Posted on 09/29/2005 10:45:04 AM PDT by txzman
You'd die if you did. LOL. But Hatch ran for President, as did Romney's father.
He is a squishy compromiser on every social issue.
It is my personal belief that Mormonism is a false, un-Christian religeon. That said, I would potentially vote for a Mormon for President if he was pro-life, pro-gun, fiscally conservative, pro-Constitution, of good moral character, etc. If a man holds conservative beliefs, understands the federal system as our Founders intended, is honest and hardworking, and loves America and wants to crush those who would harm her, I say that's good enough. As Louisiana Sen. John Breaux said of Joe Lieberman, "I think people don't care so much where [Sen. Lieberman] goes to church on Sunday, but just that he has the moral values and principles to lead this country." Just so.
Polygamist wouldn't bother me, as long as it was the consenting adults kind, and not the coerced adolescents kind. The other two are deal-killers: Scientologist = deliberate member of organized crime syndicate OR certifiably insane OR both; Raelian = certifiably insane.
Yeah, I know. That's why I resolved not to do it :-)
I'm not an evangelical, but I am bothered by Romeny's Mormonism. Not in the way you'd think though; I wish that Romney's religion had more of an influence on his politics. Namely, I wish he was pro-life. I don't care what religion a politician professes, if he or she thinks infanticide should be legal, then say goodbye to my vote.
Now if Romeny was more conservative, I might give him a closer look. Mormon theology is quite bizarre and problematic, but as long as the President is pursuing the policies I want, I couldn't care less about his religion.
He got elected by focusing on issues of competence and corruption. He soft-pedaled social issues in the campaign, but became much more vocal about his conservative views after getting into office. I don't think he could be reelected in Massachusetts against a competent Democrat. And that's to his credit as a national candidate.
At least the effect on meaning isn't as significant as the Muslims little translation error, mistaking 72 dried figs for 72 virgins.
If Mitt Romney had run as pro-life in the 2002 election, he would be a venture capitalist living in Utah or New Hampshire today.
I have no doubt how he would advocate on this issue in a national race.
Shhhhhhhh...Don't point out that Mitt is NOT pro-gay marriage, pisses people off aroung here.
It's a "hit piece" on the brand of Christians that brainwash their children by forcing them to sit through Sunday school "lessons" in which they're taught that every religion other than their own is an evil Satanic cult whose members are going to roast in hell for eternity. We could use more hit pieces of that type.
Romney advocated for the most conservative position on the table and whipped the Republicans in the legislature, small group that they are, into a cohesive bloc that could play the political calculus to his best advantage. This year, he moved toward favoring a complete DOMA, giving that movement some life.
Why do you have such a vendetta against Romney? It's ok if he's not your favored candidate, but it's misleading to attack him as a closet liberal. He's not. Anyone who has watched him up close knows what his personal views are and how he'd run in the 47 states less liberal than Massachusetts.
He endorsed civil unions for gays. He supports other "gay rights" issues.
Those are the facts. Deal with it.
Well, Joseph Smith did put his name forward as a candidate for President in 1844. However, he was killed in June of that year. (I am not sure that his candidacy played any role in this.)
So Mitt is not the first "Mormon" to run for president. In fact, he is not even the second: Mitt's father George Romney ran in 1968.
How would he run on 2nd amendment issues?
His actions since 2003 have said far more about where he stands, and what he thinks, than anything he said in the last days of the 2002 election. Remember, even George Bush said he was open to civil unions in the weeks before the '04 election. He learned the trick from Romney, it seems!
Fact: Romney opposes civil unions. He's out front on an amendment to ban same-sex marriage in this state. The legislature opposed him, so he's taking it to the people.
He's done nothing to advance homosexual rights in Massachusetts. Why don't you present a convincing argument why he would do so as President, when he'd have been elected by a more conservative electorate than chose him to be Governor of the McGovern State.
Alas, to many in the media that is a description of all religious people.
you asked for a source..
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/s_z/smith.htm
don't know about the being killed for it though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.