An odd position.
Dirty Harry Reid is Mormon, as were/are Flake (AZ), John Doolittle (CA), Wally Herger (CA), Howard McKeon (CA), Ernest Istook (OK), Mike Simpson (ID), Thomas Udall (NM), Rob Bishop (UT), and Chris Cannon (UT). Then in the Senate - Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, both from Utah, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Gordon Smith from Oregon.
I don’t understand why so many people dish crap on Mitt - the Congress usually has a greater effect on people than a president......
I can think of at least 5 reasons why this is so:
Point 1: If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! The ramifications of having someone who may have something pulled over on them in the White House as the “leader of the free world” is no comparison to any other elected position.
Point 2: (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all races): Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"
Point 3: (Not sure if this applies beyond POTUS). The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the true Lord & who do not worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture. It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.
Point 4: Media intensity for POTUS cannot be compared to any other election. Taking potential voter alienation into consideration (based upon common polls), & taking the MSM onslaught into consideration in '08, a smart voter MUST consider candidate viability. Come '08, we'll see MSM questions like, "Do you believe you will be a god? Do you believe conservative voters from other churches are 'apostates?' Do believe that although polygamy is no longer practiced on earth, it's being practiced at now & for eternity in another dimension known as the celestial kingdom?"
Point 5: If I... .
(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and .
(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party) Then...
Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?
Uh...
'cause he's a LIBERAL-lite flip/floper?
I don’t understand why so many people dish crap on Mitt - the Congress usually has a greater effect on people than a president......
Bully! Another person that gets it. Comments worthy of FreeRepublic. Mitt is just one of many candidates for the Republican nomination.
If 15% of the voters paint themselves into a corner and jeopardize the election process by getting someone nominated that isn’t going to win in the general or standing by and not voting because the nominee doesn’t pass their smell test, then 15% are going to put the 85 percent remaining, into the same 7734 upside down and backwards that they are building for themselves.
Of course 50% or so will still be happy after the election no matter who wins, and Congress basically won’t care either way their life goes on no matter who or what the President is. Same with the mainstream media. Just a percentage of the people feel like they don’t belong, kinda like the eight years of WJ Clinton. How soon we forget.
Again, still speculation based on who wins the primary election.