"I don't think that a person who's running for a secular position as I am should talk about or engage in discussions of what they in their personal faith or their personal beliefs is immoral or not immoral"
He says flat out he thinks running for a secular position means keeping your views on morality to yourself.
His record in MA is that he thought the state's moral opinions, and not his own, ought to determine his conduct and policies as governor.
In other words, he thinks public office means not having a morality, but outsourcing it, or keeping it bland and uncommitted to avoid offending anybody.
No one with that attitude can *lead* on anything.
Try determining who should be the next justice of the supreme court on the basis of "separation of morality and state".
He has been neutered by multiculturalists, because he does not have the personal philosophic confidence to stand up to their inane nonsense.
The leader of the entire conservative movement - which is what a Republican presidential nominee becomes - has to do a heck of a lot better than that. He isn't running for MA governor anymore.
Mighty fine phraseology, there!
I like Mitt’s philosophy. He has a very definite opinion about how far the purview of government should reach....thereby giving individuals more freedom and reducing the size and scope of government.
He is very strong on individual rights.