Clinton, Carter and Gore all had reasons for changing their minds, those are not flip flops...
Posted on 04/21/2012 4:44:33 PM PDT by tuckrdout
.Gov. Brian Schweitzer, talking Friday to a national news website, said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney might shy from talking about his family’s Mexican roots because they came from a “polygamy commune” in Mexico.
Schweitzer made the remark in an interview with The Daily Beast, a news and opinion website, after being asked whether Montana might be a swing state during this year’s 2012 election.
According to The Daily Beast, Schweitzer said Montana likely would vote for Romney, but that Romney, a Mormon, might have trouble nationally because his father, George Romney, was “born on a polygamy commune in Mexico.”
Schweitzer, a Democrat, said later that he wasn’t misquoted, and that his comments had nothing to do with Romney’s faith or his church, which does not condone polygamy.
Schweitzer said he was describing the dilemma facing Romney, who is in trouble with Hispanic voters because “he took an ultra-right-wing position on immigration during the (Republican) primary.”
(Excerpt) Read more at helenair.com ...
Romney is who he is because of his mormonism, not in spite of it. If you do not understand mormonism you will not understand Romney.
You wrote it, not me. So what’s your point?
I too am a follower of the United States Constitution. As such I defend Mitt Romney’s right to be on any ballot he chooses and will oppose any attempts to remove hm based on religion or any other standard beside citizenship and age.
I am sure all here will agree with that standard.
As a follower of the United States Constitution I will practice my right to vote for a candidate by any standard I see fit including religion.
Nice attempt at the wrong argument...
It is also quite irrelevant.
Unless, of course, it is truly intended as a low blow...
Romney is a liberal because of his mormonism, try and keep up.
The point lost on some in this thread is serious — willfully charge ancestral sins upon the present, and you wholly empower the Libtard assertion that somehow white people today owe something to the Amish for slavery repealed 150 years ago (by a Republican!).
Mormons, themselves, are probably the best arbiter of this matter.
Here is a bit from a Mormon website, as regarding the matter at hand: "President Gordon B. Hinckley, prior president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made the following statement in 1998 about the Church's position on plural marriage:
"'This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church.... If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.'"
Here is the link: http://mormon.org/faq/practice-of-polygamy/
1910-early 1960s: Mormon leaders did not break up most of the polygamous arrangements that were already intact in 1890 & thereafter.
Why should it have been the responsibility of "Mormon leaders" to "break up" civil arrangements?
1960s: (a) Polygamy still psychologically accepted by Lds: Hardy cites a poll taken of mainstream Mormons: 40% say they would engage in polygamy if told to by their "prophet."
According to my calculations, that would mean that 60 percent would not do so.
If one presidential candidate were to receive fully 60 percent of the popular vote, would you not consider that pretty decisive?
Mormons believe there are Lds men alive now will become eternal polygamists...
To declare, boldly, that "Mormons believe" this or that, is to paint with much too broad of a brush, in my opinion.
It is a bit like one's declaring that "scientists believe in the doctrine of global warming," as if this were universally accepted among all scientists...
Clinton, Carter and Gore all had reasons for changing their minds, those are not flip flops, Romney is a flipping liar.
You want to pimp him, be my guest, just stop lying about it.
still waiting...
Sure, don't you remember President McGovern?
O....K.....for what?
Try and keep up
Richard Nixon was Quaker.
That was my point.
Fortunately, for all of us, those are not the only two options available. Just like in the upcoming election, if Romney is the nominee, our only two options won't be Romney or Obama.
How about, would I vote for a conservative of the Jewish faith?
In a heart beat! As long as he/she didn't make the claim that Jews are the only true Christians, as Mitt's religion claims to be.
.
.
.
.
.
Romney vs. Obama? One of them has to lose, rejoice in that fact, whichever it is.
Oh, I get religious bigotry that you are arguing for, you support mormonism which at its foundation is anti-Christian.
pssst It was you who brought up the other former candidates, not me.
This is about Romney, he is who he is because of his mormonism not in spite of it, learn about mormonism and you know Romney.
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.