Bigotry is bigotry

I read a very good article in the Washington Post about Mitt Romney and his status as a Mormon. As a disclaimer, I am a practicing Mormon and I supported Romney in 2008 and again this year because of his handling of the Salt Lake Olympics, business background, and ability to reach across the isle in a very blue state....

The thing that I'm confused about is the utter silence by the media, both on the right and left, print, TV, radio, blogs, etc. regarding the continued bigotry displayed by any and all voters who say they wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon.

I have no problem with saying that if you don't like Mitt or don't want to vote for him because of his record, great. Don't like he used to be more towards gun control, or more pro-choice, or don't like the Massachusetts health care law? Great, don't vote for him.

Not voting for Romney based on his Mormonism is flat out bigotry. Can you imagine the reaction if anyone on camera or an interview said "I wouldn't vote for Obama (or Cain) because he is black!" What if they said "I won't vote for Joe Lieberman because he is a Jew." I'm sure people don't vote for Keith Ellison in Minnesota based on his being a Muslim, and that is just as wrong. But I haven't heard people say this about Mr. Ellison (probably because I don't live in Minnesota's 5th District.)

I have read and heard people say they wouldn't vote for Romney because he is Mormon. The pastor who introduced Rick Perry last month all but said "You shouldn't vote for anyone who isn't an evangelical Christian. And Mitt Romney isn't an evangelical."

I have personally been subjected to this view, but to be fair, it was a legitimate reasoning. When I started my Masters program at Liberty University, I was told that I wouldn't be allowed to enter into the Chaplains program because getting a Theological degree would be an ecclesiastical endorsement. Liberty does not and will not endorse a Mormon. That is OK, though, because they did let me take many of the classes I need to get my Theology degree from Amridge University (a Church of Christ based institution.)

No one is talking about Mitt Romney as a preacher. They are talking about him as a politician. There are not supposed to be litmus tests based on religion in the US. "Supposed to be." Clearly there are.

That the main stream media, right wing radio and the blogosphere don't challenge anyone and everyone who says they won't vote for Romney based on religion just shows that they are either gutless, don't understand their responsibilities as the fifth estate, or they are biased themselves.

Perhaps a little of all three?

Change in thinking?

As I have been for the past election cycle and this one, I am a Romney guy. I think Mitt is the best candidate for the economy this year, and would have been 3+ years ago.
I also understand that people on the right are worried that because Mitt started his public life more towards the center/left that people distrust that his is actually on the political right. I don't buy this personally. Isn't the whole point of debate and study to learn and grow? When you look at Churchill saying (to paraphrase) "If you aren't a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you aren't a conservative at 40 you have no brain."
I think Mitt has done what politicians have always done. They modify their positions for many reasons. I think he was likely pro-life all along but understood he couldn't make that a main point when running for office in Massachusetts for crying out loud. It's easy for someone who wants to run in Utah or Texas to be so conservative that they make Reagan look moderate because those states have populations that collectively think that way. (And just to make the point, no one is going off on Perry for being a major campaign player for Al Gore of all people, so really, are we saying people shouldn't be allowed to change?)

That all being said, I am starting to think that Newt Gingrich might actually be the best candidate overall. I listened to his 90 minute debate with Herman Cain, if you want to call it a debate. It was more like Newt saying how things are, how they should be and Cain saying, "Yes, I agree." In fact, the most telling part of the debate was following a medicare (medicaid?) question that Cain, repeated the question, looked skyward, realized he had no idea what the question meant, and deferred to Newt. Realistically, that non-answer (added to Cain's other misguided and uninformed opinions) should sink his boat more than anything with the alleged harassment stuff (assuming of course the allegations turn out to be mostly smoke and mirrors, which seems pretty likely.)
The thing I worry about with Newt is the negative name association so many people have with him. The left and the media (I know, same thing) are going to try and kill him with his divorces and anything they can make stick.
However, Newt is the guy on the stage that comes of as informed, teacher-like, straight talking and conservative. I'm not saying Romney is lacking those things, but I would love to see the Lincoln/Douglass type debate with Mitt and Newt. That would go a long ways towards how I think about this cycle.
Regardless, if Romney wins, I would want Newt as the VP. He is the guy who can get an (inevitable?) Republican congress to line up behind the president. But if Newt were to be the candidate, I think Romney in the cabinet would be the way to go with someone like Rubio, Allen West (who I would really like to see run in 4 years if heaven forbid Obama wins again) or another minority (yep, I hate to say it but it might be "necessary") to be the Veep.
*And when I say I hate to say a minority is necessary, I'm talking about the race card the left plays. If you are against Obama, you are racist. Personally, if Cain was the best guy for the job I would vote for him. Hell, if Obama was the best guy for the job I would vote for him. But with the way the left plays the race card whenever it can, I think it will be necessary to counterbalance that with either a woman (not sure who that would be) or a minority.