It’s Romney the man—who can potentially be dragged away from leftist ideology—vs the principles of that ideology which will never go away.
The question I’m struggling with is: Does Romney have the heart of a true liberal or is he simply a wishy washy spoiled little rich boy who will be swayed by the crowd (and by his VP).
I think there’s a big difference.
And another thing comes to mind. Romney doesn’t enfuriate me as much as the usurper does.
At this point my vote is personal, not political.
A few previous articles have cracked a window on this:
* Mitt Romney mirrors his Mormon church [Lds writer says Romney flip-flops 'cause Lds church has/does]
* Who is Mitt Romney? [Ex-Lds author reveals why Mitt's wishy-washy culture waffles & flip-flops]
In the first linked article above, Mormon Neal Chandler highlights how in the 19th century...
* Mormons forced communism upon its people -- and then not (United Order)
* Adhered to theocracies under its first two "prophets" -- and then slowly drew back
* Encourage its Utah Territory voters to be Democrats -- and then told whole groups of people wholesale to "balance it out" as Republicans as statehood approached
* Excluded blacks -- and then late in the 20th century not
* Said polygamy was a condition of the highest degree of glory -- and then not (and that was after polygamy was condemned as an "abomination" in the 1830 Book of Mormon and monogamy fully embraced in the 1831 and 1832 Lds "scripture" Doctrine & Covenants...all as Joseph Smith supposedly had polygamy "secretly" revealed to him to start it up in 1831!
We can see from these historical examples how the Mormon "god" loves to change his mind on a whim!
From the second article linked above: What makes Mitt the kind of person he is — ruthlessly opportunistic, dishonest, insincere, willing to say anything for advantage, lacking in conscience, preoccupied with appearance, etc., on the one hand, yet squeaky clean, family-oriented, disciplined, boring, and predictable, on the other? My new e-book, A Mormon Story, sheds light on the culture that produced Mitt Romney.
Good question. (It's one I've raised -- and answered numerous times on various FR threads)
The answer, says this ex-Mormon in the book referenced above is: (From the article): The book reveals a value system that ultimately has no absolutes, other than the need to conform to deep-seated, highly-controlling authoritarianism that pervades LDS culture. That culture emphasizes a Mormon tradition known as "eternal progression" — undoctrinal spiritual evolution in which even God is changing. It also emphasizes the notion that the latest words of governing church leaders trump the Word of God found in the scriptures (including LDS scripture).
IOW, EVERYTHING in Mormonism -- from its theology to its social practices -- is up for potential change at the whim of the Mormon god. Bottom-line: There is no bottom-line in Mormonism! There is no bedrock doctrine that cannot be replaced!
There isn't even an Ultimate god in Mormonism...Nobody knows who the gods are that were part of the council which appointed the god of this world -- a former man, say Mormons.
So there's not even any Ultimate Authority in Mormonism!
Mitt may never have had much reason to truly care about issues of social morality that most religions of the civilized world care about, at least on paper (even the LDS cares about it on paper — but they are toothless it seems when it comes to reining Mitt in). He does seem to have carried on decently enough in his own love life. One wife, Ann Romney, whom he still loves, and even though his sons may be fairly criticized for shying away from military service they are not noted as being crooks or libertines.
We truly can’t know from the evidence at hand. Mitt is a sinner badly in need of salvation. However Mitt does appear open to being influenced in a way that Barack never would be. A waffler may waffle in the right direction. A demonic doctrinaire, never.
A larger issue for the future is how can the less-liberal body politic be unfrozen from its apathy with respect to primaries. People complain about elections never offering good choices; well that’s mostly because they only think general elections. The same complainers will by a proportion of 9-1 not get off their duffs in a primary. Mitt became prominent in the lack of competition from Sarah Palin. When Sarah Palin did not run, the body politic said meh. And We Got Mitt. Better strategeries (pace GWB) are needed.