Posted on 08/04/2007 2:34:44 PM PDT by mmanager
Mitt Romney engaged in a heated discussion about his Mormon faith with a prominent Des Moines talk show host off the air on Thursday morning. The contentious back-and-forth between Romney and WHO's Jan Mickelson began on the air (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv) when the former governor appeared on the popular program that has become a regular stop for GOP presidential hopefuls. But the conversation spilled over to a commercial break and went on after the program ended, where a visibly annoyed Romney spoke in much greater detail about his church's doctrines than he is comfortable doing so in public.
The footage was captured by the station's in-studio camera and posted on its website. But Romney, who is careful to portray a sunny and upbeat public image, clearly did not know he was being recorded. The candidate reveals a private side that is at turns cutting, combative and sarcastic, but most of all agitated at being forced to defend what he and his church stand for.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I thought Romney was petulant and arrogant in the clip. He was thin skinned and evasive. It reminded me of Bob Dole telling George Bush to “stop lying about my record”. If you are going to get angry, it should be for a good reason and you should always be in control. Romney was not. (Reagan in the 1980 Nashua debate: “I’m paying for this microphone...” comes to mind. It also helps to pick your targets. Jan Mikelson is a very popular conservative radio host in Iowa and a dustup with him on the eve of the Ames straw poll cannot be good strategy if you are trying to woo conservatives who are skittish about you anyway.
Bears repeating. Doesn't improve the "diplomacy" image of Romney, either.
The wiggle room factor seems to be so wide for the public Mormon that one wonders if the private Mormon response to Mormonism is as the same, wide and broad for interpretation. The published documents from the religious texts of LDS are self-evidently anti-Orthodox Christianity yet the apologetics approach seems to be to vague everything out when confronted on a specific. Mitt did it and repeatedly did it in the 'off air' portion.
The Mormonism Apologists combing over threads at FR do it constantly. It appears to be a strategy that works when you can call someone a bigot for opposing Mormonism heresies, but that won't get off the runway against the DNC and their sycophantic media minions. Therein is the real danger of Mitt as nominee.
And the real danger for the country.
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.
You need to scroll up Working VIDEO? it was working before????
VIDEO GO MITT, GOD BLESS YOU!:)
Jan Mickelson was the one being deceptive because he knew the what he did was not Kosher, he should apologize to Mitt, and Mitt came through a forthright gentleman!
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
I don’t remember Bill, Hillary, or any Democrat being interrogated that way. I thought Mitt handled himself well.
Bill Clinton flies off the handle at the mildest challenge, for example the Chris Wallace interview. If Hillary interrupted Mitt as this questioner did, she would come across very badly.
Yet, every cloud has a silver lining. I think the sheer vileness of some of his detractors makes Romney look better by comparison and attracts sympathizers to his side, as other threads of this ilk have done.
Bigotry tries to keep truth safe in its hand with a grip that kills it.
You don't believe that in a televised debate with Mitt and Hillary that the media would dare call her rude, do you?
If he can't handle rude, how's he gonna handle Chavez, Ahmanutjob of Iran, the press corps in a press conference? Helen Thomas and Martha Ratditz. You want rude, THEY'LL give you rude!
Good. I like him even more.
I completely disagree. Much more exploitable by the DNC are someone's 3 wives, insider lobbying history, ties with the mob and such. While it may seem quite easy to sit behind one's computer screen anonymously typing religious hit pieces on Mitt, the DNC will not get away with it. It will not be acceptable in mainstream America. If they try it, they will fail.
"If Mr. Romney goes on offensive on religious liberty, only the hard-core anti-Mormon bigots will deny him a fair shake and they will be insignificant." ~~ Michael Gaynor
Romney's Trump Card: Religious Liberty
Romney says it is not his job as a presidential candidate to educate people about his church. "I'm running for a secular position," he said in an interview. "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."
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.Oh? How about worshiping Moloch?
‘’It’s one of the saddest threads I have ever seen’’
Cry me a river! You Mitt fans need to grow some skin. Ever follow a Hunter or FDT thread? This is Fred/Duncan light.
Everytime the ‘Mormon thing’ comes up you guys start this crap. Just tell Mitt to answer the questions. What is there to hide? Please tell.
Do you get to worship your Lord’s doctrine with out someone imposing on you?
...and do you try to impose your doctrine on others?
-—I agree. It is one of the saddest threads I’ve ever seen — full of religious bigotry and inexplicable hatred. These kinds of threads are an embarrassment to FR.-—
It’s very disappointing. No Viking kittens, no nothing.
Let me explain why Jan Michelson and others think the way that they do.
What people believe about God is critical to how things play out in the real world; i.e. politics.
For example, Hitler had a totally corrupt theology...it amounted to a belief in ancient superstitions and occultic garbage. That really mattered for millions of people, didn’t it?
Clinton, while he loved to carry around his huge Bible for purposes of photo ops, didn’t seem to pay much attention to anything written in it, did he? Did that matter politically?
My first warnings about Clinton were really when he gave his speech to the ‘92 Democratic Convention. Why did I go tell everybody I knew that Clinton was a danger to our Republic? What gave him away to me as a totally corrupt person? It was because I heard him, in that speech, totally twist and misquote scripture...the whole theme of it was ‘A NEW COVENENT’!! He was a shameless blasphemer and liar in my eyes henceforth. Was I right?
Yes, my friend, what people believe about God and the Bible is important to the political future of the world and our FRee Republic.
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.