Posted on 12/03/2006 6:14:02 AM PST by FreedomPoster
Abbreviated transcript:
Reporter: < Long, rambling, agenda-driven question>
Romney (interrupting): Do you have a point of view on this?
Reporter: I represent the people, governor. (!!!)
Romney: No, I represent the people, you represent the media.
Wow, it only took 14 posts for the first bigot to appear!!!
Mormon beliefs are not as loony as scientology, but they are very different to most mainstream Christians, and if Romney's candidacy brings a spate of articles examining these beliefs (even if some are exaggerated), it can have a serious negative effect on the campaign. We would clearly not support a Heaven's Gate member or a David Koresh follower to a public post. Many will view Romney in that light.
Let me say that my closest and dearest friend is a Mormon, and I respect him and the way he raises his family as a good, moral part of society. This relationship has given me a close view of the paradox of Mormonism in the US. On the one hand, they are great people and assets to this nation. On the other, having been prosyletized by Mormons, I have looked into it, and in my view, it is the mad creation of Joseph Smith, just as the Koran is the creation of Mad Mo. So I have to separate my view of their beliefs from my view of them as people, and just keep it away from our relationship.
Knowing what I know about Mormons, and how I feel they can function in society without their beliefs affecting their public actions, I would vote for Romney if it came to a choice between him and any Democrat. I worry, though, that in a nation as closely divided as ours is, where a Republican can't win by more than a few small percentage points, would the religious beliefs of Romney be sufficient for him to forfeit a big chunk of voters who would normally vote Republican, and thus cost us the election to "St. Hillary", which would be a disaster of immense proportions.
In my mind, raising this issue at this early juncture is not bigotry, it is politics. The question is whether a Mormon can be elected in 2008. A Catholic could not be elected in 1920; by 1960 he could be. It is not wrong for Republicans to try to determine whether a Mormon can be elected. And if Romney goes through this process, and comes out of it with the nation having decided that his religion is irrelevant, then I will be happy for him and glad that we have been able to elect someone other than John McCain. Let's see how it shakes out, while not ignoring potential pitfalls.
Click on the link, watch the video clip. It sure didn't appear scripted to me.
Brilliant. So we'll end up with a Hillary or Obama.
I remember watching Michael Steele on Bill Maher's show some time ago. Martin Short was also a guest, and after discussing tax cuts for awhile they moved on to discussing southerners who had, non-traditional beliefs. And I remember being terribly struck by the pure ignorance of Maher and Martin as they jeered at the beliefs of people of faith and southerners. And I saw Michael Steele try to stand up for them, to preach a cause neither Maher, Short, or the audience, wanted to hear. Namely, that individuals of faith, or individuals who view the world slightly differently then you do, aren't to be ridiculed, or derided as "not terribly bright" as Short claimed, but to be praised for living good, decent lives, caring for their family, and believing that world doesn't start and end with what we can see with our eyes and rationalize with our minds. And as I looked at Michael Steele, I remember thinking of Reagan's immortal line, that this man and people like him, were "the last, best hope of mankind". If Christians are unwilling to vote for Romney because of his faith, then we've truly abandoned any sense of our core principles and created a world where we will, ultimately, not appreciate the outcome. Because make no mistake, if Romney's rejected because of his differing beliefs, 10-15 years from now, don't be surprised to see the country asking "how can we elect this man who believes the world was once, flooded and saved by a man in an ark, his family, and hundreds of animals?" Faith isn't something you can attack selectively. Once the liberal succeed in bringing ones religious beliefs into the public arena, for their seeming implausible qualities, no person of faith is safe. And we will see a truly secular world.
I don't normally follow politics closely there (presuming the worst having been an acceptable approximation in the past), so I'm lacking in first hand knowledge. His dad having been a well known RINO doesn't help. Is it possible for a truly conservative candidate to become governor there? Did he fool all of them or is he now trying to fool all of us? Or has he had a epiphany and become a convert to conservatism? That can be acceptable - Reagan himself was one - but has he been one long enough to trust as genuine?
There are certainly some here vigorously claiming he's a RINO. Whether they are correct or whether they just represent our discredited, but still vocal, Buchananite fringe I don't yet know. The media is starting to give him the same treatment they gave George Allen. Fortunately they exposed Allen's weakness before we could become over invested in him. So far he's held up ok. As an Iowan I have to choose early. Romney clearly wants to be seen as the conservative candidate and I'm told he's been organizing well here. The competition on the right is weak. The Clintons have already defeated Newt once. Huckabee is a good man, but could he even carry his own state against Hillary? Some senator to be the great right hope? McCain is a proven traitor to the right and the candidate of the worst 'M' word, the media. Most of the rest have gone native. I'd love Coburn, but don't see him running. The only way Rudy could win would be for the war to heat up enough to scare both the right and the left. He's no conservative and is (refreshingly) honest enough not to claim he is one.
I think the claims that Romney is a RINO are generally ridiculous. He is clearly a fiscal conservative at least. Yes, his health care plan scares many conservatives, but taxes there haven't been raised, and they already spend a billion dollars a year on free health care there (more then the vast majority of states), in addition to things like Medicaid, because of liberal programs place. They've projected this new program will cost about 600 million, and will vastly decrease the spending on free health care throughout the state (some during the first year, and more subsequently as more people enroll). So from a sheer budgetary standpoint, it makes sense for Massachussetts. But Romney has stated quite clearly that, beyond the basic principles (free market principles), it likely won't function as a model for the nation. The rest of his fiscal record is stellar, both as governor and in various other capacities. This is a man born to eliminate waste. He saved Bain Company from bankruptcy in the late 90's (a situation that had arisen only after he left them to form the wildly successful Bain Capital), he turned a 400 million dollar deficit into a 180 million dollar surplus during the Olympics. He turned a 3 billion dollar deficit into a 700 million dollar surplus, without raising taxes, and has since generated a surplus every year in office, despite seeing numerous of his budget line item cuts overridden by the legislature every year. The idea that he's anything but a budget, trimming, efficiency creating, fiscal conservative, isn't supported by virtually any of his career thus far. He got elected in Massachussetts precisely on that basis, downplaying his social beliefs. The question of whether or not a social conservative is slightly more up in the air. He ran for governor as pro-life, but pledged to uphold the pro-choice majority. When he ran for senate in 1994, he was pro-choice. So there was clearly an evolution there, that seems to be consistent with the new purely pro-life position he has adopted. He's always been quite vocal opposing same-sex marriage and civil unions (supporting instead domestic partnership benefits such as hospital visitation rights). The one issue where I think conservatives are just in questioning his position is gun control. He's stated previously that he supports the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons ban (signing into law a state Assault Weapons ban during his tenure). But I'm reminded that Dubya supported the latter, saying he would sign it were it to come to his desk, and opposed the repeal of the former. So I suggest that we wait to hear more from Romney on this issue before we cast judgment. I personally plan to vote for him either way, because I think he's excellent on almost every other issue (against amnesty as well), but I can see where others might have concerns.
Nice post, and I say that as a near atheist.
Viewed objectively, Mormon beliefs are pretty nutty. Many things, like their belief in a pre-columbian Isrealite America, are provably false, and when such foundational matters are wrong, the entire thing becomes a fantasy by a deluded upstate New Yorker. Adding in the extraterrestrial aspects, and it is different in degree, but not in kind, from Scientology. It has the benefit of 180 years of its adherents being good people to gain respectability, but it is still "out there". Scientology might be viewed like Mormonism in another 30 years, if it gains a few million adherents, and they seem like nice people. It won't transform their beliefs into normal, rational beliefs, though.
So, although I view Mormon beliefs as ridiculous, my experience with them, and our history with them as a people, leads me to believe that their religion does not disqualify them from high office. I can certainly understand why some people would think otherwise. Catholicism and Protestantism are not analogous. Mormonism isn't a slight difference in interpretation of the New Testament--it's an entirely new religion made up by a backwoods settler. You can guarantee that if Romney is nominated, we will be reading pieces examining each nuance of Mormonism. I believe that the world view of Mormons will turn off a lot of voters, who can't look past it, and that it would likely cost us the election. I welcome Romney to give it a try and see how the polls are running by spring 2008, and hope to be wrong. But, I don't blame people for examining the religious beliefs of a candidate. If they are too weird, the person should not be President. Period.
Hardly. The Christian God is the "Most High God" and does not have sex with his "wives" to propagate new worlds. There is room for all true Christians to live in harmony, the problem is, there are some who would like to be called "Followers of Christ" who are counterfeit.
So if someone exposes a truth that the deceivers would like to keep hidden, that makes him a bigot? Interesting world you live in. Dangerous too, I bet.
That sort of name calling reminds me of when someone speaks out against imigration they are called a racist, or if someone is against gay marriage they are a homophobe.
No what makes them a bigot is that they bring up how evil the Mormons are whenever Mitt Romney is mentioned. This article had nothing to do about Mormonism but rather was about how Mitt handled a loud mouthed reporter. but it only took 14 posts before someone gratuitously brought up Mormonism. As for deceivers I would submit that the deceivers are those who present half truths, out of context quotes and outright misrepresentations.
I guess that you are so without fault that you can gratuitously throw in criticisms about Mormons whenever Mitt is mentioned whether or not his personal faith was in the article under discussion.
Preaching Jesus to Secular Godless Frenchies for two years for free as a missionary
This piece tells me you have gotten your information about my religion from a source that is either crap for scholarship or intentionally lying. I'm not saying you are, just your source. Not everything you read on the internet is true.
Ronald Reagen has quite a different take on Mormons in Politics.
"Ronald Reagan truly admired the Latter-day Saints. His administration included more members of the Church than any other American president, ever. Three of us, David Fischer, Gregory Newell and I, served on his personal White House staff. Richard Wirthlin was his chief strategist. Ted Bell served as Secretary of Education, Angela Buchanan was Treasurer, Rex Lee was Solicitor General. His White House included Roger Porter, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Beal, Blake Parish, Jon Huntsman Jr., Dodie Borup and Rocky Kuonen, and there were many other Latter-day Saints throughout his Administration. President Thomas S. Monson served on a Presidential Commission on Volunteerism. Others were ambassadors. LDS senators and representatives were held in special regard, and the Tabernacle Choir was his special inaugural guest." -Stephen M. Studdert, Special Assistant to President Reagan
Mitt Romney is brilliant communicator imo, it is hard to see someone like him with such clarity and eloquent speaking in politics. If not the Presidency, Romney would be a great asset to the Republicans if he runs as a VP.
About the same here, and agree. As a side note, I've often said, if it comes down to throwing in with the militant atheists of the Left, or Chistians, that's a no-brainer for the Christians.
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.