|
February 7, 2007
|
 |
 |
|
|
Carlos Osorio/Associated Press
Mitt Romney gave the first major policy speech of his presidential campaign Wednesday in an address to the Detroit Economic Club. |
|
February 7, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Carlos Osorio/Associated Press
Mitt Romney gave the first major policy speech of his presidential campaign Wednesday in an address to the Detroit Economic Club. |
Well, let's see...
Mormon's don't preach the killing of non-Mormons
Don't advocate wife-beating, stoning of women or torture,
Don't impose their beliefs on society.
Nope, don't have a problem with a Mormon President.
Are there any senior Freepers around who recall what the NYT's take was when a Roman Catholic ran for the presidency in 1960?
Harry (G)Reid is a mormon.
Not an issue with me.
I like Mitt, very quick. (We'll see if he's ready for prime time when the attacks start. I'll wager he'll hold his own.)
And why hasn't Hussein Obama's candidacy stirred this "discussion" in the pages of the NY Times? Geez, I wonder.
The only concern about this is in the diseased minds of the NYT editors. Excerpts of the official policy of the LDS Church regarding political neutrality of church members who are elected, public officials are provided below:
begin excerpt ________________________________
Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent. (Emphasis added)
and...
The LDS Church does not:
-Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
-Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
-Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
-Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.
end excerpt ________________________________
By way of a personal observation as a non-member of the LDS Church, I don't recall a single political conversation of significance with any of my LDS friends, teachers, employers, Boy Scout leaders, etc., during the 16 years I lived among them. Nothing political at all, and certainly never anything political from the pulpit when I attended LDS church services at the invitation of my friends which was often.
Things may have changed since I lived in Utah, but from what I observed it's one of the most politically neutral religious faiths in the U.S. even though the LDS members vote Republican in overwhelmingly numbers. Surveys from the 2000 election show Mormons voted for George W. Bush by nearly a 9-to-1 margin.
He believes in God. Thats going to be more of a problem for Democrats than it is for Republicans, by and large.
"The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a 'Mormon,' I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves." - Joseph Smith, Jr.The Articles of Faith
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
I will support any Repub candidate that can and will defeat the Demrats!
I don't remember, but did Nixon get a lot of grief for being a Quaker?
Let's fire up the 'ol WikiPedia...
Mother Quaker...father converted from Mehodist to Quaker...Congressional run...Senate run...Vice president...little flap about wife's fur coat...Checkers the spaniel was a campaign contribution...presidential run #1...stubble on his face...CA governor run...won't have Nixon to kick around anymore... presidential run #2...dissed the hippies...won.
Not a word about his being a Quaker or how that would affect his role as president. Hmm.
Not the first Mormon candidate for President.
I recall Joseph Smith himself, and Mitt's Dad.
I think.
>>popular misconceptions about Mormonism <<
Yes, those can be nicely cleared up by going to ex-mormon.com, ex-mormon.org and ex-mormon.net.
One of my favorites: http://www.exmormon.org/2nephi5.htm
Ronald Reagan included more members of the LDS Church in his administration than any other American president (more than 15). Provided below is a statement from a member of Reagan's administration:
"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
The NYT's is simply TRYING to ACT relevant. They are not, and in their Christian Ethic Hating Ways they will use this against Mitt. I am not big on the Mormon religion, thats a separate discussion, what is key here is that the NYT will hate this man for his virtuous stand in the public square.
I don't judge men but Romney in that pic is looking very distinguished.
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).
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
The anomolous incidence of depression in Utah intrigues me, but I don't see any reason to worry about a Mormon president.
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.
These things matter. They define what you'll get for a president.