ROMNEY'S CANDIDACY: BEYOND FACE VALUE (represents the long-lost American ideal)

NY POST ^ | May 18, 2007 | VOX POPULI

[Liz]

THE ISSUE: Whether Mitt Romney can become the first Mormon president. (Rich Lowry "Mauling Mitt For Mormonism," PostOpinion, May 15)

**** As a conservative, Romney is among the candidates for president I like most. The appearance of a squeaky-clean "Ozzie and Harriet" family life is no small part of his appeal. We need a leader who lives the way we should all aspire to.....the liberal media who idolize the likes of Bill Clinton do not feel the same way. Manhattan

**** Romney should be given a fair shake.....his policies and leadership qualities should be scrutinized, not his religious affiliation. That kind of bigotry should have gone by the wayside with the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic....beyond the good looks and stylish presentation of Romney, is a highly intelligent, very driven and skillful politician. He's a caring man with a nice family. Why should he be criticized for having that? It used to be the American ideal; maybe it's time to have it again. Manhattan

[restornu]

So, what do you think? Are all the swarms of nons and xers totally wrong and therefore damned to hell? I mean, this group has not just denied Joseph Smith’s standing as a prophet, but actively proselytized against him. So I assume you think we are among the damned.

Besides being contentious souls towards the LDS, I really don't know what their status is with the Lord only God knows their hearts and minds.

Because one don't like a particular religion does mean that person goes to hell, please don't employ your thinking on this subject and try to apply the same reasoning as being LDS views!

[Rameumptom]

Now that’s a better post, you are being more honest. Your Bishop was wrong. The official stance of the church is that is if a man is abusive towards a women or child he can not attend the temple and will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including excommunication. A man who abuses children gets his name put on a permanent list so he can no longer work with children (say in nursery or the primary). The weakness of the system though is it relies on the self-report to the bishop. IOW, a man can lie and the Bishop may not catch it. Another weakness is if a Bishop is clueless about abuse issues and not understand. The Church provides Bishop’s training but when it comes down to it Bishops (who are unpaid volunteers) are just like you or me and have varying levels of education, knowledge or compassion about certain subjects. In my own personal struggles I have found some Bishops to be very open and understanding some clueless as to how to help. I have learned not to judge those who just don’t get some things. You ex lied to the authorities and your Bishop was wrong. When are you going to forgive those who have wronged and failed you?

Now the perfection thing you bring it up a lot. I am guessing Mitt does not view himself as perfect, nor do I consdier myself perfect or anything close to it. You are overlaying that on him, as it fits your own understanding of what mormonism is. I do not share your theological interpretation of what it means to be perfect. I am not perfect and don’t pretend to be. One of my biggest weaknesses of course is pride and hitting the reply button to you ;-) (It seems you can’t resist that one either.)

Now to your personal story. I am glad you have been happily married for 24 years. Our society needs to focus on what is working in marraiges with Satan working full time to tear families apart. You have a lot that would probably benefit people in that area. My basic point is that when you try to use that strength in your life to legitimize paragraphs of tearing down others deeply held religious beliefs you go astray.

A scriptural way to put it is “not to cast your pearls before swine”. (Though I don’t really consider myself the swine I think the analogy would work from your persepctive). If you truly love your marraige and children and consider them sacred, why would you bring them into an argument you are having with someone online about religion? There are parts of my personal story I will not bring into the discussion and there are parts I will.

[colorcountry]

Bishops while unpaid are not exactly volunteers. Mormons are placed under the stewardship of their Bishop who they teach is Called By GOD. Therefore members place themselves beneaths his authority in matters of marraige counseling, and sexual counseling.

This is the one aspect of Mormonism the public doesn’t always understand. It is spiritual abuse when someone is placed in a position of power over you and hold the rights to grant you access to the Temple and supposed blessings contained therein which includes your eventual exaltation.

Is your Bishop a man, or is he called of God? How about your Prophet? Is he a man or is he called oF God?

[George W. Bush]

I agree with colorcountry, your answers semm quite Mormon.

Actually, no person of non-Mormon background would ever accuse me of this.

Let me tell you a little secret: you Mormons and ex-Mormons have a notable and singular trait that you never manage to break.

The rest of us don't fit that Mormon mold. And you ex-Mormons don't break the mold either. And by that standard, I am clearly non-Mormon.

I'll state it bluntly: I am not now nor have I ever been a Mormon.

[colorcountry]

But can you “prove” it? :-D

[FastCoyote]

“manipukarive pressure.

I agree with colorcountry, your answers semm “

I have just had a revelation, my typing is The Pits.

[George W. Bush]

I could. If I actually cared about the opinions of the followers and former followers of the blasphemous Prophet Smith that much. Nor do I care to compare and contrast the Prophet Smith and his pernicious influence to that of an earlier Prophet, Mohammad, who, not surprisingly, held to many of the same notions and practices.

[George W. Bush]

It isn’t like Dobson has the power of an all knowing “Prophet” to tell anyone how to think.

Have you met some of these flakey evangelicals? They'll fall for anything.

Now, the Baptists and the conservative Protestants are considerably tougher. Nevertheless, we will mostly vote on politics.

Romney's job is to make it clear to the Religious Right that he is, for all practical purposes, a clone of George W. Bush on so-con issues. Bush is the Gold Standard, even more than Reagan. All Romney has to do is make it clear that he shares that commitment and will follow through. But he can't be lukewarm.

Mitt must commit. So far, he's a little tentative but getting more aggressive. He's playing his hand well.

[jonathanmo]

George, that is just a brilliant statement. “Civic Christian.” Kudos to you, sir.

[George W. Bush]

“Civic Christian.”

It's very common in histories and poly sci writings. I can't take any credit. I'm surprised so many people seem unaware of how our presidents, generally pretty religious guys, have actually governed the country.

The record is uniform. Our presidents are civic christians in office, generally Christian in private life. And nothing about Romney's corporate or gubernatorial record suggests anything different if we elected him.

[Unmarked Package]

"Then there is a chance for Romney to embrace the findings of John Lott on the great deterrent effect of CCW licenses, a movement that is the most wildly popular in the states in many decades and something passed by the citizens in, what, 45 states or more now? And some are going even further to liberalize their gun laws."

It's interesting that you mentioned CCW licenses because the NRA-endorsed firearms reform bill that Gov. Romney signed in 2004 enacted more lenient provisions in that regard, namely:

1) Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years,
2) Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal, and
3) Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.

I have a concealed carry permit in Texas and it was a pleasant surprise to me that Romney was successful in making these improvements for licenses to carry in liberal Massachusetts. Hard data showing an inverse relationship between crime rates and licenses to carry played a role in gaining the support of the MA Legislature and Gov. Romney to relax restrictions.

[Unmarked Package]

"Civic Christian"

Romney often refers to a similar description taken from Lincoln:

Gov. Romney: "I subscribe to what Abraham Lincoln called America's political religion. The Constitution and the rule of law are the highest promises I would make in taking the oath of office."

[George W. Bush]

While those gun provisions and Romney's work with NRA, like his work with Heritage on mandatory health insurance, goes some distance with many of us.

But not quite far enough. Mitt Romney wants to be our guy. Fine. Then he has to be a little bolder.

There's plenty of time for him to do this. Unless unswervingly pro-life/pro-gun/pro-family Fred Thompson jumps in.

Romney should establish his so-con and firearms bona fides before it looks like he's just echoing Thompson. I don't doubt that Romney's staff is well-aware of these things. I think they should move ahead now if they want to appeal to the hard Right.

[George W. Bush]

Romney often refers to...

You really are a superb advocate for Governor Romney here at FR. Diligent, well-informed, strong dossier you've assembled, good writing skills. He couldn't do better, I think.

[John Leland 1789]

Romney has nothing at all over Hunter. We don’t elect the best man for the presidency anymore, however, but the most electable.

I, too, would certainly vote for Duncan Hunter over Mr. Romney in a two-way.

[Unmarked Package]

Thank you so much for those very kind remarks GWB. It's high praise coming from you; a person so highly regarded at Free Republic for your intelligence, knowledge of the facts and brilliant writing style.

Gov. Mitt Romney's experience and leadership ability, exceptional record of accomplishments, and personal character make it a fairly easy and pleasant task to be his advocate.

[Rameumptom]

Romney recognizes Hunter's creds. After the first debate on the Medved show Mitt was asked what he thought of the other candidates. He didn’t mention anyone except Hunter. He said, I learned a lot. I particularly liked the answers Duncan Hunter gave.

[Colofornian]

What is “irrational” is your continual assertion that our set of beliefs disqualifies us from serving in political office, when the truth or untruth of them can’t be proven until the next life, and when those beliefs will have positive effects on the way we conduct our lives here.

I meant to respond to this specific claim Friday & didn't.

Let me first address "qualification to any office":

Every person on the ballot, and even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds).

Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered president and should not be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead.

The bottom line is not to confuse "qualifications" with "qualities." I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities

Some folks like to bring up Article VI of the constitution re: not having religious litmus tests; but this article says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters must 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates?

"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.

I think Mitt had a lot of fine administrative qualities he brought to the table in running the U.S. Olympics hosting event; but I just don't think that administration alone makes a POTUS.

Secondly I make a distinction between POTUS and other office-holders re: considering the "qualities" of a candidate. For example, I would rather have a POTUS who, in a time of a Jack Bauer-type crisis, would call upon the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not one who adheres to a belief in a "council of gods" roaming out there.

Secondly if a candidate can't even define what historic Christianity is, then what does that say about defining different elements of Islam? What kind of national security/terrorist prowess does this individual have? If he can be deceived in the most important area of his life--his faith--what does that say about vulnerability to deception in areas like national security, etc?

These are all vital POTUS issues in a Jack Bauer era that aren't as relevant as other political offices. The fact that many, many, many LDS folks are indeed marvelous administrators, I have no doubt that is the case. But we need more than an able administrator in the Oval Office.

[George W. Bush]

Secondly if a candidate can't even define what historic Christianity is, then what does that say about defining different elements of Islam? What kind of national security/terrorist prowess does this individual have? If he can be deceived in the most important area of his life--his faith--what does that say about vulnerability to deception in areas like national security, etc?

This kind of ignorance is laughable.

[Colofornian]

This kind of ignorance is laughable.

It's the ignorance of historic Christianity, labeling its creeds as an "abomination" before God and its professors as "corrupt," which is almost laughable. Yet this is the foundational creed of Mormonism. That's real "inspirational" for drawing the Christian vote, eh?

But as they say, "Whatever happened in Nauvoo didn't stay in Nauvoo. It set up camp in Utah and published it worldwide from there."