does concern me and it should concern you.

dude | 4:15 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

yeah those things are true about mormons yet when presented that way it is like saying christans belive they have no responsibility for anything they do. an exageration of a belief and what ever happened to seperation of church and state because obviously Romney does that considering what he did as gov. so whats the big deal.

Educated Literate | 4:23 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

Evidence:
A Grassy knoll in Roswell? Having lived in Eastern New Mexico, I can state that a grassy knoll anywhere is Roswell is an uncommon area and easily found :) Did you mean Dallas?

Prayerful thoughts | 5:04 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

Im not really sure why religion even needs to be part of the presidential race these days. I thought we were trying to seperate church and state. So does this mean we will soon be able to pray in school again. I hope so because there are several african american catholics in my classes that I would love to force into listening to a prayer by a caucasian mormon. please....lets get to the stuff that matters.

establishment vs. free exercise | 6:44 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

no where in the constitution does it state that there must be a separation of church and state. that is the supreme court's recent rulings. it simply says that the united states cannot promote any one religion. which happens to be quite a bit different than completely seperate. if you ask me, all of this politically correct separation of church and state is a joke.

Anony | 10:12 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

"Mormons do believe the BOM is more perfect than the Bible, they baptize the dead and Mitt should know this well."

I think you will find that Mormons don't actually baptize the dead so much as they are baptized for the dead. Mostly their dead ancestors. The Bible hints at such a practice. Check it out.

Bible? | 10:44 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

Wasn't the bible written millions of years ago? And why do you hold it true today? Religion of any sorts should not be included in a politcal election. Period the end. All of you religious fanatics need to get over yourselves.

re: anonymous | 11:48 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

Have you read the Bible? I highly recommend it. Every single doctrine that the LDS church teaches is located in the Bible.
And no, we do not believe the Book of MOrmon to be more important than the bible, we believe that they go hand in hand.

The Constitution | 11:56 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007

For everyone who continues to make religion the focus of Mitt Romney's presidential election, I would invite you to actually read the Bill of Rights. Since you are claiming to be an American by making your voice heard (even though you don't know what you are talking about) you should read the Rights that were established by our founding fathers. Amendment I to the constitution protects the right to freedom of press, RELIGION, speech, etc.
When are you going to stop making religion a key issue in the presidential election? There are too many crucial topics that we all should be debating instead of religion!
Now, if someone were slandering the Catholic or Baptist churches, well, there would be an enormous outrage. Or if we were making sex or race a more focused issue, well no one would stand for that. But for some reason it is ok to sling mud at the LDS church and Mitt. I realize it is politics, and there is always mudd slinging, but let's grow up and focus on the important issues at hand.

Brent MIkesell | 7:32 a.m. Nov. 18, 2007

Bismark was quoted as saying something along the lines that "people who respect the law and saugage should see neither being made". In the aggregate politcal process, these "push polling" practices are moderate, perhaps even "low key". Please reflect on the viral distortions and character assasination that commonly goes on during political groping for influence and power. "Awful, Un-American"? Not particularly.
Negative ads work. It's been demonstrated
repeatedly. Are they a valid tool of politcal expression? Sure. Politicos and others are in the business of "promoting virtue and denouncing evil".

It strikes me that some are having problem with literal "freedom of speech" here. What someone, Mr Romney in this case, believes, identifies with and does is fair game. A rather wise fellow once quipped that "the cure for bad speech was more speech".

Aside from how you feel about Mr. Romney, the church, etc., the points made in the "push polling" do have some validity. All except the BOM "more perfect" reference are factual.

I personally will not vote for Mitt because I see him as "too liberal". The best choice is RON PAUL.
He is truly committed to traditional American values.

Jamie/ Wichita KS | 5:44 p.m. Nov. 18, 2007

I agree with you Brent! Ron Paul 2008

Brian | 7:06 p.m. Nov. 18, 2007

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (National Archives)

There is NO "separation of church and state" mentioned ANYWHERE in the United States Constitution! The Supreme Court and Federal appellate courts have absolutely NO authority under the Constitution to AMEND this national charter of our Country!

Judicial orders may NOT create new laws which bypass the legislative power of Congress and the executive, enforcement power of the President. The Judicial Branch may only nullify laws passed by Congress and signed by the President that violate the strict, explicit enumeration of powers delegated to the 3 Branches of the federal government.

The President of the United States is NOT required to enforce, as binding law upon the entire United States of America, a judicial order of any federal court because the Founders plainly stated in the Constitution that, under Article III, judicial orders were ONLY binding upon the specific parties in a case of controversy. The ACLU is NOT constitutional government.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.