Posted on 04/06/2009 12:41:04 PM PDT by mnehring
OREM, Utah -- Kirk Jowers has an answer for whether Mitt Romney's presidential bid was lost because of Mormonism:
"I can unequivocally tell you that the answer is 'yes, no and maybe.'"
owers' comment elicited laughter at the "Mormonism in the Public Mind" conference on Friday, April 3, at Utah Valley University. He is director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah and associate director of the Institute of Public and International Affairs.
According to Jowers, in October 2007 many pundits were saying Romney was on his way to winning. He had focused on the early primaries and was overcoming the deficit of name recognition between him and John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. "It looked like he might actually run the table," Jowers said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mormontimes.com ...
People can put things in perspective if they want to.
Orson Hyde said something stupid. That was over 100 years ago. Any intelligent person would know that what he said was not Mormon doctrine, he was speculating on his own, and probably was brought on the carpet for it in privacy. Orson Hyde was not running for office in the last election. When a Presbyterian runs for office, do we need to bring up the fact that Calvin supported having someone burned at the stake? If a Catholic runs, do we bring up medieval activities?
The only reason Democrats would use such material is because Republicans in the primary show they are sensitive to it. And if they had done it, that would have opened up the whole issue of Rev. Wright, etc. I doubt if they would want that.
Obviously you make no distinction because you like to carry that false chip on your shoulders. Mormons are people, fellow Americans. Mormonism is an heretical christianity lookalike cult. Obviously you don’t want anyone opposing your cult, so you whine that opposition to your cult is attacking you.
He might be in the White House if he had been the governor of a southern, midwestern or western state and had run and governed as a conservative.
I don’t think so.
My preferences were Hunter, then Thompson after he withdrew, and then Romney once Thompson fell by the wayside.
Faced with McCain, absent any real conservative alternative, I thought Romney was the better choice, but he withdrew when in my opinion he ought to have stood and fought, he still had a chance to overcome McCain. His withdrawal told me he didn’t have the stomach for a fight. Nor did Thompson, sadly.
He was preferable to McQueeg. His religion did not help him, that’s for sure.
See the usher at the end of the stairs...
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
He was outa ‘em...
:(
Trust me, they will print more...
They always print more...
Weawy ?????
OOOOO I do hope so...
:l
That sounds like a contradiction in terms. What he was, was extremely liberal.
Fear not...
Yep, trying hard to remove Mitt from the pro abort, Romney care, left of drunk fat Ted, politician that he was and still is down deep.
OKAY
:)
Mitt·got·ry /ˈMitt gotri/ Pronunciation Key
–noun, plural -ries.
1. intolerance of anyone’s creed, belief, conscience or opinion that precludes them voting for Mitt
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a Mittgot.
Synonyms 1. histrionic, whiny, demanding
Therefore doing exactly the same thing they did in 2008...
Yes.
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.