Posted on 08/03/2007 9:36:12 PM PDT by bubman
Yesterday, Mitt Romney went into Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson’s studio for a conversation about politics. At least it should have been about politics. Instead, Mickelson decided he wanted to grill Romney on the Mormon church and Mormon theology. (I also thought Mickelson’s comments on politics, namely that the President should overrule the Supreme Court when in the President’s opinion the Court oversteps its bounds, were a tad on the screwy side as well.)
Mickelson’s station, WHO, had a video recorder on the governor that was recording his off-air comments, something that Romney was unaware of. On the air, Mickelson stated that according to Mormon theology, Romney should have been excommunicated from the Mormon Church because he was once pro-choice. Off the air, Romney tried to gently tell Mickelson that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Although I’ve never heard even a snippet of Mickelson’s show before today, I bet Mickelson holding forth on something he knows nothing about happens on a not infrequent basis. The off air exchange (that once again Romney didn’t know was being taped) was at times heated. WHO today posted the footage on its website.
(Excerpt) Read more at hughhewitt.townhall.com ...
I would read them but was afraid to post. The Rudybots were viscous.
They are mostly gone now, thank goodness.
Name one.
I think it’s not worth responding to because it hit a nerve...why can’t you not support Romney without being so heavy handed with him?
No. It wasn’t worth responding to because it was specious garbage.
:-)
The arrogance of Michelson is just plain breathtaking. The guy is not even a Mormon, and yet he presumes to know more about the Mormonism than a Mormon bishop! Sheesh.
I've noticed that most talkshow hosts tend to be very arrogant. I suppose it comes with the territory.
Like you, I believe the distinctive Mormon doctrines to be false. However, they are not lies if the people who preach them believe them to be true.
To assert that that they are "perpetuating an obvious lie," you must have some way of knowing that they don't believe what they preach. How do you know this? Do you possess the Divine ability to know what's in a man's heart?
You got that right. She isn't going to be content planning state dinners or Christmas decor for the White House.
We can. When you want to win in any area, you analyze what your opponent is doing right, then do it better yourself or use it to destroy him. It's good strategy. Mitt made millions from almost nothing. He understands people and what it takes to succeed. He has the qualities which adapt to any leadership position.
Unfortunately, most conservatives refuse to acknowledge this crucial fact which is why we don't win as often as we should. The day we promote domestic issues with a conservative approach better than the Dems will be the day we win on a regular basis. As long as we limit ourselves to the strong defense, lower taxes and small government mantra we will fade in and out of power as circumstances dictate. We are either in control of our fate or a victim of it.
finding what your opponent is doing and do it better? Destroy your opponent? How about just seeing clearly what is right and acting on that like Reagan did. He wasn’t out to destroy anyone but did make many converts and was able to get so much good done.
The Scott decision was rendered in 1857, before Lincoln was even President. In a speech Lincoln gave in 1857, he expressed his disagreement with Scott, but also recognized that the Supreme Court possessed the authority to interpret the Constitution. Thus, he stated:
“And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions—first, that a Negro cannot sue in the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court—dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision; and, in that respect, I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis, than he could on Taney.
He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him?
Judicial decisions have two uses—first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called “precedents” and “authorities.”
We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.”
During the Civil War, Lincoln, relying upon the war powers of the Constitution (Article II, Sec. 2) granted to him as Commander in Chief issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves held in Confederate states. It did not free slaves living in the border states nor did it overrule Dred Scott. It was a Constitutional exercise of his war powers.
Congress passed a law prohibiting slavery in the territories. Was its constitutionality ever challenged? No. Unconstitutional laws are occasionally passed by Congress and signed by the President, but the unconstitutionality of such laws are not determined until they are challenged and ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. McCain-Feingold was passed by Congress and signed by the President. Its constitutionality was challenged and portions of it were held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. Why? Because that is the authority granted by the Constitution to the Supreme Court. Was the law passed by Congress in 1862 unconstitutional? Yes. Was it ever challenged? Not to my knowledge. Why? Because there was a Civil War going on. Do you think the Confederacy which had already seceded from the Union and established its own government was going to challenge it?
The asininity of your position is belied by the subsequent passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. If the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1862 law passed by Congress were sufficient to overrule Supreme Court precedent it would have been unnecessary to pass such Amendments. However, the Amendments were necessary and it is a further example of how checks and balances exist in the Constitution.
Your feeble efforts to support your bizarre position are embarrassing yourself. Please stop trying to espouse an argument which has no authority in either the text of the Constitution or Constitutional jurisprudence.
Those are wonderful sentiments but altruism rarely wins in politics. Reagan was one of a kind which will never come along again. Politics is typically a bloodsport and the stakes are too high in 2008 to back down. There is a communist running and she will do what it takes to attain power.
Reagan did a lot of wonderful things and motivated many with his hope and optimism, but it cannot be denied that Reagan's goal was to destroy the 'evil empire' of the Soviet Union. He did so by waging an arms race that included: 1) decreasing Soviet technology and money; 2) investing in and restructuring the now superior US military and; 3) reducing Soviet influence.
One of the ways to win the war on terror is to study and observe the ways the terrorists have gained influence (like Hezbollah in Lebanon) and reduce their influence by doing it better and replacing it with our brand of hope, freedom and liberty. Romney gets it.
Mitt comports himself well in the “Off-the-Record” interview by Jan Mickelson. Does Jan know what off the record means?
“My church teaches against the use of alcohol; so as President, do you want me to ban the right for all Americans to choose whether or not to drink alcohol?”
If he had said: “My church teaches against abortion; so as President, do you want me to ban the right for all Americans to choose whether or not to have an abortion?”
What would you say? Just a question.
It is a different thing to change ones mind and have a reason than to say you never were.
Not sure what you mean. Romney says he was flat wrong when he held a personal pro-life stance but politically upheld the ruling under Roe.
On top of that, Thompson said the same thing. That he was against abortion personally but believed women should have the right to choose and the state should not interfere.
I don’t see what’s wrong with either men changing their minds on the issue. Frankly, I welcome it.
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.