My problem with Mr. Romney is that his Mormon moral principles did not influence him ENOUGH as governor of Massachusetts. I wish that he were (in some ways) MORE Mormon.
We survived Unitarian presidents, and sham Christian presidents (e.g. the Clintons). We can survive a Mormon president.
By the way, why wasn’t this an issue when LDS-er Mo Udall ran against Carter in ‘76 (coming in 2nd)?
Romney wants to pass the buck on abortion like a hot potato.
http://franciscanconservative.blogspot.com/2007/04/mitt-romney-anti-roe-but-not-pro-life.html
As the AP reports, Mitt Romney refuses to back pro-life ultrasound legislation in South Carolina.
His reasoning?
“I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion. I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”
As a reader has pointed out in an earlier post, while Mitt Romney is anti-Roe, he certainly is not pro-life. By refusing to support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, Romney is rejecting one of the key planks in the platform of the Republican Party that has been there since 1980. Furthermore, he finds himself to the left on life issues of even Sen. John McCain, who supports such an amendment.
Here is the actual text of Mitt Romney’s published Q&A in the Feb. 10th issue of National Journal:
NJ: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?
What I’ve indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.
NJ: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?
The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn’t be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation — a one-size-fits-all approach — but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.
“By the way, why wasn’t this an issue when LDS-er Mo Udall ran against Carter in ‘76 (coming in 2nd)?”
Same reason it’s not an issue for Harry Reid. He was on the right side of the issues. That little “D” makes all the difference in the world.
It wasn’t an issue when Romney’s father tried to run for president.
I wish he were more Mormon as well.
I am LDS, and he just seems too watered down at times.
Same reasons it wasn’t an issue when George Romney ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968: Evangelical Christians were far less organized a constituency and even less was known about Mormonism by the public and political and media establishments.
If you’re a Reagan fan, remember Reagan changed his mind on social issues, also.
It’s a mark of maturity to be able to look honestly at issues in the light of evidence and change one’s mind.
Simple. Way back then, all news and comment was filtered through strange old men called 'editors', who remembered the anti-Catholic bigotry directed towards JFK with great disdain. Today, we have the wild, wild West known as 'The Internet', where everyone's opinion, no matter how far out, or bizarre, can be made available, facelessly, and without the need for accountability.
It's ugly sometimes, but truth can be like that.
Who was the Unitarian president?
I just don’t get it.
I’m a fundamentalist Christian. I would vote for an individual on the basis of their political philosophy, not their religion - as long as they are not Muslims.
Romney isn’t high on my hit parade, but if he gets nominated I would support and vote for him, which is more than I can say for JulieAnnie or McClown.
We are electing the President of the United States, not selecting a minister.
Although some Mormon beliefs are rather bizarre to non-Mormons, they have strong moral values and have long ago renounced polygamy.
Opposing Romney because of Mountain Meadows and Bringham Young makes as much sense as not voting for a Catholic because of the Spanish Inquisition or a Anglican because the Star Chamber.
Please! Who wants a Mormon president? I am against killing Mormons, but I still reject Mormonism with all my heart.