Posted on 12/03/2011 6:47:57 PM PST by Grig
Comparing and contrasting Newt and Mitt is a real eye-opener. The two men have taken very different paths in their personal and professional lives, and have wildly different personalities. Newt is a dreamer, Mitt a doer. Newt is reckless, Mitt is careful. Newt is famously undisciplined, Mitt is the epitome of self-discipline. Romney is a leader, Newt simply is not–according to those who worked most closely with him. Both men are intelligent, yet have chosen different ways to use their intelligence.
In education, Romney pursued business and law, while Newt chose modern European History. Romney earned his education quickly and entered the private sector, while Newt preferred academia.
Romney went on to a successful career in business, becoming wealthy helping businesses and creating jobs, while Newt made a career in government, becoming wealthy by exploiting his position of power and selling influence. Romney's skills were in high demand in the private sector, while Newt was removed from leadership in the House due to the chaos he created.
In matters of faith, Romney is a life-long member of his church and has a record of many years of service to it. Newt went from Lutheran to Baptist, to Catholic, with some speculation of political motive in making the conversions. I am not aware of service Newt may have given to his church. In their personal lives, they could not be more different. Mitt married his high school sweetheart after 4 years of courtship, and remains happily married. Newt also married his high school sweetheart - his geometry teacher whom he began dating at age 16. He has admitted that there is some truth in the notion that he hates women. He has a turbulent marital history due to selfishness and uncontrolled sexual appetites. While Romney helped Ann through both MS and cancer, Newt divorced Jackie, who had cancer–saying she was ‘not pretty enough or young enough to be a president’s wife–and besides she has cancer’. Newt divorced Marrianne, who was also diagnosed with MS. At the time, he asked Marrianne if she would please tolerate the six year affair with Callista, and remain married to him. She refused. He married Callista in 2000.
In matters of character, the contrast is keen. Romney has no hint of scandal–personal or professional. Newt has rumors of sexual scandals–including the infamous oral sex in a car with his neighbor's wife, while his little daughter was near. Newt also has a history of ethics violations, shady book deals, sham fundraising practices, and inconsistencies about whether he was hired as an ‘historian’ or as a lobbyist.
In the presidential campaign, they have also chosen very different paths. Romney is serious, organized, hardworking and prepared, while Newt has been flying by the seat of his pants. He now finds himself in the running, but unprepared, due to a severe lack of preparation and organization. While Romney has been mostly humble about his long term frontrunner status, Newt proclaimed himself the nominee after less than two weeks at the top of the polls.
There are many other differences--too many to list here. But we easily know enough to determine who is more worthy of support. We should not divorce the way a man lives in his personal life, from his actions in public life. Character is revealed in both professional and personal decisions. Romney has a solid record of being true to his word, family, and stewardships. Newt does not. While both men have significant accomplishments, only one has the background, character, leadership and temperament we need. That person is Mitt Romney.
I was supporting Cain and feel it a tragedy for our nation that he was lynched and had a hatchet job done on him that impacted his wife and family so much he felt com[pelled to withdraw.
I like Santorum's positions...but just do not feel he has the "spark" in terms of people catching fire with him. I also like much of what Bachman says...but also feel she was somewhat disengenuous in terms of how she treated Cain and others.
I would support Perry over Romney....and, if it came to it, Romney over Huntsman.
Gingrich seems to be leading the pac and I could vote for him in the general...but I feel very cautious of him because of a number of his own position changes and other issues.
I wish Palin had run, she was my first choice.
In the end, I will vote for the GOP nominee because we simply must defeat Obama.
We will see who gets in there. Santorum or Bachman could surprise people in Iowa...we will just have to see.
...and Nick, I believe abortion should be illegal in all cases except the abject physical mortal danger to the mother's life...then the mother, father and Dr. should decide after a lot of prayer and heart felt soul searching.
Rape and incest are terrible events...and the criminals perpetrating them should be punished severely...but the baby is not one of those and is innocent and should not be given the death penalty for other's crimes.
Also, in the Prop 8 issue, I have many friends and relatives in California (my wife's family is originally from there) who are LDS and they were EXTREMELY active in that fight. We helped from here in Idaho. The church had phone lines set up doing calls.
I am sorry you did not experience it there yourself, but the Church was very active and fought hard alongside other Christians there...it was not "hype" or PR from what we saw and experienced ourselves.
Do you claim Harry Reid as one of you? He is one who claims the LDS.
Do you claim Harry Reid as one of you? He is one who claims the LDS.
And my experience in the Prop 8 fight in a high gay area was very different. Also, of the about 100 LDS I still know, all of them still support Romney. We have had some battles over it with a couple of them.
I agree with you on Cain. I will never vote for Romney or Huntsman, I don’t like Perry and I’m not fond of Newt. I would have happily voted for Palin and like Santorum pretty well. I will probably only vote for Newt to keep Romney from getting the nod.
Well, I am baffled, how does your question have anything to do with what I wrote in the post you are referencing.
I claim Harry Reid as nothing. He doesn’t just claim to be lds, he is lds and he is temple worthy, one of the only 15% or so who are allowed in their temple areas.
If you are asking if I am lds - NO NO and NO
Romney was a Mormon Bishop (the equivelent of Pastor) and yeah he really believes this stuff. While there is a constitutional prohibition against the government prescribing a test for religion, I do believe that for individual voters worldview mattersI
IMO, Romney’s flip flopping and lying to get what he wants or to make his goal is because of his Mormonism not in spite of it. It is how he was raised and the culture, sadly.
I left Mormonism almost 20 years ago now and I look back and see a completely different person.
Finally, it is easy for Republicans to say Romney’s religion doesn’t matter, but it will matter to many independent/swing voters and it will matter if he get the nomination because the media will bring out the weirdiest LDS teachings, practices and stories. The media WANTS Romney because, frankly, he is the only one on our side who can lose to Zero.
SVCW isn’t LDS, however Reid is a faithful, temple attending (not same a church - it is for special services to the most faitful members and only about 15% can enter), true believing, ‘worthy’, Mormon. He served an LDS mission and IIRC was a Bishop (Pastor).
A few years ago, he spoke at BYU, got a standing ovation and stated clearly that he was a democrat BECAUSE, not in spite of, his Mormon faith. Remember that the Republican party was founded partially to combat polygamy in Mormonism, and Mormons were very staunch democrats in general clear up until the 1950’s and 60’s and many still are.
Jeff, you misunderstood me. I know LDS fought very hard for Prop 8 and are pro-life. My point is that Romney was not in line with that.
It wasn't to ME; but perhaps MORMONs saw it a bit differently.
The passages you post seem to say that Mormons believe that humans can one day become gods.
It is REALLY hard to pin down what an individual MORMON 'believes' or even what the MORMON Organization 'teaches'; but what CAN be shown is what the MORMON 'scripture' SAYS.
Most ALL of the modern MORMON 'doctrine' comes from things OTHER than the Book of Mormon; so when CONGRESS passes certain laws; it automatically makes some of the MORMON scripture invalid (such as is found in the REST of D&C 132 - polygamy.)
~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President
Um, you realize of course you posted the verse that refutes the “legitimacy” of LDS dead dunking pointing out that it is not Christian practice...
THEY - not US.
There are NO Christian organizations that offer a dead person a posthumous BAPTISM that they can either accept or reject.
If you try to say that some folks did in the past, and that's why MORMONism does it today; you'll have to have a VERY good explanation of WHY MORMONs, in the past, practiced polygamy, and yet today you do not.
Although individual lds are pro-life and I know many who are as far as the organization (SLC lds) it is not nearly that cut and dry.
If you look up their stance on abortion you will find many prohibition against however the very last line of the list is a statement that goes something like: if you pray about it with your bishop and god says its ok in this circumstance it is not prohibited.
That is not very pro-life, really god would give his ok.
Sorry, but the CHURCH is not CHRISTIAN. I know that you (like Normandy) try VERY hard to never mention the MORMONness of your belief, just the 'christian' trappings; but the FACTS remain.
Stunt Mormon strikes again.
I know you know the difference between a discussion and spam...even if you prefer to plead ignorance.
You just gave me more confidence that the Republican ticket should be West/Bachmann, either way.
I have never pleaded ignorance regarding that matter. While I know the difference, Elsie’s posts (nor anyone elses) are worthy of the comment you made.
OK, thanks Elsie. I thought you were Mormon since you liberally quoted their holy writ.
Sorry...my bad. I was responding to Reaganaut’s post on his experiences.
A poor apologist pleads 'spam' when they cannot defend.
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.