Latter-day President?

OpinionJournal / The Wall Street Journal ^ | December 31, 2005 | JAMES TARANTO

[monkapotamus]

Latter-day President?
A Mitt Romney candidacy would test the religious right.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

BOSTON--Mitt Romney insists he has hardly thought about running for president: "That's a decision you make way down the road." With the 2008 election 1,039 days away, that's fair enough. But I'm guessing he'll run.

I first met Mr. Romney in September at New York's Monday Meeting, a conclave of right-leaning movers and shakers who gather to hear politicians from around the country make pitches for support. This month, after it emerged that the backing Mr. Romney sought was not for re-election as governor of Massachusetts, I visited him at the Statehouse here. "I will accomplish in my term the objectives that I set out to accomplish, or some will be rejected and I wouldn't get them done in the second term anyway," he tells me. "There's no reason to hang around and warm the chair, taking advantage of the perks and fun of office, if the agenda is complete." What he doesn't say is that there's also no reason for a governor to risk defeat if he has his eye on the White House.

The governor's office is equipped with a fireplace, making it a rarity in 21st-century politics: a smoke-filled room. Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon, abjures not only tobacco but also alcohol and coffee. A 58-year-old Detroit native, he is a businessman-turned-politician like his late father, George, who was chairman of American Motors Corp. before serving six years as governor of Michigan. George Romney ran for president in 1968 but famously withdrew after attributing his support for the Vietnam War to "brainwashing" at the hands of U.S. generals.

[BlueMoose]

I don't know about the Blog. Is that secret society?

[BlueMoose]

I don't know about the Blog. Is that secret society?

[x]

He's a good guy and a straight arrow, but deciding not to run for reelection was a real mistake. It's fine for a governor who's served two terms to give the voters a chance to elect someone else while he gets his campaign for higher office started. A one-term governor hasn't been fully tested, and doesn't have much of a record to run on.

Also, Romney carries a lot of baggage as Governor of Massachusetts. That his to say, he gets saddled with Massachusetts liberalism, even if he doesn't share those positions himself. He told a paper last month that if he knew he were going to run for President, he would have stayed in Michigan. That's true, if he had it have given him a better shot. And it's certainly candid for a politician to admit that. But it left Massachusetts voters scratching their heads, trying to figure out Romney's comment.

[BibChr]

Still trying to understand your question... see post 8, and its links.

Dan

[BlueMoose]

Ok Got you. Should I read the first or second Blog of Dan.

[BlueMoose]

READ

http://www.christianspiritualism.org/articles/relerrorpage2.htm

[BibChr]

Why should I?

So, did you get your question answered?

Dan

[BlueMoose]

No

[BobS]

Anyone who believes in the Bible and tries their best to live by It's standards is fine with me. I'm Catholic. The stupidest thing I heard on this thread so far is we "worship saints". We pray to saints at times so they can convey a message to Jesus for us. That's all there is to it. Jesus is the Lord and runs the big show. Saints are recognized for very specific works they have done while on earth. They can only pass along the message to Jesus. They are not Archangels.

[JCEccles]

The liberal left likes Mormons for some reason.

Liberals who like Mormons like them only because bigoted evangelicals detest Mormons.

And yet for the most part Mormons are more socially conservative than evangelicals.

And Mormons are arguably more practical and hard-headed on business matters. I have some doubts about Romney's social conservatism, but there is no doubt that Romney as president be more favorable toward business and free enterprise than any other potential Republican candidate currently on the popular short list.

[JCEccles]

Did you read my essays, at the blog?

I did.

Weak, insipid, and superficial stuff.

[BibChr]

How so?

[BlueMoose]

To begin with, when John wrote those words, the New Testament as we know it today was not in existence. John wrote those words in the first century, but the books which compose the New Testament almost as it stands today, were put in that form in AD 400, by a council of Christian Bishops, presided over by Augustine. These people accepted and rejected scripts and narratives which were to form the Canon (even the Epistles, 2 Peter, and James, and the book of Revelation were placed outside the Canon at this time), and finally an agreed version was authorized. Were these people "adding" or "taking away" from the "book" spoken of by John? If so, a "curse" is upon them according to the Fundamentalist view

http://www.christianspiritualism.org/articles/relerrorpage2.htm#curse

I think this is what you are talking about.

I was a Cryptographer for 40 years but I can't decode your message. Try sending it in plain text.

[BibChr]

I didn't say anything about John.

Is it that you don't know very much about Biblical Christianity, or about Mormonism? I honestly don't understand what your issue is.

Dan

[BlueMoose]

Concerning "adding to the Bible"

Just trying to understand this statement, however I don't tttthink I'm going to find come to an understanding.

[maui_hawaii]

Mormons don't pray to Saints...but just like with most things...people who are unaquainted with something are quick on the trigger to pass judgement.

We have our own things that many people have never even thought about, yet people talk about them as though they are experts. They judge using their own yardstick...

Its true with almost anything...

None the less, when I see people yelling about how Christian they are yet in the same breath brutally condemn everyone else it makes me question their proclaimations. In many ways they are no different than many Muslim extremeists.

You and I might read a particular verse of the bible this way or that, but odds are when it comes to the big picture we have a heck of a lot more in common than many of the bible thumpers will admit.

[maui_hawaii]

Its almost like they believe that being a religious zealot makes them more Christian.

One's actions determine the depth of their conviction. Hating on people is no way to win a convert.

What part of 'love thy neighbor' or 'govern thy tongue' is hard to understand?

I believe one finds Jesus by loving and serving Him and people in a Christlike fashion.

Many of those guys though come across as though one finds Jesus by attending their service and submitting and agreeing with what their preacher says the way things should be.

[BobS]

I've visited a couple different Houses of Worship as a Catholic. A Catholic Mission, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, A nice Jewish Temple, A Baptist Church, A Methodist Church. All the people were just trying to be as good as they can get.

Try it yourself. Visit a different Church or Synagogue every weekend for a month or two. You are always welcome in every one. There are nice people to meet. You will be surprised that they are conservative and want the same things.

I like the Mission San Fernando because it's old and the priests know what they are talking about because they study a lot.

[Sweetjustusnow]

"None the less, when I see people yelling about how Christian they are yet in the same breath brutally condemn everyone else it makes me question their proclaimations. In many ways they are no different than many Muslim extremeists"

Excuse me, but finding fault with any particular faith is NOT "BRUTALLY CONDEMNING EVERYONE ELSE".

What nonesense and comparing someone's opinion and equating it to Muslim extremists is absolute bull. Get off your PC bully pulpit.

[VOA]

bump