Romney to give “The Speech”…
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will give a speech this week explaining his Mormon faith, his campaign said Sunday.
The decision, made after months of debate at his Boston headquarters over whether to make a public address about his religion, comes as the former Massachusetts governor’s bid is threatened in Iowa by underdog Mike Huckabee, a one-time Southern Baptist minister who has rallied influential Christian conservatives to erase Romney’s months-long lead and turn the race into a dead-heat.
Romney will deliver a speech called “Faith in America” at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, on Thursday.
“This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his presidency if he were elected,” Kevin Madden, a campaign spokesman, said in a statement. “Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation.”
He is going to do it…I think he shouldn’t…But maybe it will work…It had better…Because if he loses Iowa to Huckabee…He will look really foolish after spending close to 10 Million…
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Oh, wow. No prediction on this. I have no idea how this will play out.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Rett — change your title. You don’t know if this will be a mistake or not. It could prove to be just what the doctor ordered to stem the rise of the Huckster.
As a Romney supporter I don’t know if I support this decision or not but I do hope it proves to be worth it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:20 pm
“…Because if he loses Iowa to Huckabee…He will look really foolish after spending close to 10 Million…”
What about giving credit to Romney for competing very well in a state where much of the population considers his faith a cult. It would be like Huckabee competing against romney in Utah.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
except mormons don’t consider evangelicals a cult.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
steve, very good point.
Rett, I get that you think this is a mistake “as your title would indicate”. You say that because if he hits it out of the park, Huck could lose his support overnight. His support his based entirely on social conservative evangelicals who are willing to look past his checkered record on immigration and taxes. If “the speech” succeeds, it will give evangelicals a reason to support a mormon who’s record is much better than Hucks.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I actually think that this is a very smart move and have long been a proponent of and have been waiting for “the speech.” More and more Evangelical Christians are embracing and welcoming Mormonism and the LDS into the fold and seeing it as an Americanized extension of their own belief system. Almost all of the anti-Mormon bigotry is generated by the liberal secularist left, Cultural Conservatives see Mormons as sharing their own values and goals. Another aspect that will be appealing to Values Voters is seeing Mormonism as a uniquely American religion that can speak to our specific national patriotism. I think that with this speech, Mitt may help well lock up the Values Voters and seal the deal.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Interesting move, but Romney better be incredibly careful about how he frames the issue. I’ve had a number of thoughts about the possible contents of the “Speech”, and I’m likely going to write about some of them on the front page in the next few days. But, I think it’s a smart move. Take the focus off of Huckabee for a week or two. If it plays well, he gets a fairly reasonable uptick and publicity. Then CFG, Fred, Mitt, and Co go to town on Huck for the closing weeks of December. It’s probably the best option he has at this point. That said, I hope he’s planning to simply toss off the speech. If he hasn’t written, before this week, 3-5 radically different drafts of “the speech”, it could go horribly wrong for him.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
My guess is that in this speech, Romney will declare that after much soul searching and some family anecdote, he was wrong and is now completely 100% Baptist-Catholic-Methodist.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Hmm…
I’m a Mormon and I’ve been blogging my head off for a few weeks now trying to get people to drop the religious argument against Romney. I’m not necessarily supporting Romney, he has plenty of good and bad points…I just want to know that my fellow Americans don’t hold my religion against me.
…The Speech…hmm…We’ll see. All the anti-mormons with internet access are sharpening their blogging fingers as we speak and it’s going to be an ugly week in the political forums. If Mitt has his head on straight this should go well. When people hear all the wierd stuff people say about us it seems to them like there’s no reasonable explaination for being a Mormon…but most Americans know a Mormon or two and would generally agree that we’re really not as wacked out as our critics suggest.
If he’s going to give “the speech” he better nail it because there’s a lot of Americans who are going to judge my religion based on what he says.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
If it is wrong for people to oppose Romney for his Mormonism, is it okay for people to SUPPORT him because of his Mormonism?
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Rett - Is $10 million what it costs to break the religious bias barrier? You know as well as I do that if it were a level playing field Romney would have sunk Huckabee a long time ago. It sickens me that my money that I contribute to Romney has to be augmented because the of the fact that people discount him because of his faith, and he has to work that much harder to convince them that he is the right guy.
Many have said this before and I reiterate it: if Huckabee is successful in dumping Romney in Iowa it only makes a Giuliani presidency that much more likely. Huck’s campaign has virtually nothing going on after Iowa - whereas Romney has a lot.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Elbeau,
“If he’s going to give “the speechâ€? he better nail it because there’s a lot of Americans who are going to judge my religion based on what he says.”
Don’t sweat it. Romney will come out as a Baptist-Catholic-Methodist.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
10 - the same argument applies to Huckabee or any other candidate, wouldn’t it?
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I dont see him getting into specifics on mormonism - so what would he say that he hasn’t already said? What are people wanting or expecting him him to say about it?
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Nate,
“You know as well as I do that if it were a level playing field Romney would have sunk Huckabee a long time ago. ”
Whatever. I suppose you think the only reason Jesse Jackson wasn’t elected president is because he’s black.
You know, just because some people don’t trust your candidate’s pandering and flip-flopping, doesn’t mean that you can dismiss their preference for someone else as some kind of character flaw.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
wow. an obvious sign its not business as usual at camp romney. i cant say this is what i expected when mitts war room hit the panic button this past week.
will be interesting to see how this plays out. as a christian i feel my religion has more in common with the islamic faith than it does with the lds church.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I personally don’t think it’s wrong for people to oppose Romney, in theory, over Mormonism. I’d oppose a fervent Quaker nominee, due to their renunciation of violence (which I suspect extends to War). Nixon was a Quaker, but not fervent (he served in World War II). Therefore, I wouldn’t have cared. Their are a number of pertinent ways in which someone’s religion might plausibly interact with their job. To the extent that someone believes a particular interaction might be deeply problematic, they shouldn’t vote for the candidate. I simply don’t think many good arguments can be marshaled against Mormonism on this terrain. But, I think we need to be slightly less sensitive about labeling any examination of someone’s religion “bigotry”. And I desperately hope Romney doesn’t go down that route.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I recall a bunch of polls earlier in the year asking people if they could identify the pro-choice Republican candidate. ONly about half could, and all of the pundits said that Rudy was doomed, since people would find out and count it against him (surprisingly it hasn’t been that bad for him). Shouldn’t Romney be worried about the same thing, though? Has anyone seen a poll in which voters were asked to identify the Mormon in the race? In our little echo chamber, everybody knows it; however, what about the rest of the public among whom Romney isn’t so well known?
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Big S,
They’ll find out eventually, if he sticks around past NH. And right now, he’s focused on Iowa, a state where he’s heavily campaigned and is very well known. It’s also a state where some fairly newsworthy anti-Mormon efforts have been made (the push poll scandal being just the latest example). Everyone there knows he’s a Mormon. Provided he structures the speech properly, it can only help him.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
MWS: Don’t sweat it. Romney will come out as a Baptist-Catholic-Methodist.
LOL…could be. Like I said…I’m not pulling for Romney…I’m just pushing back at the people who would say that his religion makes him unvoteworthy.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
What is said will be from his heart. There will always be people that will pick on little sentences here and there and try to build the negatives. The question is will the little negativies over shadow all the good it will do or will the answers to the questions surrunding his faith be put to rest for the most part? At least once and for all this issue will be fully covered and then the chips will fall where they may. I hope that it will give his big name evangelical supporters something that they can then pass on to their followers to give them peace in supporting Mitt. There is no doubt in my mind that if elected he will take the Republican causes foward, all of them, and it will be good for America.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Matthew E. Miller: Well said. I really don’t mind if you can actually make a case that someone’s religion would negatively affect his performance in public office. The problems I have is people going on and on about how Mitt’s magical underwear is going to be the doom of our nation.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
does anyone here know what percent of the country even knows mitt is a mormon? does anyone know he is a direct decendant of a mormon prophet?
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
sampo: Not a direct descendent. I think it was his father’s uncle. And the position he held was a counselor in our first presidency
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Sampo
“as a christian i feel my religion has more in common with the islamic faith than it does with the lds church.”
You are reveiling your ignorance of religious history
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
steve what religion are you?
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
sampo: I don’t know steve…but why do you need to know his religion?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
What about giving credit to Romney for competing very well in a state where much of the population considers his faith a cult. It would be like Huckabee competing against romney in Utah.
What the hell? No it wouldn’t. Iowa isn’t the Evangelical version of Utah..!
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
26 — Sampo — What do you think his religion is?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
#28 - The voting block is.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
#28 - The voting block is.
No it isn’t. Iowa? Oh, please. I think we can feel quite confident that Mitt Romney would garner a supermajority of votes in Utah. If Huckabee doesn’t get that — and he is the only evangelical candidate — then it can’t be said that Iowa is the Evangelical version of Utah.
That is the dumbest comment I have seen all day. Iowa = Utah? Jesus!
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
#31 are you saying a large percentage of the voting block in Iowa arn’t evangelicals?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Is there a technical explanation for why Rett’s posts contain only ellipses? Or does he really just never type a period?
“Sentences” like this drive me nuts: It had better…Because if he loses Iowa to Huckabee…He will look really foolish after spending close to 10 Million…
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
#31 are you saying a large percentage of the voting block in Iowa arn’t evangelicals?
I’m saying that it’s not the Evangelical equivalent of Utah.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Is there a technical explanation for why Rett’s posts contain only ellipses?
No.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I believe that this speech has the potential, if done properly, to be one of the most significant historical and influential orations since the sermon by George Whitefield or the preachings of Jedediah M. Grant. Romney needs to lay out a vision of an ecumenical future where Americans of all faith traditions and beliefs can worship together and reconcile their faiths.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Iowa isn’t the evangelical version of Utah. Before we get into a smackdown about this, note that the Baptist preacher and Mormon are only pulling about 50% of the Iowa caucus vote between them, so there’s plenty of people who are not moved to vote for either of them solely on faith. The question really is what the other half of the electorate thinks of Mormonism, and whether it’s an asset, liability, or neither, among them.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Its not to say that Iowa is the evangelicals version of Utah. What he was implying is that there are a number of people, religious or not, in IA that distrust Mormonism. I think its silly, but I recognize it exists. TLG, you distrust mormonism, and you arent baptist or evangelical, right?
You made my point.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I wonder what Mitt’s faith says about drumming up hatred for his GOP rivals and betraying gays and pro-choicers in MA?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
its in poor taste for a nonchristian who analyzes my perspective in my faith for me. if i say my christian faith has more in common with islam than it does with mormons how foolish is it for a mormon to tell me they understand my personal faith even better.
and on unrelated note what idiot mittbot would tell me muslims are less fitting to be president than mormons?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Its not to say that Iowa is the evangelicals version of Utah. What he was implying is that there are a number of people, religious or not, in IA that distrust Mormonism. I think its silly, but I recognize it exists. TLG, you distrust mormonism, and you arent baptist or evangelical, right? You made my point.
No, he was not implying that about Mormonism.
Here is my 28:
# ThatLibertarianGuy Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
What the hell? No it wouldn’t. Iowa isn’t the Evangelical version of Utah..!
Then he said:
# steve Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
#28 - The voting block is.
So yes, he did say that Iowa is the Evangelical version of Utah.
As for me: I distrust all religion, and don’t find Mormonism any dumber than any of the rest of them.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Will Romney explain how if, according to him, Muslims did not make up a large enough percentage of the population to merit a seat in the Cabinet, Mormons, who make up only a slightly larger fraction of the population, merit the Presidency?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
S: The question really is what the other half of the electorate thinks of Mormonism, and whether it’s an asset, liability, or neither, among them.
That, of course, wouldn’t have been the question if Mitt had adhered to his prior secular views when running for MA governor. Instead, he’s based his chain epiphanies on the teachings of his faith. Or maybe he should have talked about his faith-inspired values when running for gov. Who can predict what his faith will inspire him to do next?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
D****t!
While this speech may or may not have benefits for him, the fact that he is going to talk about his faith legitimizes it as a political issue - and every attack against him based on it.
All Romney needed to do to win the nomination is win the early states, and all he needed to do to win Iowa was point out that Huckabee is as weak as McCain on immigration. Why did they decide to jump into the lion’s den?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I read somewhere that Mormons think the Constitution was divinely inspired. Could anybody on here confirm that?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Perhaps he is withdrawing from the race, citing his own logic re Muslims and the Cabinet.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Wonder if any investigators will break proof that someone at Team Romney ordered the anti-Mormon polling, the day before the speech.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
The day after the speech would be nice timing, as well.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
You know what Metro, why don’t you do something productive to the discussion, like go jump in a lake?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Yes, EGS, we believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
i’m just going to lay this out for the romney crowd:
it.s not the religion. it.s the blatantly opportunistic flip flops, stupid!
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Metro, I really can’t think of any incentive Romney would have to push-poll himself. I just can’t see him doing that.
Believe me, I’d love for it to be true, just so his candidacy can die, but…
Well, I guess we’ll find out eventually. But I’m not going to attack him over that. This is purely a conspiracy right now.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I think the biggest problem with Mitt giving the Mormon speech is that if he tries to say “we’re more similar than different” or something to that effect, somebody, somewhere will find one of the stranger (to non-Mormons) doctrines that the church holds, and accuse him of being less than forthcoming about the “weird” tenets of his faith. It’s unfair, but I can see it happening in the environment of the current election. The more I think about it, the worse I think this idea is.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Irish which version of the Constitution?
Are the Bill of Rights and the other amendments divinely inspired also?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Yes, EGS, we believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired
And that’s why not a word mentioning God, religion, Jesus, or Heaven is in there and it created the first nation ever to not subscribe to specific religious beliefs!
Great job, Mormons!
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
JA Pruce,
“I believe that this speech has the potential, if done properly, to be one of the most significant historical and influential orations since the sermon by George Whitefield or the preachings of Jedediah M. Grant. Romney needs to lay out a vision of an ecumenical future where Americans of all faith traditions and beliefs can worship together and reconcile their faiths.”
This is one of the paths I’d council Governor Romney against. Republicans aren’t Democrats. And religious Republicans are generally more serious about their faith then Democrats. They don’t go in for, broadly speaking, “ecumenical messages”. If Romney starts talking about all faiths living in harmony, and how we ought to recognize that all faiths have hints of truth, he’s dead. Dead, dead, dead. And I hope to God he has an adviser smart enough to say so.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
52
“Metro, I really can’t think of any incentive Romney would have to push-poll himself. I just can’t see him doing that.”
To find out if he needs to give a speech?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
It’s strange how people’s prejudices and biases sometimes factor heavily in their decision making. I spoke to a self-identified Values Voter who told me he would not vote for Mitt because he did not want a President who would be sworn in on the Book of Mormon. I had to inform him that Mitt had reassured his supporters that he would, if elected, publicly take his oath on a King James version Bible and would only use the Book of Mormon in a private family swearing in ceremony later.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
#34 - 40% of iowa caucus gowers are evangelicals. about 60% of utah population is LDS and less than that in Salt Lake. All im saying is that Mitt is doing exrtemely well in a state that is 40% evangelicals when his nearest competitor is a evagelical preacher. Yeah he’s spent more money but he’s getting results.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
“it.s not the religion. it.s the blatantly opportunistic flip flops, stupid!”
Like when McCain went from pushing for complete legalization of illegals to enforcement-first policies within a month?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Metro, I think the “anti-Mormon polling” is itself a hoax. To my understanding, the calls asked whether the respondents were aware that
- Romney is a Mormon,
- Mormon prophesy holds that Christ will return simultaneously in Jerusalem and Jerusalem-West (Missouri),
- The LDS church did not admit blacks into church hierarchy prior to 1978,
- Romney did missionary work in France in his youth and received draft deferments at the time,
- Romney’s sons also did not volunteer to serve in the military.
I guess you could claim the latter two imply that Mormons may be opposed to military service due to their religious beliefs, but that’s really stretching it. Other than that, the points made are irrefutable facts even if they are state as criticism.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
“To find out if he needs to give a speech?”
Then he would have not mentioned McCain, or bad-talked mormons, he would have simply asked things like “do you believe mormonism makes a person less qualified for the Presidency?” or “How much do you believe you know about the mormon religion?”
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
As a devout Mormon and fervent supporter of Mitt, I’ve been opposed to “the Speech” from the beginning….and for 2 distinct reasons. First: Giving it is to implicitly apologize for being a member of a superior religion….one that rises above the apostasy of the creeds and preserves the original gospel of Jesus Christ and the organizational structure that he incorporated into the primitive church.
Second: There is a reason why the leftists in the MSM have so fanatically tried to make the church an issue. If something approaching a majority of the party were enthusiastic about Mormonism, instead of being opposed to it or suspicious of it, it would make sense to call attention to it. As it is, it makes no sense. It’s a marginal issue that Huckabee has been playing for all it’s worth, but not one that is a significant impediment to Mitt getting the nomination. This is obvious in light of the fact that a majority of recent polls have had him leading in South Carolina. If Mitt can win in South Carolina and still be a Mormon, there isn’t any compelling reason to give “the speech”.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
You’re right, MarkG. ”
Metro, I think the “anti-Mormon polling� is itself a hoax. To my understanding, the calls asked whether the respondents were aware that
- Romney is a Mormon,
- Mormon prophesy holds that Christ will return simultaneously in Jerusalem and Jerusalem-West (Missouri),
- The LDS church did not admit blacks into church hierarchy prior to 1978,
- Romney did missionary work in France in his youth and received draft deferments at the time,
- Romney’s sons also did not volunteer to serve in the military.”
All of those questions are great for Romney!
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
First: Giving it is to implicitly apologize for being a member of a superior religion….one that rises above the apostasy of the creeds and preserves the original gospel of Jesus Christ and the organizational structure that he incorporated into the primitive church. - Dave
Oh, God. Please never tell me again that you support Romney for reasons other than his Mormonism, you fanatic.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Dave:
“Giving it is to implicitly apologize for being a member of a superior religion”
So you’ll admit that “Gentiles” who call themselves Christians are part of a different religion than Mormons?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
“Will Romney explain how if, according to him, Muslims did not make up a large enough percentage of the population to merit a seat in the Cabinet, Mormons, who make up only a slightly larger fraction of the population, merit the Presidency?”
metro, romney should explain him noncomment on this as soon as Rudy tells us how his costs of security detail, while having his affair with someone who worked for him, ended up in the departments of lofts.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
EGS, I’d refer you to http://www.lds.org to answer your question. Anything I would say in answer would be my opinion.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Something steve said above did make me realize –
In Iowa, we now have a competition between a Baptist preacher and a flip-flopping opportunist, gathering between them around 60% of the vote. The candidates I like — Thompson and Giuliani — lag with a combined fifth of the vote.
Oh, what has happened to you, Republican Party?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
TLG, do you honestly believe that there is a single person - uncluding athiests like yourself - who do not believe that their beleifs are superior? Of course not, because, if they thought there was a different faith with superior beliefs, they would convert.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
EGS (#66),
Of course they are of a different religion, as are Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc, etc
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
TLG, do you honestly believe that there is a single person - uncluding athiests like yourself - who do not believe that their beleifs are superior? Of course not, because, if they thought there was a different faith with superior beliefs, they would convert.
I suppose that this is true, actually.
Romney should say that in his speech. Hah!
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
act blog,
while your crowd was demagoguing immigration reform, some of the more sane among us knew enforcement first was already part of the bill.
and to post 44, i agree with you for the most part. I very much doubt this would change what his opponents are saying in the least, but the topic becomes fair whenever mitt is out campaigning. it will become a side show and it is definitely NOT what he wants. but, desperate times call for desperate measures.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
EGS (#66), Of course they are of a different religion, as are Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc, etc
Um. These are all denominations of Christianity.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
TLG post 55-”And that’s why not a word mentioning God, religion, Jesus, or Heaven is in there and it created the first nation ever to not subscribe to specific religious beliefs!
Great job, Mormons!”
actually the inspiring part of the constitution is that it allows this kind of discourse. It allows me to practice my faith, while protecting TLG and Metro’s right to be ignorant and bigotted toward it too. The fact that it has lasted so long, and allows religious freedom, says something to the thought that it is inspired.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
EGS,
I can definitively confirm that we believe the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
. “It’s a marginal issue that Huckabee has been playing for all it’s worth,”
Huh? Do you got any links or quotes, I don’t recall Huckabee ever attacking Romney’s religon.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
“for being a member of a superior religion” — Give me a break.
To the person earlier that said Islam is closer to their christian faith then mormonism- you are not a true christian if you believe that.At least momrons believe in jesus even though its a diferent one.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
actually the inspiring part of the constitution is that it allows this kind of discourse. It allows me to practice my faith, while protecting TLG and Metro’s right to be ignorant and bigotted toward it too. The fact that it has lasted so long, and allows religious freedom, says something to the thought that it is inspired.
I’m not really ignorant about Mormon beliefs. I have not misstated a single piece of Mormon doctrine since I came to this site, including when I attacked it earlier this fall.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Dave was the 3/5ths rule divinely inspired?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
sampo, please in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.
Save your “mitts a flip flopper” crap, when you consider McCains positions on SC confederate flag, ethanol, participating in the Ames straw poll, the importance of IA, comprehensive immigration, the bush tax cuts, and on and on. He has back pedaled from comments or positions he has made about each of these.
Rudy has his faults too.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
TLG 64: I said the points made in the poll weren’t friendly to Romney by any stretch, but they weren’t totally baseless claims. Complaints of “anti-Mormon bigotry” go too far. None of this comes close to suggestions of JMac’s abandoned black child and such.
And none of it would have meant anything at all if Mitt hadn’t tried to pander so shamelessly to the faith-inspired social conservatives whose votes he figured he’d need to have.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
To the person earlier that said Islam is closer to their christian faith then mormonism- you are not a true christian if you believe that.At least momrons believe in jesus even though its a diferent one.
Yeah, this is pretty dumb. Mormonism is considerably closer to Christianity than Islam is. For one thing, there’s like, you know, the belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
#74 TLG,
Very arguable, TLG, very arguable.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
A candidate’s religion shouldn’t matter-it’s his stance on the issues that should be important.
Unfortunately, Romney has just happened to have a number of convenient “conversions” on issues near and dear to the hearts of Republican primary voters.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Dave just puted himself as a religious bigot.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Post 81- should read, people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. You get the point though.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
[Romney] would only use the Book of Mormon in a private family swearing in ceremony later.
The heck?! Mitt never told me that… I thought i was following this thing pretty closely.
what about this one: Isn’t there some kind of prophesy about a Mormon becoming president?
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I think God as Muslims envision him is probably closer to the eternal God that trinitarian Christians worship.
Mormons don’t believe God is eternal or created the Universe, right?
That would mean most Christians worship a different God than Mormons.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
“I’m not really ignorant about Mormon beliefs. I have not misstated a single piece of Mormon doctrine since I came to this site, including when I attacked it earlier this fall”
I havent suggested you misstated my faith, but that doesnt make you any less bigotted. I am familiar with other faiths too, but i dont find that other faith disqualify someone for president. You have earlier suggested that mormons only support Romney to promote mormonism. That is blatently false, but it shows your lack of intellegence on something you claim to be knowledgeable in.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:57 pm
If Rep. Ellison can use Thomas Jefferson’s Quran, why can’t Mitt use his Book of Mormon?
-BUT WAIT!
Mitt’s not gonna win so the whole thing’s a non-issue!
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
No, sampo, there is no prophecy about a Mormon becomming president
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
If I were Gov. Romney I would speak in very general, inclusive terms in his speech that focused on similarities and agreements. I would speak in terms of being brothers and sisters in faith who look up to a great all-inclusive spirit force. I would talk about America as a family of truth seekers and about a national archetypal consciousness. I would draw parallels between the Bible, the Quran, and the Book of Mormon. I would talk about a Bridge to total Freedom where Christians and jews and buddhists and hindus and muslims and atheists could come together in a global quest for liberty in our physical universe.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Mitt’s Mormonism shouldn’t matter.
It’s his flip-flopping that should.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Some straight talk: Muslims don’t aspire to be God. Mormons do.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Dave,
Your first point hinges on the sort of speech Mitt gives. There are any number of approaches Romney could take. A good number of them are very poor ideas, some of which would involve a self-conscious or apologetic tone (though I suspect these would be poor ideas for reasons quite distinct from possible wounded vanity). Your second point has some merit but, I think, not enough. Elections are won at the margins. Sometimes at the extreme margins. Any candidate must concede that their are certain “unwinnable” voters, but they’re unwinnable largely due to ideological differences, or circumstances beyond a candidate’s control.
A candidate must think long and hard though before surrendering something as “beyond his control”. When you’re polling even with Hillary Clinton in states Bush won by 25 points, you have to consider the possibility that even if the situation is genuinely “beyond your control”, conceding that is simply suicide. The same can be said when, after millions of dollars spend and months of diligent campaigning, you see the evangelical block go en masse for a candidate who’s done little to earn their support; as if, they were supporting him simply because he was there, and because he wasn’t you.
In short where you concede that the “anti-Mormon” block, however small relatively speaking, is large enough to throw up an unpassable road-block to victory in the sort of game where everything is decided at the margins. So you do something, or you die a slow death. Mitt takes action. That’s why, despite his struggles, he still has many admirers. He’s cautious, but not foolish. Sometimes you need to take a chance. Sometimes you need to make a decisive decision.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Mitt needs Toby Zeigler to write this speech for him.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
sampo, Romney wouldnt be sworn in on the Book of Mormon. Econ, yes we believe that God created the heavens and earth and everything in them. Yes, there are some differences between Christianity and Mormonism, just as there are differences between methadists, baptists, and pentacostals. But I worship the God of the Old Testament, and the Jesus of the New Testament. Is that a different God that Christians?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
If Mormons aspire to be God, then God must be a real friendly person.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
“Dave was the 3/5ths rule divinely inspired?” - egs
You do know that the 3/5 position was the anti-slavery position..?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
The 3/5th position was a compromise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery delegates.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
EGS,
Mormonism is a Christian sect, but one with clear-cut doctrinal differences….were it not so, the hundreds of thousands of Gentiles who are converting to it every year wouldn’t.
TLG,
Actually, I’ve agreed with every aspect of Mitt’s program since the beginning. The only tangible difference being that I believe in the Fair Tax, and Romney has even expressed sympathy for that concept. According to that online questionnaire I took, my views are 97% in harmony with Mitt, and I honestly can’t account for the missing 3%. Mitt could be a Seventh Day Adventist and I would be just as fanatical for him. BTW, are you sincerely implying that you are not a fanatic for Rudy? If so, you had me fooled.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I havent suggested you misstated my faith, but that doesnt make you any less bigotted. I am familiar with other faiths too, but i dont find that other faith disqualify someone for president. You have earlier suggested that mormons only support Romney to promote mormonism. That is blatently false, but it shows your lack of intellegence on something you claim to be knowledgeable in.
I don’t find that faith disqualifies someone from being President, either.
Yes, I do believe that most Mormons support Romney because he is Mormon. At the very least, it made them want to like him more or take a closer look at him than they would have otherwise.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that every single Mormon on this website — and there are at least ten — support Mitt Romney.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
If I remember correctly, back in 2004 the United Methodist voting guide aligned mostly with Kerry (the Catholic) and the Catholic voting guide aligned mostly with Bush (the United Methodist). Most areas of disagreement between Kerry and the Catholic church being gay marraige and abortion; and most areas of disagreement between Bush and the United Methodist church being health care, the war, and the death penalty.
I don’t think a lot of people really vote according to what their church tells them to. I’m United Methodist and supported Bush (but that’s not why i supported him - I didn’t even know he was UM until after the election), regardless of what the denomination had to say.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
The 3/5th position was a compromise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery delegates.
Right. It was thanks to the anti-slavery people that it wasn’t worse.
The people who wanted slaves’ votes to be counted in full were the Southern slaveholders that wanted more political sway.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
TLG, the 3/5th rule held that for purposes of representation a slave counted as 3/5ths of a man. Whether pro or anti-slavery in an 18th century context it’s not something most Americans would see as moral.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Actually, I’ve agreed with every aspect of Mitt’s program since the beginning. The only tangible difference being that I believe in the Fair Tax, and Romney has even expressed sympathy for that concept. According to that online questionnaire I took, my views are 97% in harmony with Mitt, and I honestly can’t account for the missing 3%. Mitt could be a Seventh Day Adventist and I would be just as fanatical for him. BTW, are you sincerely implying that you are not a fanatic for Rudy? If so, you had me fooled.
I’m not at all a “fanatic” for Rudy. I’ve criticized him as recently as just this Wednesday for hitting Mitt over the “sanctuary mansion” crap. I disagree with him heavily on gun control, wish he would act more liberal on gay rights (I think that deep-down, Giuliani supports equal rights, but would never act upon it. He knows gay people — hell, he lived with them — and people that know homosexuals in person and don’t just go by media stereotypes are accepting of them), and dislike the fact that he flirted with extending his term limits after 9/11. I hate the fact that he has committed to make us energy independent and has invoked heavy rhetoric about it — it’s a lie and a pander, and he should be above that. I could go on and on.
But the pros far outweigh the cons…Unlike the Rombots, I don’t think that my candidate is some sort of deity.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
In many ways slavery was a lot like abortion…denying personhood to persons and such…
Too bad we can’t have a few more Wilberforce’s…
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
TLG, the 3/5th rule held that for purposes of representation a slave counted as 3/5ths of a man. Whether pro or anti-slavery in an 18th century context it’s not something most Americans would see as moral.
It had nothing to do with whether they were “3/5 human” — it pertained to voting rights alone. Of course it’s not moral, but the alternative was to have “their” votes, which were really the votes of their masters, count in full, which would have given the slaveholders more political heft.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
a few notes as a mormon:
1) never liked the idea of the speech, never will. i dont think it will change minds. the people who care will always care. i dont’ imagine there are many people who are like ” i would vote for mitt, but hes a mormon, but if he would give a speech about it, i’d change my mind…”
2) i thought the romney campaign had done a good job of not panicking. they are now panicking because huckabee is doing so well in iowa.
3)#103 - very few mormons on this site or otherwise would support a candidate just because he is a mormon. if you don’t believe me, just ask any mormon if they would support harry reid as presidential nominee. he has more experience than many of the current dem candidates, but i doubt he would get 10% support from the mormon community. yes, we were more likely to give mitt a first or second look because he is the same religion as us, the same as we all rooted for steve young to win those superbowls. it is a common thing that people from all different groups do. i dont see similar criticism for hispanics for richardson, evangelicals for huck, women for clinton, blacks for obama, vets for mccain, or other groups that like to see one of their own do well.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“TLG, the 3/5th rule held that for purposes of representation a slave counted as 3/5ths of a man. Whether pro or anti-slavery in an 18th century context it’s not something most Americans would see as moral.”
No its not, but then again, it was the Southern states who wanted to have them represented as a full person - since they had the slaves. In a sense, the view on how slaves should be counted was the polar opposite of the view on slavery itself. In any case, it was not really about whether slavery was right or wrong, it was about getting more power under the new government.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
In many ways slavery was a lot like abortion…denying personhood to persons and such…
This is so offensive on so many levels. Comparing fetuses to adult men is a horrifyingly warped philosophical belief and underscores why I so detest modern religious belief.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
JA Pruce,
“If I were Gov. Romney I would speak in very general, inclusive terms in his speech that focused on similarities and agreements. I would speak in terms of being brothers and sisters in faith who look up to a great all-inclusive spirit force. I would talk about America as a family of truth seekers and about a national archetypal consciousness. I would draw parallels between the Bible, the Quran, and the Book of Mormon. I would talk about a Bridge to total Freedom where Christians and jews and buddhists and hindus and muslims and atheists could come together in a global quest for liberty in our physical universe.”
Again, I think this is the absolute wrong approach. I consider myself a pretty mainline conservative Protestant, and a reasonably devout one. But, I would react very negatively to a religious speech that attempted that sort of inclusiveness. The point of religions isn’t that they’re similar. The interesting thing about Christianity wasn’t that it preached care for the poor, loving one’s neighbor, etc. It was neither the first nor the last to preach those things.
The interesting thing about Christianity was that it preached Christianity; that it made very specific and unique claims about Jesus of Nazareth, and then made very specific and unique claims about how this impacted us. I think a broadly ecumenical message fails badly, and would only convince those who belong to soft-left Christian denominations; precisely the opposite of the audience he’s trying to move. A Mormon isn’t a Baptist or a Methodist. There are real and, theologically, unbridgeable chasms here. This is at least the position of the conservative evangelical community, and Romney won’t convince them otherwise. He certainly wouldn’t stand a chance of convincing me, and I’m very positive towards Romney’s candidacy generally.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
i dont see similar criticism for hispanics for richardson, evangelicals for huck, women for clinton, blacks for obama, vets for mccain, or other groups that like to see one of their own do well.
I offer similar criticism. But at least women don’t pretend that they’re only for Clinton because of her policies. They’ll get excited about getting a woman in the White House. Hell, Richardson himself even let it slip that he was giving Alberto Gonzales the benefit of the doubt because he was Hispanic. I offer more criticism of Evangelicals than anyone on this site.
(Veterans do not disproportionately support McCain, by the way, if I’m not mistaken.)
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
There were people in the 18th century who were shocked at the idea of comparing whites and blacks as equal.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
tlg,
when does it stop being a fetus and start becoming a baby?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Some straight talk: Muslims don’t aspire to be God. Mormons do.
And when the general public finds out that Mormons do believe that one day they can rise through the ranks of Heaven and become gods themselves, Mitt “I believe in my religion fully” Romney will lose every state except Utah.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
tlg, when does it stop being a fetus and start becoming a baby?
When it can live outside of the womb.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
If nobody can agree when an unborn child “becomes” a person, isn’t it best to err on the side of life?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
“This is so offensive on so many levels. Comparing fetuses to adult men is a horrifyingly warped philosophical belief and underscores why I so detest modern religious belief.”
because they believe we should extend rights of life to the unborn? Because they think all life is valuable - starting at conception? Because they believe life begins when the individual human being is first created? If that sickens you, you sicken me.
I’ll say again, tell me when life begins. If at birth, then you should have no problem aborting an eight-month three-week old fetus, if at conception, tell me why unborn life should not be protected, if neither, give me the exact day, and explain why a fetus is not a life one day before that point.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Veterans do not disproportionately support McCain, by the way, if I’m not mistaken.
you are mistaken. have you checked a poll in Virginia lately? And as far as money raised goes, no one that supports the Iraq war has raised more.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
The vast majority of U.S. Mormons (less than 1/2 of the world’s Mormons) are conservative. It’s no surprise that these same Mormons will support Mitt as they get acquainted with him.
He’s much more than Mormon. He’s the most competent guy to run for the office. Rudy’s a liberal who nobody (not even his previous wives) should trust. McCain’s too old and grumpy. Huck can’t handle running a little state such as Arkansas. Fred’s fans already abandoned ship and jumped onto Huck’s “flavor-of-the-month” bandwagon.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
TLG: “When it can live outside of the womb.”
So you oppose Roe vs. Wade which allows those human beings to be killed even after they can live outside the womb?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Matt,
There is an intrinsic difference between a document being divinely inspired and being divinely revealed. The former allows for the element of human fallibility and, in this case, political reality. If the Constitution had been a revelation, it would be better. Similarly, revelations are given to those who have the authority to receive them, and only after a process of prayer and study.
BTW, I hope you are right in your arguments for “the Speech”, but I think it’s a bad move. Fortunately, I think it will have a negligible effect on the race. The fact that Romney is a Mormon is the only thing that everybody knows about him, so I think it’s already factored into the electoral calculus.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
So you oppose Roe vs. Wade which allows those human beings to be killed even after they can live outside the womb? - egs
I have stated roughly 78,348 times on this site that I oppose Roe v. Wade.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
118, any idea how many babies are terminated AFTER they can live outside the womb? If the country hasn’t hit a million yet, we’re certainly close.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
you are mistaken. have you checked a poll in Virginia lately? And as far as money raised goes, no one that supports the Iraq war has raised more.
Actually, it’s West Virginia that has the highest proportion of veterans in the country.
But Veterans for McCain is not equivalent to Mormons for Romney.
Hell, even women and blacks split roughly evenly between Clinton and Obama in Iowa.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
118, any idea how many babies are terminated AFTER they can live outside the womb? If the country hasn’t hit a million yet, we’re certainly close.
HELLO? I OPPOSE THAT.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I think I may be one of the few non - Mormons who actually considers Mitts devout Mormonism a postiive. I figure it influences to place a positive value on life and hardwork, and influences him to be more sympathetic to minorities that tend to be discriminated against partiucarly Religous minorities. I think he’s wrong on some doctrinal issues. But I really don’t know of any legislation coming up that deals with the nature of God, the book of Mormon, or whether the Garden of Eden is in MO. Familly issues, work ethic, and the importance of life are all issues that are relavent to what a president does. Therefore, I look at his Mormonism and see some points I don’t like, and some points I do, and its the points that I like that I find more relavent to the presidency. So I am not one of the people who will say that I think one’s religion is an irrelavent issue, it certainy shouldn’t be, because it should shape who you are. However, I don’t find one’s religion to be a nagative just becasue I disagree with some of the Theology. I think the important part of a religion to look at is how does the religion effect the issues that are actually relavent to being president. There are other factors to a religion that are important, but they aren’t relavent to being president.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
TLG: “I have stated roughly 78,348 times on this site that I oppose Roe v. Wade.”
Those times must have been during my coffee breaks.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
If nobody can agree when an unborn child “becomes� a person, isn’t it best to err on the side of life?
You got that practically verbatim from Mark Smith’s book.
No, it isn’t, because then we have hundreds of thousands — maybe millions — of unwanted children that will be impossible to find homes for. Unless you’re going to force all of the mothers to raise these kids for 18 years when they’re not ready for it and the kids won’t be afforded a proper life.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:23 pm
“When it can live outside of the womb.”
but you are compltely fine with abortions one day before that point?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
TLG & Others - why is aspiring to be a god a bad thing? i know its not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but the idea of just getting to heaven and sitting around, always seemed a little incomplete to me. if we’re God’s children, shouldnt we have children of our own after we die? just saying…
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
“No, it isn’t, because then we have hundreds of thousands — maybe millions — of unwanted children that will be impossible to find homes for. Unless you’re going to force all of the mothers to raise these kids for 18 years when they’re not ready for it and the kids won’t be afforded a proper life.”
and that a good reason to kill them off? Jeez, why don’t we just kill off all of the poor people in this country who don’t have homes?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Those times must have been during my coffee breaks.
Just two fast examples:
From a 10/11 Rasmussen poll thread: “# ThatLibertarianGuy Says:
October 11th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
sampo — 16 sounds like a wonderful, Constitutional idea that could be added to the rules of the Senate.
I support abortion, although I oppose Roe v. Wade. Why do people today think that whatever they happen to like is in the Constitution and whatever they dislike isn’t?”
From 11/05 “Fred Starting to Show His True Colors”:
“ThatLibertarianGuy Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 2:11 am
As for setting goals, we do that all the time. Heck, we just spent the greater part of a decade fighting against partial birth abortion for the limited goal of allowing the abolition of a few kinds of abortion.
And in doing so, you opposed your own so-called principles. You claim to oppose Roe v. Wade because it’s rightfully a states’ issue. Those of us on the other side — those who actually respect the Constitution — believe that Roe v. Wade was wrong on 10th Amendment grounds but also opposed a Partial-Birth Abortion ban at the federal level because it was ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You whiners betrayed your own principles.”
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
“As for setting goals, we do that all the time. Heck, we just spent the greater part of a decade fighting against partial birth abortion for the limited goal of allowing the abolition of a few kinds of abortion.” was from someone else that I was quoting in that post.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
128, good. then it shouldn’t be to hard to empathize with those of us who consider humans to come along slightly earlier.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“but you are compltely fine with abortions one day before that point?”
Um…yes. I said that I am fine, legally, with abortion until it can live outside of the womb — not “one day before it can live outside of the womb.”
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
“TLG & Others - why is aspiring to be a god a bad thing? i know its not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but the idea of just getting to heaven and sitting around, always seemed a little incomplete to me. if we’re God’s children, shouldnt we have children of our own after we die? just saying…”
Sorry if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Mormon belief that those who follow Gods word might be endowed with some sper-human powers themselves? Wouldn’t that just be like an Angel? Don’t Christians believe God sent an Angel to tell Mary she was going to have Jesus? Don’t Christians believe God sent an angel to destroy the first borns of Egypt? Don’t Christians belive that God sent an Angel to the tomb of Jesus on the third day? Don’t all of those things require, to one extent or another, super-human abilities?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
128, good. then it shouldn’t be to hard to empathize with those of us who consider humans to come along slightly earlier.
I think that there are valid arguments on both sides (unlike the idiotic religious fanatics on this board, Matthew E. Miller actually made directed some convincing arguments my way). Because of this, I think that the government ought to stay out of it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
“TLG & Others - why is aspiring to be a god a bad thing? i know its not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but the idea of just getting to heaven and sitting around, always seemed a little incomplete to me. if we’re God’s children, shouldnt we have children of our own after we die? just saying…”
LMFAO. Isn’t that like, why Lucifer fell?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
and that a good reason to kill them off? Jeez, why don’t we just kill off all of the poor people in this country who don’t have homes?
Because they’re autonomous human beings and they objectively have a right to their own life.
It’s not anyone’s job to help them, though.
Fetuses can’t be shown, objectively, to have the right to their mother’s lives.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Ahem. Their mothers’ lives.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
133, my point was that Evangelicals have more in common with Muslims than they do with Mormons.
I’m not going to debate whether or not wanting to be God when you die is a good or bad thing. My point is this: that doesn’t sit well with lots of Americans. Now it is fair game to confront Mitt on it because he’s planning on doing the Mormon speech.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
honestly, i don’t know the details of mormon theology well enough to argue them. i have just always noticed that people say “mormons believe they can become like God” as a slur, and it never seemed like a negative thing to me.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Joe C,
I totally agree with your 1st and 3rd points. The interesting one is whether Team Mitt is panicking about Huckabee’s surge in Iowa. The whole question of “the Speech” has to be derived from the Iowa situation. I can’t think of any other reason for the timing of it. Whether this rises to the level of “panicking” or not depends on the content of the speech. It could well be that they think they have finally found the right version conjoining with the right time for it to be beneficial to the campaign. I do like the idea of taking attention away from Huckabee before he surges any more than he already has.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
#144 - agreed. i think the speech is a terrible idea.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
“Um…yes. I said that I am fine, legally, with abortion until it can live outside of the womb — not “one day before it can live outside of the womb.â€?”
Ok then, so, a fetus at day (x) is a valuable human life that should be protected, but a fetus at day (x-1) is simply a clump of jelly and cells that has no value, and can be aborted without any big deal?
and people wonder why the pro-abortion crowd makes me sick.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Ok then, so, a fetus at day (x) is a valuable human life that should be protected, but a fetus at day (x-1) is simply a clump of jelly and cells that has no value, and can be aborted without any big deal? and people wonder why the pro-abortion crowd makes me sick.
You’re making an argument from emotion.
Perhaps this reasonable, rational example will make things clearer to you: Let’s say that we have a social program for people making $18,000 and below. Should people making $18,100 yearly be denied this social program?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
#141 TLG,
LMFAO. Isn’t that like, why Lucifer fell?
I suppose that depends on what religious beliefs you hold, wouldn’t it?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
“one day before it can live outside of the womb.�
Talk about playing God. Only the Diety could make that determination. There’s not a doctor on the planet that knows the exact date an individual baby is able to live outside the womb.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I suppose that depends on what religious beliefs you hold, wouldn’t it?
Well, don’t you Mormons believe in the Bible?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I’m just tired of hearing Romney attack every candidate. It is getting old.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Talk about playing God. Only the Diety could make that determination. There’s not a doctor on the planet that knows the exact date an individual baby is able to live outside the womb.
sampo, we do know that first-trimester fetuses cannot live outside of the womb. Don’t be stupid. :\
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
To add to what I said, I think Mitt’s speech should focus on how his Mormonism influences his politics. He should explain that it influences him to value family, to value life, and to value hard work… And than he should briefly mention that there are serious theological differences between Mormons and Christians, but while these differences are important to religion there is nothing in those differences that would make a difference in how he governs. Thus he doesn’t seem to be defending Mormon theology or downplaying those who have serious concerns with Mormonism. And at the same time he explains why Mormonism like Christianity motivates him to have good values. Thus, its explained that his religion is the same as any Christian religion in the way it effects his beliefs, even though there are serious theological differences.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
152, mitt believes every word. but mormons don’t. go figure.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
My biggest problem with politicians using the “faith” argument to win voters’ hearts is that what a person believes is inside his or her head — it’s impossible to know if the person might be lying. “Faith” to me is essentially a free-of-charge claim of a qualification. Those seeking power can always pretent about their religious beliefs and, I assume, often will because they have such a large incentive to do so.
That’s why I generally prefer candidates who don’t wear their religious beliefs on the sleeves. I’d prefer to know more about their principles, ideas, and past performance. They can spare me their thoughts on spiritual matters, I wouldn’t hold that against them!
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
“Perhaps this reasonable, rational example will make things clearer to you: Let’s say that we have a social program for people making $18,000 and below. Should people making $18,100 yearly be denied this social program?”
You believe we can talk about human life and money on the same level?
You are clearly just another materialistic, godless individual who sees no worth in an individual human.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Mitt “believes” whatever he has to in order to get the votes from each group.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
You believe we can talk about human life and money on the same level?
You are clearly just another materialistic, godless individual who sees no worth in an individual human.
Are you completely incapable of speaking in analogies!?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
#116
“when does it stop being a fetus and start becoming a baby?”
Empirically, whatever makes a person an individual human being happens somewhere between 2 and 23 weeks after fertilization.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
John,
There are a lot of nonMormons who consider Mitt’s being a Mormon a plus. The problem is that if you combine that number with the number of Mormons in the Republican Party, you still don’t have nearly enough voters for Mitt to win the nomination. That’s why the issue needs to be de-emphasized instead of emphasized. BTW, your analysis is spot on and does you credit.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
154, agreed. but you said you drew the line after a baby can live outside the womb. that day is different for every baby and there’s no way of knowing exactly what day a baby is able to life.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
so even you TLG have to admit a certain degree of ‘erring on the side of caution’ with abortion.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
154, agreed. but you said you drew the line after a baby can live outside the womb. that day is different for every baby and there’s no way of knowing exactly what day a baby is able to lif