Posted on 02/08/2007 2:31:51 PM PST by Plutarch
> Didn't the LDS church put money and effort into opposing the gay marriage law in Hawaii?
Wasn't in Hawai'i, but not too long ago there was an announcment from the pulpit saying, in essence, "There are bills in the Congress concerning the definition of marriage. We encourage members to write their representatives and let them know how you feel."
Such announcements always seem to be written very cautiously, and read verbatim without additional comment.
(My experience. Your mileage may vary.)
Done.
The article really isn't bashing, but the purpose is likely signal to other news organizations to bring up the Mormon question early and often. Essentially, like King Henry, the NYT is saying to the the MSM: Who will rid me of this meddlesome Mormon?
I don't judge men but Romney in that pic is looking very distinguished.
> I don't judge men but Romney in that pic is looking very distinguished.
My little trip down memory lane regarding Nixon reminded me how unfortunate it is that candidate now have to LOOK presidential as much as, or more so than, actualy be QUALIFIED for the presidency.
Mitts a RINO in my book; he's on my B-list with Rudy and John.
Alright, what's wrong with the portrait painted here? LDS only believe the polygamy is "obsolete" on this side of the veil. The "Families are forever" slogan tells you everything you need to know about whether they believe polygamy is an obsolete practice, or one that's practiced (in some LDS circles, anyway) for eternity.
While LDS consider polygamy unusual, illegal, and they acknowledge the down sides to its social consequences (for example, as practiced by fundamentalist Mormons), I'm not sure how many can outright label polygamy as a "bizarre" practice without simultaneously labeling the likes of their first several prophets & dozens of their general authorities in their initial 60 years as likewise being of "bizarre" character.
I mean, ask any LDS saint:
"Are your polygamist prophets, polygamist general authorities, and other LDS polygamists from past eras--are these folks alive beyond the veil?" (They'll answer, "Yes, they are")
"Are families and marriages forever?" (They'll answer, "Yes, they are")
"Are these polygamist families from eras past still intact beyond the veil?" (If they hold traditional LDS theology, they'll answer, "Yes, they are").
So, polygamy as a practice is something LDS still believe in--certainly not for "time"--but certainly "for eternity." (Marriages are even sealed in their temples "for eternity"...for example, in situations where a person had multiple partners but not at the same time)
Bottom line, polygamy is sidelined to another dimension. And while LDS general authorities will ex-communicate those who practice it "for time," they've never removed the pro-polygamous "scriptures" from their midst (see Doctrine & Covenants 132:1,35,52,65, for example).
This from the paper that isnt supposed to exist in 5 years???
Romney's qualifications are as good as or better than his rivals. Romney is also more conservative than any other viable candidate.
If you have a more conservative candidate that is viable, please, do tell.
Yeah, it's taken awhile for the bad news to sink in: The MSM is not forever. A true statement economically, culturally, politically, and theologically!
Not so long ago, candidates like Mitt could have cared less over "viability" issues when it applied to pre-borns. So tell us why we should care more about the "viability" of his candidacy than he did about the "viability" of those aborted in Massachusetts & elsewhere?
Romney’s about-face on campaign funding
By Alexander Bolton
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who strongly criticized campaign-finance regulations in a private meeting with House conservatives last week, once touted dramatic restructuring measures such as taxing political contributions and placing spending limits on federal campaigns.
Romney’s past positions on campaign-finance regulation, anathema to many social conservatives who believe such rules place unconstitutional limits on free speech, could complicate his ongoing efforts to court conservative leaders.
Romney already has had to explain his past support for abortion rights, another volatile issue among conservatives. At a private meeting with conservative House Republicans in Baltimore Friday, Romney devoted much of his time to explaining how his stance on abortion has evolved, said a conservative who attended.
While several Republicans who attended the Republican Study Committee (RSC) retreat greeted Romney’s remarks on abortion with skepticism, his condemnation of changes to campaign-finance rules struck a positive chord with the entire audience. Romney specifically criticized the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act sponsored by his rival for the GOP presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
“Referring to the bill, [Romney] called it ‘one of the worst things in my lifetime,’” one conservative Republican said. “The place erupted. That was by far the biggest applause line.”
Romney also has criticized McCain on campaign finance while stumping in South Carolina, where President Bush turned the tide against McCain in the 2000 GOP presidential primary.
A South Carolina-based publication, The State, recently reported that Romney highlighted McCain’s support of campaign regulations in order to draw a contrast with his rival.
“That’s a terrible piece of legislation,” Romney said, according to the report. “It hasn’t taken the money out of politics … [But] it has hurt my party.”
A review of Romney’s public statements from his 1994 senatorial and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns reveal that he once touted stringent campaign-finance modifications.
A Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs).
McCain and his allies on campaign finance included similar proposals in the first campaign-finance reform package they introduced in Congress in 1995, said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, who was at the center of the fight to pass the changes. McCain and his allies later dropped the spending limits and PAC ban because they proved to be too controversial, she said.
During remarks before the Burlington (Mass.) Business Roundtable in 1994, Romney spoke like the committed reformers who later enacted sweeping national reforms in Congress.
“I understand Ted Kennedy will spend about $10 million to be reelected — he’s been in 32 years, $10 million. I think that’s wrong because — and that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people,” Romney said during the 1994 presentation, which was aired by C-SPAN. “And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”
Romney lost his race against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). When he ran for governor eight years later, Romney again proposed dramatic changes to campaign-finance rules.
The Quincy Patriot Ledger and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported in the fall of 2002 that Romney proposed taxing political contributions to finance publicly funded campaigns.
“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”
Kevin Madden, Romney’s campaign spokesman, declined to comment about campaign finance proposals his boss made in 1994 and 2002.
“He believes there ought to be transparency and disclosure in a way so the public knows who’s raising money and who’s contributing money,” said Madden. “Right now I can say we make every effort that the campaign adheres to the disclosure and transparency requirements of campaign finance law now; 1994 was 15 years ago.”
Madden reiterated Romney’s belief that the 2002 campaign law hindered public participation.
Public-financed elections are an idea that Democrats in the Senate and House are planning to push this Congress; the idea is strongly opposed by conservative leaders.
Tom McClusky, the vice president of government affairs for the Family Research Council, an influential Washington-based grassroots advocacy organization representing evangelical Christians, said public financing of elections would distance lawmakers from voters.
“For groups like ours that work directly with the grass roots, it hurts us because the distance [to lawmakers] grows larger and larger,” said McClusky, who argued that if legislators did not have to make fundraising appeals, they “would no longer have to be worried that they’re answerable to their constituents.”
McClusky said he did not know whether Romney since had shifted his stance.
“Of course, this was Mitt Romney in 2002. Who knows? He might have changed his mind on that,” he said. “He always seems to want to come back to the table.”
Jeff Mazzella, the president of the Center for Individual Freedom, another conservative advocacy group, has published harsh criticisms of McCain because of his support for various campaign regulations. He was surprised to hear of Romney’s past positions.
“I was not familiar [with] Romney’s positions referenced in the articles you stated,” Mazzella said in an interview. “We’re adamantly opposed to the idea of taxing campaign donations, or eliminating PACs or any abridgement of the people’s right to assemble or speak.”
It remains to be seen, however, whether Romney will face as much skepticism on campaign finance as he has on abortion.
One House conservative who met with him last week noted disapprovingly that Romney freely admitted that he has been firmly opposed to abortion rights for only two and a half years. He was also unenthusiastic about what he called Romney’s cumbersome explanation.
“He spent a significant portion of his speech trying to convince members that he was pro-life now,” he said. “But on an issue like that is, it shouldn’t take a lot of time to say, ‘I’m pro-life.’
“The fact that it took paragraphs and paragraphs of explanation, and never had a hard-and-fast ‘I’m 100 percent pro-life from conception to natural death’” was disconcerting, the House Republican said.
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/020807/romney.html
Apt title.
Mr. Romney, Mormon Theologians agree that God lives on a distant planet, the planet KOLOB, it that what you believe?
Not necessarily, most people really do not want to hear about a religion's theology while they are running for office.
The anomolous incidence of depression in Utah intrigues me, but I don't see any reason to worry about a Mormon president.
One House conservative who met with him last week noted disapprovingly that Romney freely admitted that he has been firmly opposed to abortion rights for only two and a half years. He was also unenthusiastic about what he called Romney’s cumbersome explanation.
“He spent a significant portion of his speech trying to convince members that he was pro-life now,” he said. “But on an issue like that is, it shouldn’t take a lot of time to say, ‘I’m pro-life.’
Sorry, I think this one is a show stopper... God lives on a distant planet, the planet KOLOB, This one is too far out there. Like in Outerspace
I think Mitt would be a great candidate, and if nominated, I would support him.
I do, however, think that Mormonism will be an issue, more to Dims than to Republicans. Since so much is defined by our media culture, most people know about the Mormons only from South Park.
Mitt certainly looks presidential, and he has the all important temperament to go with the job.
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.