Romney takes leap of faith with religion speech

CNN ^ | December 6, 2007 | Staff

[rodeo-mamma]

Personally, I am not too thrilled with anyone from the Senate during the Clinton years. Ultimately, Clinton got away with too much during that time period.

[La Enchiladita]

If you saw who and what I was responding to, it was to a charge that Mitt is a flip-flopper, so I pointed out to the poster that his candidate could be seen as the same.

And, now that you mention it, Fred did vote against impeachment of the Big Creep.

[rodeo-mamma]

I don’t know about that, I think Mitt’s campaign so far has being more successful then McCain’s or Fred’s. It doesn’t surprise me that Huck is giving Mitt a run for his money, they are both very well spoken and energetic and come across as powerful people. It’s not shocking to me at all. I like both candidates and I hope the best one wins. It doesn’t bother me a bit.

[MHGinTN]

Fred 'split' his vote, not entirely voting no on all points. That was a sneaky try though. :-)

I just watched the speech and am wondering if your agree with Mitt's statement that 'A person should not be elected or rejected by the voter because of his faith.' Does that phrase strike you as half truth? Or at least a poor attempt to squelch individuals by shaming them if they factor a candidate's faith in considering a candidate?

[greyfoxx39]

Thursday, December 06, 2007 The Romney Speech: My Take   [Jonah Goldberg] I thought it was a very good speech too. I agree with Ramesh that the failure to mention agnostics and atheists was an oversight, but I think it's more significant than Mona's point about leaving out Hindus suggests. The thrust of the speech was that all believers are good, all believers are Americans. That's a nice sentiment and its message of inclusion would encompass Hindus. But would it encompass non-believers? I'm sure Romney himself would say it would if asked. But he didn't say it in the speech. Anyway, I think the real problem with the speech is that it steals a base. He says: "Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith." Me: I agree with that. But, here's a problem. The question right now is not whether America should elect him president. It's whether the Republican Party should nominate him as its candidate for President. It's a slightly different question of whether a party should be able to take account of someone's religion. Personally, I don't think it should matter much if at all. But I'm not prepared to say it's illegitimate for party members to consider. Surely a Christian Democrat Party could legitimately discuss whether a Jew or a Hindu should lead its party without automatically trafficking in bigotry. The GOP is not a Christian Democrat Party ("Not if Huckabee has anything to say about it!" some might say), but I think the point is still legitimate. Moreover, the speech didn't address the concerns of the actual voters he's trying to win over. That might be because they cannot be satisfactorily addressed. In short it would have been a great speech had he already won the nomination. But there wasn't a whole lot in there about why he should get the nomination in the first place. It still might succeed of course, simply by showing Romney in such a favorable light. But I still think he needs to sell evangelicals willing to overlook his Mormonism (but are still concerned by it) why they should vote for him over the much easier pick of Huckabee. And for that he needs to talk about electability, taxes etc. He didn't mention those things today, and he won't have another venue like that again before the voting starts. 12/06 11:16 AM

[gidget7]

You needn’t thank me! My goodness, disagreement is what the primaries are for, or even more precisely, vetting, discussing, and then voting.

[rodeo-mamma]

Good point, that’s a major problem I have with his supporters as well. They seem so dishonest the way they won’t give Mitt credit where it is due. Personally, I would rather convert people who were pro-choice then preach to the choir. Somehow, it makes them seem like a bunch of hypocrits for being so unforgiving and I am going to trust their judgement? Heck no, they hurt Fred more then help him. Honest people see it and don’t like it!

[rodeo-mamma]

That’s not his position now, so it really doesn’t matter, you sound very unforgiving. Would you like to see abortion outlawed or not? Because with your unforgiving attitude, no one will feel compelled again to be converted. A true pro-life person is by far more interested in converting others to the pro-life side.

[rodeo-mamma]

Part of the reason that I suspect that Fred can’t get his campaign going is because he was part of the Senate that allowed Clinton to get away with so much. It has weakened his character he is now useless for fighting the war against evil. Sorry but it really has come down to that basic fact, he doesn’t have the fire in the belly now because he didn’t have it then. He managed to get out of holding Clinton’s feet to the fire, though he made a half hearted attempt to do so, but I believe that was more for the record then true conviction, because when someone has a true conviction they do what they have to come hell or high water and Fred didn’t pass the test when he had a chance.

[wardaddy]

a) Romney should not have to explain his faith but rather his real convictions

b) i think he’s playing this...

[rodeo-mamma]

I don’t like that Thompson has a history of using his skills learned as a lawyer to use slippery wording for poltical gain, it doesn’t do it for me, in fact, it’s a big turn off, worse then any flip flop Mitt may have made within the past 5 years.

[Callahan]

Part of the reason that I suspect that Fred can’t get his campaign going is because he was part of the Senate that allowed Clinton to get away with so much. The Senate just isn't good preparation for being POTUS. There's a reason governors usually win.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud

[rodeo-mamma]

“Fred did vote against impeachment of the Big Creep.”

Yes I know and he used his training as a lawyer to give a slippery reason why he voted that way. I am tired of his supporters who are so willing to slam Mitt non stop when clearly Fred has his own glaring short-comings. It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for someone who uses his training as a lawyer to get out of saying what he really feels.

[Grig]

If it used to be that if a Catholic turned Protestant they would be hanged, disemboweled, castrated, or have their heart cut out, or all of the above.

The process had more red tape to it some time ago, but you actually contradict yourself, saying you were required to attend, yet admitting you didn’t and still managed to get out. Even back then joining another church would suffice and the bottom line is if someone wanted out, they could get out.

[rodeo-mamma]

“The Senate just isn’t good preparation for being POTUS. There’s a reason governors usually win.”

Good point and we need to keep reminding people of that too when or if Hillary gets nominated, but if we nominate our own ex-Senator, that point will be moot. I see no reason to give Hillary anymore then I have to.

[D-fendr]

Islam is all over the place in terms of its adherents. I will agree that in its most basic theology is theocracy, but there are strands that don’t interpret it this way. There’s no central authority.

And there are MINOs as well.

All that said, I’m gonna semi-agree with you: I would definitely think twice or thrice about a muslim candidate - or four times.

[airborne]

I do not have the desire to enter into this debate regarding Mormonism, nor do I possess enough information on the subject at this time. So I watch and I read and I listen.

I’ve only known one Mormon family in my entire life,and only because the one family member (Brett) is a friend of my nephew.

I met this family while in Seattle to welcome back my nephew from his second tour in Iraq. My nephew and Brett were in Fallujah together. Brett lost both of his legs and had extensive damage to one arm. He and his family were wonderful. True patriots, and a close knit family.

It’s not enough to form an opinion on the entire religion to some perhaps, but they did make a good first impression on me. So I guess if I'm to be ridiculed or called brainwashed for not making my mind up on the subject.... I guess I can live with that.

But I'm still voting for Duncan Hunter!! ;^)

Merry Christmas!

[Old Mountain man]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight . . .

[Old Mountain man]

You ought to read your own poison sites:

“As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text.” (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, Chicago: Moody Pres., 1980, p 131, emphasis added)