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 ...
Or, he could be following the Lord's advice given in Matthew 7:6.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Given the comments on this and other threads about Mormonism and Mormons, there's a lot of trampling and rending going on already. The truth of the matter is that no matter how truthfully he answers such questions, his answer will be spun by his opponents to make him and the church look as bad as possible. They will not accept anything he has to say on the matter. So, his incentive to answer is...what? Never mind the fact that the Constitution says that such a requirement is unacceptable. Sorry, he is not going to go along with your little game.
Looks like the bigots have found this thread and are doing their level best to muck it up with their lies, smears, and nasty religious intolerance. I really thought that FReepers were better than this, but the behavior of these jerks have made me realize that I was wrong. I’m not sure that I can continue donating to a website that condones this kind of religious intolerance and harassment. The stupid thing is that a great many members of the Republican Party and the conservative movement are LDS and these bigots are doing all they can to turn them off and drive them away. Their hate blinds them to who their friends and allies are and to the unintended consequences of their actions.
[ From the transcript: “ Again asking Romney to come back to show, Mickelson offered, “I hope we can do this so we can expend some quality time on here rather than the sound bytes.”
“No, I don’t like coming on the air and having you go after me and my church,” Romney testily responded.
“I’m not going after your church; I agree with your church!” Mickelson replied somewhat incredulously.
“I’m not running as a Mormon,” Romney came back, “and I get a little tired of coming on a show like yours and having it all about Mormon.”
“See, I don’t mind about it being all about that,” Mickelson explained.
“I do. I do,” Romney struck back.
The bickering went on, even as Romney was walking out the studio door and pointed out that he’s “not running to talk about Mormonism.” ]
This is the start of the implosion that we nasty “anti-Mormons” have been predicting, and been vilified for. Since Joseph Smith’s strange history is documented and relatively recent, Mitt either has to run as a non-Mormon and never mention religion (don’t see how you do that), or he has to run full bore Mormon and let all the warts show.
Since he will try and take a middle path (as politicians do) he will merely come across as a hypocrite. Twill be a nasty debacle.
Thereby guaranteeing that the Republican Party will forever will be in the minority. I hear grumblings of a third party movement within the conservatives of the LDS community. How long can this tolerate this bigotry?
To all LDS freepers and Lurkers. What should we call this new party?
How about the Patriot Party or the Liberty Party?
“Substitute Jews for Mormons and this lot would be permanently banned.”
That is false and a lie. No one is saying Mitt cannot run for president, or that Mormons are bad neighbors. What is being said is that if Mitt cannot explain his religious underpinnings, the foundation of his moral decision making, then he will likely be chewed up as President.
Lieberman was and is a viable candidate (even on the right who helped his election) BECAUSE he is a real Jew, and can explain his positions. One of the reasons John Kerry failed was because he COULDN’T explain his Catholicism in public. Hillary will be called to account because of her dishwater Methodist beliefs as well.
Truthfully, I think everyone who believes religion has NO place in politics should be banned, don’t you? Wouldn’t that be a de facto way of turning Free Republic into an atheist site? Or is that what you want?
“He only has to answer the question what his own views are.”
And I suppose Bishop Mitt’s own views are not in any way shape or form informed by his religious views??? What kind of sophistry is that?
He already answered people like you.
------> See post 52 <------
“Bigotry tries to keep truth safe in its hand with a grip that kills it.”
Then your side would be the side of bigots, for you are the ones calling for the bannings and censorship, not us.
Ok, so a politician who is a Charasimatics should explain speaking in tongues or prophesying?
What nonsense! It should be only what his personal views are and anything related to governing.
None of the televised political “debates” I recall were true debates between politicians. If she can’t ask him a question, then she can’t cut him off as he tries to answer. In a way, the same applies to Chavez, etc. I think President Bush handled Saddam Hussein well, and with decorum too.
“If he can’t handle rude, how’s he gonna handle ...the press corps in a press conference?”
That question applies to ALL Republican politicians. Democrats don’t have that problem as they only allow themselves to be interviewed by liberals Democrats.
The liberal press is always dangerous. They are usually dangerous through loaded questions, rather than overt rudeness. I’ve seen Newt Gingrich perform masterfully with a hostile press. He handled a gaggle by insisting on one question at a time without interruption. Then he dispatched each idiot, one at a time. I saw Bush go toe to toe with some jerk. As far as I can tell, Romney handles the press as well as anybody. Time will tell.
LDS freepers, how about the “Life, Liberty, and Happiness” party?
You compltely missed the point. Read posts 10, 11, 12, and 21 and tell me you think that’s OK. If they are we may as well invite the Stormfronters on board for their valuble contributions.
“It’s very disappointing. No Viking kittens, no nothing.”
It must really disturb you that you can’t win a debate by just declaring the other side dead.
I think Hugo Chavez just pulled the same thing in Venezuela, banning the last independent TV station. Glad to see you have a mentor we can all recognize.
[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?]
Very well said, I will steal your writing and make it my own, royalty free :)
That post by NAL was a drag and paste of an Eternal Vigilance post from I think 2001. NAL just set a trap for you and others by being dishonest and not attributing honestly.
[Ok, so a politician who is a Charasimatics should explain speaking in tongues or prophesying?
What nonsense! It should be only what his personal views are and anything related to governing.]
Are you saying that a President who was likely to start speaking in tongues in the middle of a heated state of the Union, or in times of duress, shouldn’t be questioned in depth about that?
It’s all fair game, or it’s not a Free Republic.
“NAL just set a trap for you and others by being dishonest and not attributing honestly.”
Well, if being a liar is the way to make a point, then it truly is a sad day.
Then I need to thank EV. I thought that was a bit suspicious, but better to know who the deceivers are.
I think it is a bit deeper than that.
Rememeber this in Alma 11
21 And this Zeezrom began to question Amulek, saying: Will ye answer me a few questions which I shall ask you? Now Zeezrom was a man who was expert in the devices of the devil, that he might destroy that which was good; therefore, he said unto Amulek: Will ye answer the questions which I shall put unto you?
22 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, if it be according to the Spirit of the Lord, which is in me; for I shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord. And Zeezrom said unto him: Behold, here are six onties of silver, and all these will I give thee if thou wilt deny the existence of a Supreme Being.
23 Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations?
But than again one must keep in mind Mitt is not running for a eccleastic position but a secular office.
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.