Romney takes leap of faith with religion speech

CNN ^ | December 6, 2007 | Staff

[La Enchiladita]

(CNN) -- White House hopeful Mitt Romney said religious liberty "is fundamental to America's greatness," in his Thursday address on faith in America.

..."There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders," Romney said.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone," he said.

..."If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States," he said.

[SeaHawkFan]

You are one of the ignorant ones. I hope you will wake up and see the light.

I have

[curiosity]

See the questionaire [sic] you cited.

The quote doesn't come from the questionnaire. It comes from an interview with Andrew Murphey and is published in the July 1994 issue of Republican Liberty.

There's no link because you can't access it over the web without a subscription. But you can get a copy of it at most public libraries, or off of Lexis-Nexis.

Here's the full context of the quote:

Murphey: "Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?"

Thompson: "Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the women. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own."

If that's no pro-choice, I don't know what is.

He does say "I believe states should have the right to restrict abortion as they see fit." This means he is against Roe, which says the exact opposite.

Yes, on that question he appears to be against Roe, but then he contradicts himself when answering the last question, which I quoted perviously.

At least Romney only held one position at a time. When he was pro-choice, he was up front about it and didn't try to hide it. When he changed his mind, he was up front about it too.

When Thompson was pro-choice, he did everything he could to hide his position with ambiguous language and only took a clear stance when pressed.

As far as slickness goes, he's got Willard beat by a mile.

Your entire argument rests on that one quote, which I cannot find in here.

It's not the only quote. There's also a you-tube of Thompson in a debate in 1994 where he comes down as prochoice (though he does everything he can possibly do to obfuscate his position):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE

Notice he thinks states should only be allowed to impose "resonable" restrictions like parental notification, but ultimately the government shouldn't be criminalizing it.

Sorry my friend, but his prevarications notwithstanding, that's a pro-choice statement.

[curiosity]

Maybe millions of Christian voters won't vote for him. ( Call them whatever you want to call them....But it's a fact. )

If it comes down to Mitt or Hillary, I seriously doubt they'll go with Hillary. Some might stay home, maybe, but I also doubt that. Conservative Christians take their civic duty to vote very seriously.

And more important in my mind...is the Dims with their willing partners in the DBM/MSM will be all over his "mormonism"...as you said it's..."Bizarre and egregious heresy."

I doubt that too. When he was running for governor of Massachusetts, no one made an issue of it. Moderates, which make or break a general election, don't really care, and they'd be turned off by attacks on religion.

Furthermore, there are plenty of leftist Mormons in top positions, like Harry Ried. If the media go after Mitt for his Mormonism, they're also going to make Ried look bad. I doubt they'll want to do that.

No, I suspect Mitt will have to be a lot more worried about other things, like the flip-flopper label. That's what's really going to haunt him if he wins the primary. I think he can beat it, though.

[MHGinTN]

“At least Romney only held one position at a time. When he was pro-choice, he was up front about it and didn’t try to hide it. When he changed his mind, he was up front about it too.” Well, since Mitt claimed to have had a change of heart, why does he assert now that ‘leftover embryos’ at IVF clinics are good sources for research embryonic stem cells? Mitt is a pandering politician who has shown for 35 years where he stands regarding life issues. He just made a mistake and exposed his true position when he addressed embryonic stem cell sources. Didn’t fit the false position he has tried to sell the conservative public.

[curiosity]

THAT would be a neat trick!

Not really. All he'd have to do is say that he recognizes the differences are large, but that they're not relevant to the office of the presidency. Period. How hard is that?

[MHGinTN]

“Moderates, which make or break a general election, don’t really care, and they’d be turned off by attacks on religion.” Perhaps Mister Flip Flop can gain enough moderate votes to get elected without Christian Conservatives. But that will also usher in greater DNC majorities in House and Senate to which he will pander just as he did in liberal Massatwosh!ts.

[curiosity]

Well, seeing as how it is no longer necessary to destroy embryos to do stem cell research, it's a moot point.

[curiosity]

Perhaps Mister Flip Flop can gain enough moderate votes to get elected without Christian Conservatives.

What are they going to do, vote for Hillary?

[MHGinTN]

Hardly. His cavalier position is not a moot point, and the newest research still has a moderate dependency upon using ESC in the programs as ‘controls’. If Mitt makes it to the nomination, he needs to get himself a couple of really on the ball pro-lifers to keep him advised as to what he should say to keep manipulating the conservative public.

[AmericanDave]

Wow! I realy liked the speech, it was gutsy and showed the power of conviction. I have hopes for Fred Thompson, but Mitt is on my short list now.

[MHGinTN]

There is nothing anyone could do to cause me to sell my soul to the Rodham-rodent ... voting for open evil is selling your soul. OTOH, selling your soul to vote for the known hidden evil just so you can win is just as obscene. If Mitt gets the Republican nomination, I will have to look very hard at not voting on that spot on my ballot. But I assure you, I’m a broken glass Republican voter ... and with my handicaps, voting is something I take very seriously to do every election despite the effort required to go to the polls rather than absentee and risk not being counted.

[tracer]

Bring it on, Gin-billie. You’ve already violated copyright rules a hundred times over, but worse than that, you are ignorant, repetitious, offensive, and BORING. You contribute nothing to this forum other than contention, and the father of contention is Satan....

[tracer]

It correctly sounds that you, like Gin-Billie, are ignorant, repetitious, offensive, and BORING. You contribute nothing to this forum other than contention, and the father of contention is Satan....

[greyfoxx39]

If someone wants to leave the church, all they have to do is send their Bishop a letter requesting it in writing, or join another church and inform their Bishop.

AGAIN, Grig with the convenient, partial answer. Mormons were NOT allowed to "resign" until after a lawsuit was brought against the church to force the church to allow resignations. I know from personal experience that prior to that if you told your Bishop, "I quit", he would say, "You CAN'T quit you HAVE TO BE FIRED!.

This involved what was called a "Court of Love" to which the person wishing to leave was "required" to attend.

I personally don't know what happens at the "Court" since I refused to allow anyone that kind of authority over me. I was informed by letter that I was excommunicated. The letter promptly went into the trash.

[MHGinTN]

You can threaten better than that! I’ve read it!

[ItsOurTimeNow]

>>I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God.<<

All roads do not lead to God. Only by taking the narrow road, clothed in Christ’s righteousness, does.

This ecumenism/interfaith nonsense is muddying the waters of religion, stating that all are basically the same and lead to the one true God.

[Miss Didi]

RUSH: I want to start with Mitt Romney today, Mitt Romney's speech. Frankly, I thought what we saw today, folks, was a Republican candidate for president giving an inspiring speech. It was an inspiring speech about American values, including religion. Mitt Romney did this because he has been relentlessly attacked as something less than a true American. I watched this. I had seen some excerpts from the speech published before he made it. I thought he was inspiring, folks. I think he set exactly the right tone and I am stunned by some of the criticism I am seeing of this speech, particularly on some conservative websites. "He didn't include atheists; he didn't include agnostics; he didn't say and reach out to Hindus." I don't understand it. Of all things to take from this speech that Romney gave today, that he didn't reach out to atheists and didn't reach out to agnostics, is beyond me. I thought he showed today his ability to confront, to articulate, to persuade, and to lead. (cont.)

Mitt Romney's Inspiring Speech

Mitt Romney Raised the Bar

VIDEO: Watch Entire Speech Here

[WalterSkinner]

..yes, and he is hoping that the voting public will take a leap of faith and disregard his record:

Romney's Real Record

[nutmeg]

Mr. Romney couldn’t have done this any better. I am very, very, very impressed. What courage and leadership for him to do this. God bless us all (no matter what our religious beliefs are)!

I agree!

[TheLion]

It is sad that we are looking for reasons to divide our country rather than to unite. Romney is not looking to change people’s religion, but to unite people of all religion to better our country. We can condenm, can we unite? We will select a president, the question is if we can look at this principles and sustain him/her rather than always look to condemn. Romney is a person of value, one that has proven himself in spite of religion. We should not be blinded by those who are biased to serve themselves rather than the country.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/reid-to-romney-youre-on-your-own/