Leader: $500M skidmark-man march.
Posted on 12/26/2007 7:02:35 PM PST by TheLion
Bleeding-heart types looking for a "minority cause” for which to advocate in the 2008 presidential elections are torn between the candidacies of a woman, two African- Americans, a Hispanic and a former mayor of Cleveland who is more of a communist than Vladimir Putin.
Tough choices, those, and all of them Democrats.
In the interest of fairness, however, the name of Mitt Romney should be added to the shopping list of those searching for an oppressed minority to support.
As a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Romney is aligned with one of the most persecuted and oppressed minorities in history. Even in these enlightened times, millions of Americans say they would not vote for the charismatic ex-governor of Massachusetts under any circumstances.
And, in an amazing demonstration of religious bigotry, a New Hampshire liberal rag, the Concord Monitor, used its Sunday editorial pages to tell readers why they should not vote for Mitt Romney.
This "anti-endorsement" is unprecedented, unfair, un-American and unwise.
Editors at the Concord Monitor even went so far as to warn readers that Romney must be stopped ". . . because he lacks the core philosophical beliefs to be a trustworthy president."
IHT: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/23/america/Romney-Anti-Endorsement.php
That particular bit of editorial malfeasance is a thinly-veiled assault on Romney's Mormon faith, pure and simple.
Fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney is the most conservative candidate running for the White House. He is also the most experienced and qualified, a fact attested to by his service as the governor of liberal-infested Massachusetts, and by his enormously successful personal finances.
Mitt Romney knows how to work with people from diverse political backgrounds, how to overcome discrimination and adversity, and he knows how to run a large organization. No other candidate comes close to matching his qualifications for taking over the Oval Office on Ja
Are you gay?
We have given you the reasons we do not trust Romney. They are based on his RECORD and not on his words.
I have serious concerns about my ability ever to support the man.
I already do not support Giulian for any reason at any time.
The impossibility of pinning Romney down is pushing him closer and closer to that same position.
Studied the theology.
Luther’s theology would not condone the book of Mormon.
And I also know something about LDS, a relative married one and raised their children LDS. All temple LDS.
All grads of BYU. Spent decades talking with them and have their Book of Mormon.
One lives in Utah and is married to a major person in LDS and was a Prof. at BYU and pub. several books.
another did a 2 yr. mission and also acvtive.
They are not voting for Mitt.
The writer is a student Jim. I agree with you about “the concepts of liberty and freedom, including freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of speech.”
Romney is certainly in the kitchen. It will be fascinating as to how this plays out....starting in early January.
As I noted earlier “unfair” is a liberal buzz word. Wah, wah, wah, that is so unfair. Makes me want to barf.
My daddy told me more than 50 years ago, “life ain’t fair, get over it”.
Most of Mitt's citations cited in my previous post, I would wager, are on camera somewhere...a number of those comments are already in YouTube segments [I leave it up to others to track down & post in this thread].
So just keep blaming the liberal media for Mitt's own comments. (Maybe when all the YouTube Romney comments come home to roost, you could just call YouTube a vast liberal media conspiracy, too)
Here's your basic problem: Blaming the MSM for Mitt's own comments might be convincing for a small % of the voters in a previous low-tech era...but it just doesn't work in a YouTube era.
[That would be like blaming ONLY the criminals & those arrested for the REAL video clips we've seen over the years of police brutality...blaming those arrested in a pre-video era may have worked...it doesn't work anymore]
Several months ago when the Swett contribution came to light, one of the major blogs had the headline, “Romney has a Dick Swett problem.”
I think it even surfaced here. LOL
Poor sad Li’l Lillpop. Got nothin to do but pick on people’s religions instead of their character. Must be voting for Hitlery The Cutlery Copper.
Megga Dittos Jim, spot on.
That writer is a dolt.
In another post he wonders if the country can survive 13 more months of Bush.
Yep . I keep saying , just picture Fred on a debate stage with any Dim talking about National Security. It’s over just like that .
People recognize Fred and he comes off as a total asskicker . He would defeat any Dim that he goes up against.
Romney OTOH , will be our Kerry ....
“Romney is aligned with one of the most persecuted and oppressed minorities in history.”
Anyone who actually reads the history knows the Mormons did plenty of persecuting themselves. Now, as to who started what first, that does get murky. But from the attempt to take back Zion, through the Salt Sermon, the Danites, the burning of Davies County, Crooked River, the creation of the Nauvoo Legion, and Brigham Young’s implementation of Blood Atonement, and Mountain Meadows, the difference between persecutors and persecuted dims.
I don’t think that absolutism is a good way to go about politics. Whereas religion is a matter of conscience, politics is a matter of negotiation. I can’t think of single incidence where we have gotten everything we desired or thought we deserved from a politician.
So, it is always a matter of getting as much as we can of whatever ideal program we have in our minds. If we really think that there is no difference in the direction of government between Romney and Clinton, then we might as well sit things out.
I personally think Romney will make a great President. I also think that almost anyone would be better than Hillary or Obama or Edwards. So I am compelled to work for their defeat.
I generally identify with the Baptists but have no intention of voting for the Baptist Minister in the primary either.
Ditto that!
Be my guest! (So does that mean now when you vote for Republican candidate A, nothing is distinctive anymore about that? The pro-abortion & pro-homosexual flips & flops & constant back & forth positions are part of EVERY Republican candidate?)
If so, then why does it matter who we vote for in the primaries then?
At the moment, however, Romney’s religion is causing him fewer headaches than his policy gymnasticism. As a challenger to Ted Kennedy in 1994 and in his 2002 statehouse bid, Romney was unequivocally pro-choice (“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal”). Today, he is just as unequivocally pro-life. On gun control, Romney in 1994 supported the Brady bill and a ban on assault weapons, adding, “I don’t line up with the NRA.” Today, he declares, “I’m a member of the NRA.” On gay rights, in 1994 and 2002, Romney argued that he’d be a more aggressive advocate of domestic partnerships than his Democratic foes—and then did little, in the view of the right, to resist the legalization of gay marriage in his state. Today, Romney thunders against the latter concept and against civil unions too. Same story on stem-cell research.
Mitt can say what he wants. Most candidates do. But his record says he is not a conservative. I vote for conservatives. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t think much of Mormonism as a religion, but that’s not my beef with Romney, so I don’t consider it an issue. I still wouldn’t vote for him if he were a Catholic, Protestant or Jew.
Our whole history has been filled with religious persecution. I doubt it will ever stop. The left started this one and those that don’t like Romney have run with it.
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.