The Candidates
Featured Archives
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 speech†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.—
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.â€
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 life.
I’m speaking hypothetically. We know that a fetus is incapable of living outside of the womb in the first trimester, so I would argue that, at the very minimum, abortion should be legal then.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
the analogies aren’t comparable to a person like me (who believes that life has a special value).
Basically, I can’t compare the two.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
#159 –
then how do you explain his answer about the confederate flag. he was clearly stating his own opinion, off the cuff, on an issue he knew would cost him votes in an important early state.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
he will probably flip on that too
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
the analogies aren’t comparable to a person like me (who believes that life has a special value). Basically, I can’t compare the two.
Grr. It has nothing to do with human life — I’m illustrating the principle, dammit.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
oh ya, and Muslims don’t believe people are punished for the sins of their previous lives. But Buddhists, Hindus, and *YES* Mormons do.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Joe C — This is gonna sound kooky, but I honestly think that Mitt said that as a politically calculating move, so he looks sane to moderates for the general election, but doesn’t lose too many primary voters.
Maybe he really believes that. Who knows?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Mormons believe they had “previous lives”? I had no idea.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Sampo,
Your march to sanity has traveled many miles, but you still have the occasional relapse. I’m a Mormon Gospel Doctrine teacher, and I’ve been teaching the New Testament all year long. For you to suggest that we don’t believe the Bible is tantamount to a confession of ignorance bordering on nescience, and pretty much disqualifies you from further commenting about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
#152 ThatLibertarianGuy Says:
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?
Yes, TLG, we do believe in the Bible.
#156 sampo Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
152, mitt believes every word. but mormons don’t. go figure.
WRONG, sampo
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Then why did you say 150, Irish Right?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
The mark of Shem. Mormons teach us that Africans refused to side with Jesus over Satan before they become human beings. This why the LDS church was labeled a racist organization in the 70’s.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I think that one can make a better arguement for a fetus being being human at the start of consciousness or at the time when the brain is developed to the point of being conscious than what there is an arguement for viability being the majic point in time. Personally, I believe right around the time of conception is when a new human life begins. However, I would see the point when one has consciousness as being human to be a reasonable position. I guess I don’t really see the logic behind making viability the point of life’s beginning. How does being able to live outside the womb make one anymore human than being able to live without any outside support. Sure a baby can live outside the womb, but there still not viable without help from the outside world. And what about the fact that science can keep pushing viability back further and further. Just because due to science a Baby is able to live outside of the womb at five months instead of six month does that mean science made the 5 month old anymore of a human being. Viability hardly makes sense as a measure of when life starts.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Sampo,
Your march to sanity has traveled many miles, but you still have the occasional relapse. I’m a Mormon Gospel Doctrine teacher, and I’ve been teaching the New Testament all year long. For you to suggest that we don’t believe the Bible is tantamount to a confession of ignorance bordering on nescience, and pretty much disqualifies you from further commenting about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint.
Then why do you simultaneously believe that Lucifer was punished for wanting to be like God and that you should aspire to be like God one day?
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
# sampo Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
oh ya, and Muslims don’t believe people are punished for the sins of their previous lives. But Buddhists, Hindus, and *YES* Mormons do.
sampo, your education is spouting out your a$$. Mormons do NOT beleive such. #173 Dave is correct. Your ignorance has disqualified you from commenting on the LDS Church.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I think that one can make a better arguement for a fetus being being human at the start of consciousness or at the time when the brain is developed to the point of being conscious than what there is an arguement for viability being the majic point in time. Personally, I believe right around the time of conception is when a new human life begins
Okay. Unless you can objectively justify your position, then you have no right to get the government involved.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Big S #161: Since I understand you’re in the genetics field:
Do you have any guess as to how the growing field of research in epigenetics in human development will play out in the old pro-life/pro-choice paradigm of political argument? I’ve been thinking lately that findings there will render much of the choice/life squabbles obsolete.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
You know TLG, why when a fetus can survive outside the womb? What changes? After all, a fetus cannot survive on its own the day it is born, heck, even a three-year-old cannot do that. You tell us the what, but what about the “Why”?
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
174, Here’s the official statement from the LDS church:
LDS.org, an official Web site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, notes: “Latter-day Saints revere the Bible. They study it and believe it to be the word of God. However, they do not believe the Bible, as it is currently available, is without error.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/us/politics/01romney.html?_r=2&ref=washington&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
What say you Irish Right?!?
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
OK, at the risk of turning this into Theology 101, Mormons do not believe that Lucifer was punished for wanting to be like God. He was punished for attempting to take away the free agency (choice) of humans.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
UA Razorbacks,
You must realize by now that the only position that Mitt has changed has been abortion. Even in the 1994 run against Kennedy, his campaign literature confirms that he ran pretty far to the right. If you can name another flip, name it….but nobodyl else has. BTW, Mormons do not believe in reincarnation….we believe in the pre-existence, which is mentioned in the Bible in several placres.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I say that the Bible is the word of God, as far as it has been translated correctly.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
dave: did you see his latest flip-flop on immigration?
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 pm
185, ROFL. you made my day.
Mormons… we believe in the pre-existence
Muslims don’t. Protestants don’t. Catholics don’t.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
what about gun control?
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I believe life begins at conception for a couple reasons. Firstly, as a religious person, I believe that the soul, rather than some bodily function (half of which can be replaced by machines now anyway) is the true mark of personhood. I believe that every individual human has their own soul as long as they are such (an individual human). That leads me to ask “when is someone an individual human.” Since the defining element of being an individual is unique genetic makeup, and since DNA is set from conception, that is the point at which I believe life begins.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
188–the ROFL was on Romney not flip-flopping… not on the Mormon comments.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:10 pm
You know TLG, why when a fetus can survive outside the womb? What changes? After all, a fetus cannot survive on its own the day it is born, heck, even a three-year-old cannot do that. You tell us the what, but what about the “Why�
As soon as the mother has the baby and agrees to keep it, she accepts all of the responsibilities that come with that. The three-year-old has a right to be sustained by the mother.
Of course, the same argument could be made about the mother having sex in the first place, knowing that there was a possibility that the fetus could come about. But then, are fetuses equivalent to humans? Are fetuses owed life? Should one need to be able to exercise some rights in order to obtain them? There’s too much grey area, which is why the government should stay out of the issue until autonomy.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
ACT, TLG has his beliefs based on the writings of Ayn Rand. Rand makes up her philosophy out of thin air with no support. We can not expect at the root of it that TLG can affirm any moral principles beyond “leave me alone”. No room for human dignity or self sacrifice. Humans are simply smart animals who’s purpose is to consume products and services.
A philosophy that devoid of meaning only appeals to those who can not reach above the materialist life of consumption. It only applies to those who can not know actual selfless love.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
There should just be a daily abortion thread. Better yet, a hamster wheel because it doesn’t seem like you guys ever make any progress.
Re the thread topic: I don’t feel exactly inspired that Romney feels a need to give this speech. Clinton, Obama and Richardson are proceeding with the knowledge that their sex or ethnicity will cause them to lose votes but they are not going to give a speech on it. Instead, it seems to me, they are going to try to prove their worthiness like any other candidate. Why is religion different? If someone has a particular question about mormon doctrine, the answer can be found on the internet.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:13 pm
There should just be a daily abortion thread.
heh, true.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
“Okay. Unless you can objectively justify your position, then you have no right to get the government involved.” That’s interesting, but there are instances where reasonable people can disagree. I know you have trouble with that concept, but its part of why we figure democracy makes sense. A lot of us figure that there can be some good reasons to both sides of an issue, thats why we debate. You seem to be of opinion that all of your political beliefs can be objectively proven just like 2 + 2 = 4. I do have good reason for my belief that life starts around conception. What makes people unique individuals is that they have a different set of DNA, you get a different set of DNA at conception. The human organism at conception is unique from every other part of the woman’s body, its arguablly not the same person. So there is a reason why human life can be considered to start at conception and I didn’t even touch religion. I also see good arguements in the point that life should start when one has consciousness becasue it does seem to be the ability to be conscious that makes one alive. When one is brain dead, even if the body is alive they consider them dead because the person no longer has the ability to be conscious. Therefore, I see both positions as somewhat reasonable. If you aren’t capable of seeing two positions as having some logic to them than thats your problem.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
is anyone capable here of doing a lexisnexis search? i’m very curious if mitt will say anything in his “mormon speach” that he hasn’t already said….
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
“As soon as the mother has the baby and agrees to keep it, she accepts all of the responsibilities that come with that. The three-year-old has a right to be sustained by the mother.”
but why do you believe that life begins at the point it can survive outside of the womb? I’m detecting some contradiction in your remarks.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
ACT, TLG has his beliefs based on the writings of Ayn Rand. Rand makes up her philosophy out of thin air with no support. We can not expect at the root of it that TLG can affirm any moral principles beyond “leave me aloneâ€. No room for human dignity or self sacrifice. Humans are simply smart animals who’s purpose is to consume products and services.
Would you like an Objectivism 101 lesson, here? (I do not consider myself a pure Objectivist, by the way: I disagree with Ayn Rand about aesthetics, sex, libertarianism, purism, smoking, and a host of other issues. If I had to label myself, I’d say “neo-Objectivist” or “neo-libertarian.”) Objectivists believe that man is the greatest animal there is, because he has the ability to reason, and that his aim should be to create a glorious civilization, producing, having no interactions other than those that are mutually voluntary. Our purpose is to find happiness.
A “selfless love,” as she said, is a contradiction in terms — Love is gloriously, beautifully selfish. Love is not a charity foundation, but an act of trying to find a person that affirms one’s own values that one can live and share and grow with. Someone worth your energies, because they are so valuable and special. A “selfless” love is a valueless love. Sacrificial love is inherently wrong — love should not be about sacrifice, but about values, convictions, personal growth, and friendship: things that are mutually voluntary and mutually satisfying to both individuals.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
My gosh! i know i need to consider the source, but look what wikipedia says on late term abortions:
Nine states have laws that require a second physician to be present during late-term abortion procedures in order to treat a fetus if born alive.[17] The Court has held that a doctor’s right to practice is not infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions performed after viability in order to assist in saving the life of the fetus.[23]
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
There should just be a daily abortion thread. heh, true.
I hate arguing the issue. It’s probably my least favorite issue to discuss. As far as social issues go, I like — for obvious reasons — debating the merits of gay rights and the social acceptance of homosexuality. Abortion is so played out.
I think I’m most eloquent when speaking of the War on Terrorism — the issue that makes me a Republican rather than a Libertarian (and therefore the most important to me) — and I do believe that I’ve made more substantiative posts than anyone on the subject (when debating a Ron Paul supporter or Tano, for instance).
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
but why do you believe that life begins at the point it can survive outside of the womb? I’m detecting some contradiction in your remarks.
Life begins at conception. This is a question of when rights begin, and, for legal purposes, I would say at autonomy.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
“As soon as the mother has the baby and agrees to keep it, she accepts all of the responsibilities that come with that. The three-year-old has a right to be sustained by the mother.” Now you’re saying that the mother has agreed to the responsiblity as soon as she has the baby, what about when the baby becomes viable does she have no responsiblity than?
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
This could well sink Romney if done incorrectly.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Sampo,
Romney has said very little so his speech is bound to cover new ground. I do not recall him saying anything that is exclusively mormon doctrine (aside from the fact that there is a book of mormon).
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
204, lets hope not. I dont want his campaign’s tombstone to read: “I was persecuted for my faith.” I prefer: “I’m the most intellectually dishonest politician every and blatantly opportunistic flip-flop”
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
there’s the george stephanopolis interviews and that one skirmish he got in with that one radio host guy.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
sampo – you could add panderer to the list LOL
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
“As soon as the mother has the baby and agrees to keep it, she accepts all of the responsibilities that come with that. The three-year-old has a right to be sustained by the mother.†Now you’re saying that the mother has agreed to the responsiblity as soon as she has the baby, what about when the baby becomes viable does she have no responsiblity than?
Um…yes, once the baby can live outside the womb (which is when it becomes a baby), it is entitled to certain things by its caretaker.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
“Life begins at conception. This is a question of when rights begin, and, for legal purposes, I would say at autonomy.”
As soon as the mother has a human being inside of her, she is responsible for it. She chose to have sex and she is responsible for having a human being inside of her. If its not a human being untill later into the pregnancy, than she’s responsible for having allowed a human being develop inside when she could have done something about it earlier. The only case when you can say ” Yeah its a human, but the mother doesn’t have an obligation to take care of it” is arguably when the mother has been raped. Because than the mother didn’t accept the child and is not as responsible for it. However, in other cases the woman is responsible as soon as the Child is a human being. Therefore, I disagree that somehow you can say life begins at one point, but the mother can kill the child untill this point.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
abortion is the Berlin wall of American politics.
–
TLG – so life begins at conception, but rights begin at the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb. Basically, what you are saying is that you have no problem denying rights to living human beings.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
“Um…yes, once the baby can live outside the womb (which is when it becomes a baby), it is entitled to certain things by its caretaker.” What changes that makes the baby more entitled, just because its viable. If medical technology increases to the point where a fetus is viable at one week would you then say that the fetus has gained the right “certain things by its caretaker”. What about viabilitly makes a child more entitled to rights than non – viability.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
“Therefore, I disagree that somehow you can say life begins at one point, but the mother can kill the child untill this point.”
actually, he’s saying that life begins at one point, but the mother can kill the child up until another point (determined and redetermined only by the knowledge of our doctors and the quality of our medicine and machines) – and that second point is after the first point.
basically, he isn’t saying “life begins at one point, but the mother can kill the child untill this point.”, but is instead saying “life begins at one point, but the mother can kill the child even after this point.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
dave??? you wanted someone to “name another flip, name it….but nobody else has”
I’ve named two.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Just as in 1963, John F. Kennedy said, “Ich bin ein Berliner” and George H. W. Bush in his 1988 RNC acceptance speech said, “I am that man,” Romney needs to address the elephant in the room and say emphatically, “I am a Christian.” This would frame the issue in a positive light for Evangelicals and Values Voters and only the most bigoted anti-Mormon extremist could challenge his assertion.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Here is documentation with evidence of Romney flip-flops:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
213, yeah guess thats pretty much what I meant just didn’t articulate it too well.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I will confess that my comment is colored by a recent viewing of the movie September Dawn.
I think this is a mistake for Romney.
In this day and age, the speech will be followed by millions hitting Goggle to discover more about this mysterious Mormonism.
The search will not be moderated.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
#181 MarkG,
I have no idea how it will play out, but as I said in a thread here a couple of weeks ago, I have a feeling that it will be the likely cause of more controversy in the short term. As you probably know, the field deals with the means by which cells control their genes via DNA modification or interactions with other biological molecules like proteins, and how such non-genetic changes can be passed on from one generation (of cells) to the next. This is very important in cell differentiation, and is at the core of what scientists are trying to unravel by doing stem cell research. Now, most of biomedical science involves “learning by doing” and this is a big problem for some people when it comes to doing research concerning the early development of humans in embryonic stem cell studies. A lot of the research that’s been done has used cells derived from extra embryos from fertility clinics. However, scientists have shown that embryos (not human ones yet, but it’s possible) can be created by somatic cell nuclear transfer (”cloning”), in which placing the nucleus of a fully differentiated cell on the interior of en egg can basically hit the “reset” button on the epigenetic changes that had occurred. Just a few weeks ago, new studies were reported in which gene transfers into a differentiated cell can take it back almost (but not quite) all the way to the beginning of the differentiation process, forming what are called pluripotent stem cells. All of this points to the idea that there are a relatively small number of changes that must occur for a fertilized egg to differentiate into a human being, and that knowledge of those changes, and the ability to manipulate them, is within our grasp. It’s not difficult to envision a cocktail of synthetic chemicals that would function to reset a fully differentiated cell back to the totipotent (fully undifferentiated) stage, at which point it may begin to divide and produce an embryo. If so, what then? Right now, a lot of pro-lifers justify their stances by stating that “life begins at conception”, but we may be close to being able to control the processes that occur at conception and during the first stages of differentiation, in the process showing that there’s nothing inherently special about the union of a sperm and egg (it may just be a convenient gene delivery system.) I think the definitions of the beginnings of “personhood” are going to get a lot fuzzier before they are clarified, if that ever happens.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
214, better yet what’s a major and broad issue mitt has NOT flip flopped on?
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
sampo – VERY true
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
whoa!? anyone watching this? andy rooney is talking about the Christmas advertisers NOT using the phrase “Merry Christmas”? This should cause some chatter on the righty blogs tomorrow. newsbusters? hotair?
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
JA Pruce, that doesn’t seem like a real good idea. Whether not his Religion is Christian isn’t neccesarily relavent to the Presidency. To make such a statement in the way you suggest would seem to sugest that one needs to be a Christian in order to be president. I don’t think I would have a problem voting for a Jew as president, or even a Muslim depending of course on what there beliefs on Jihad are! Now, on Mormonism being part of Christianity I’m starting to think maybe its fair to say that it is, but there’s still a lot of good folks who don’t believe that it is. To say that anybody who doens’t think Mormons are Christians are ” the most bigoted anti-Mormon extremists” is painting a whole lot of people as anti Mormon extremists. The point of whether its Christian or not is probably an important point, but its not relavent to politics, and I guess I would only see it hurting his campaign to get involved in that debate.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
there are lots of companies “banning” Christmas. They are instead using the term Winter and Holidays.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
“I am a Christian.”
I have to say that I believe that to be the WORST thing he could do. He can say “I believe in God” and “I believe in Heaven” and “I believe in the Bible”, but if he is seen as trying to push Mormonism into being accepted as a Christian Sect, it could blow up in his face.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
wow check out the mittquote soren was able to dig up:
“I have some folks who think I should do it soon, some say later, some say never, some say right away,” Romney said. “I’ll make the decision. But there’s no particular urgency because I’m making progress in the states where I’m campaigning.”
if mitt’s campaign does die it’ll be a spectacular –even nuclear– implosion.
not unlike this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ous_faumf74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyDbiIx5ZYw
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
“there are lots of companies “banning†Christmas. They are instead using the term Winter and Holidays.”
And they are being even less inclusive than they were before.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
There are probably subtle ways that he could make the point that he’s Christians without seeming to get involved in the debate. Such as saying ” like other Christians may beliefs persade me to…”. However, he should not come out seeming like he is trying to advocate a position the Christian not Christian debate.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
UA Razorbacks,
What I was waiting for was a flip. Romney has never flipped on either immigration or gun control. His position has evolved on the former as events have occurred, but as governor his stance against illegal immigration was consistent. Also, he was never a champion of gun control. You have to know when and where to pick your fights, and he was the Governor of Massachusetts. He simply had bigger fish to fry than to push the 2nd Amendment really hard there. He was elected to bail the state out of the biggest fiscal crisis iln the history of the state; to improve the horrendous business climate; and reduce taxes. He succeeded on all fronts.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Abortion people,
I can say with certainty that a zygote, in the moments after conception, is not *a person*. Up to about 14 days, the zygote may divide in such a way as to produce two genetically identical individuals, who, if born, will turn out to be identical (monozygotic) twins. Any scientific, philosophical, or theological definitions of “personhood” are premised on the idea that the person is an autonomous individual with its own personality, soul, or decision making capabilities (whatever you want to call it). This particular biological process has resulted in a lot of non-religious circular reasoning among religious pro-lifers in order to try to justify the continued stance that “life begins at conception.”
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Lowe’s decided to have “Family Trees” instead of Christmas trees. AFA threatened a boycott – Lowe’s changed advertising back to Christmas trees.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Dave –
did you see his recent comments on the immigration of Cubans? He said “the more the merrier”
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:10 pm
really guys, i think this speech will be 99% hype and 99.9% recycled rhetoric he has already used in his campaign.
Interpret-as-you-go talking points Mitt will use:
“Jesus is my Savior.”
“I believe the Bible is God’s Word.”
“America should have a man of faith in the White House.”
“We have common values.”
What he won’t say:
“I strive to be God when I die”
“The Garden of Eden was in Missouri”
“I believe in a pre-existence”
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
NEGATIVE REASONING
it makes it a political issue.
Fair or not, Mitt Romney is not JFK. He will never have the authority or be as loved as JFK. This is the 21st century, and we are now a cynical nation. In 1960, we were still in the Eisenhower years and we had greasers and Leave It to Beaver. Today, we have Marilyn Manson and Real Sex Part 20. In 1960, we had Martin Luther King, and Medgar Evars. In 2007, we have Jessie Jackson and Reverend Al. In 1960, we had Billy Graham. In 2007, we have Ted Haggard and that lady with the really big hair who comes on The Bible Network. Wasn’t the guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart an LDS extremist? You see, it’s going to start all of the stuff that Mitt really doesn’t need. It will be a news item for the next month, and Romney could potentially lose votes because a negative LDS story is aired the night before the election, or he could win because a positive one is aired. CBS news could run a story comparing the LDS with Scientology and he’d be done. Or another network could air one with similarities between other church’s and he might win. It’s risky.
POSITIVE REASON
I do like the fact that he might be willing to lay it all on the line, that is inspiring. That he has to do it over faith is disheartening, but something that he must come to terms with.
ACT,
In #139 you’re really pushing it. I don’t subscribe to religious litmus tests, but don’t try and use the similarity of theology to make your point, it only pushes people like myself away, and that is why I don’t like this idea.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
“I can say with certainty that a zygote, in the moments after conception, is not *a person*. Up to about 14 days, the zygote may divide in such a way as to produce two genetically identical individuals, who, if born, will turn out to be identical (monozygotic) twins. Any scientific, philosophical, or theological definitions of “personhood†are premised on the idea that the person is an autonomous individual with its own personality, soul, or decision making capabilities (whatever you want to call it). This particular biological process has resulted in a lot of non-religious circular reasoning among religious pro-lifers in order to try to justify the continued stance that “life begins at conception.†Has it been proved that such a Zygote is not allready predispositioned to become a twin, and thus there are really two people in the one cell, we just don’t detect it?
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I agree with ACT Blog. Saying “I am Christian” would be like declaring war. The last thing Romney wants is for pastors etc to go en mass to their congregations and declare Romney some kind of heretic or blasphemer. I believe Romney is smart enough not to wade into those waters.
Romney will talk about mormonism being an “american” faith, founded by an american on american soil. He will talk mormon values, particularly family and community. And I suspect he will not speak about mormon doctrine, but he will probably use christian-sounding quotes from the book of mormon. He will let the listener conclude for him or herself that mormonism is akin to christianity. Finally, he will talk about mormon works – charity, volunteerism, etc.
The most important part of the speech will actually not be what he says but how he says it. Look, a lot of people think he is genuine but a lot also find him plastic. He needs to be as real as he can be. He must sound sincere.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
What he won’t say:
“I strive to be God when I dieâ€
“The Garden of Eden was in Missouriâ€
“I believe in a pre-existenceâ€
Sampo do you think any of that has anything to do with the presidency?
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
He shouldn’t spend alot of time defending the church. Instead he should defend its influence on him. He should make the point that it makes him a better person whether you with the particular theology or not
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
The University of Iowa poll when released last time had Romney leading by 23 points(36-13). They are going to release a new poll tomorrow morning.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Feltch,
I think that you hit the nail on the head with this, “Romney will talk about mormonism being an “american†faith, founded by an american on american soil.”
Romney needs to play up Mormonism as a quintessential and uniquely American experience – find the broader Patriotism in an otherwise contentious issue.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:23 pm
“Has it been proved that such a Zygote is not allready predispositioned to become a twin, and thus there are really two people in the one cell, we just don’t detect it?”
No. There’s no good evidence suggesting that it’s anything other than a random event.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Romney should not aim to “explain” mormonism to anybody, but should instead highlight that his values are the same as any other conserative, and that he will not take directives from the Mormon church, but will instead rely on his values of life, freedom, family, honestly, and hard work.
Basically, if Romney is smart, he will use the national attention and media coverage to say everything he has already said, then make rounds on the morning news, and follow it up by sending both himself and aids to do the Sunday shows.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
John,
No, but those terms will be hounded over on cable news networks until the primaries are over. The nut roots pastors and bible thumpers will be welcomed guests on cable news and make fools of everyone.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Just an aside:
When the comment thread to a post having no hint of being about abortion devolves into a useless and non-productive back and forth about abortion, it should probably be aborted.
A comment thread has no right to life.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
“No. There’s no good evidence suggesting that it’s anything other than a random event.” The question when dealing with life isn’t neccesarilly is there evidence that this is life, but is there conclusive evidence that this isn’t life. So just because there’s no proof that not a random event doesn’t mean it might not be a random event. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just throwing it out there.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
ACT,
Like I said, he is basically inviting all the “Vote for Romney is a vote for Satan” to appear on crap shows like O’Rielly for the next month and denounce the poor guy. This could be ugly. If you think he’ll give the speech, make the rounds, and everybody will be happy, then your being delusional. This is only gonna make the Bible thumping nuts go insanely mad.
I mean, he’s said, I’m a man of faith, just like you at least a million times over the last year, and it still hasn’t caught on (if you believe that it’s his religion that is his problem).
By doing what you said in 242, you are asking for it to become political. He has to somehow thread the needle, and by saying we’re all the same, he’d probably set off some backlash.
Serious question: How does he thread that needle? How far would be going to far? How far is not enough? I don’t have any answers to that, what do you all think?
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Re #64: How is it “great for Romney” to have a pollster asking questions about the Mormon church not admitting blacks to the priesthood before 1978? That could make him sound like he was indifferent to racism (since he was an adult and active in the church before then).
How is it “great for Romney” to ask about him receiving draft deferments from the Vietnam War? It probably won’t hurt him in this election (since none of the leading Democrats ever served in the military either) but it doesn’t help.
How is it “great for Romney” to mention that Romney’s sons also did not volunteer to serve in the military? While ultimately that is a statement about Mitt’s sons rather than Mitt himself, it doesn’t exactly impress people either.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Tommy,
I agree that the parallels to JFK don’t hold, and was thinking of this myself earlier, but from a little different angle.
JFK lived in a fairly relgious country with a Protestant, but Christian consensus. There was no culture war. Christianity was the cultural norm, and a secular government was no threat. Voters, protestant and secular alike, just wanted reassurance that the Oval Office wouldn’t be run by the Vatican.
2008 is different. There is a culture war, and people want to know what side their politicians are on. Because of that, I think a JFK speech where he affectively says, “my religion has nothing to do with my governing” will bomb big time with the Christian right he is wooing (contrast this with Huckabee’s current ad). If he says his religion is a big deal, than he invites uncomfortable comparisons with Mormonism and traditional Christianity, which will send the message to the religious right that he is NOT one of them.
The WORST thing he could possibly do is suggest that the differences don’t matter, because to the people he’s speaking to, that’s the same thing as telling them their faith doesn’t matter.
Frankly, I think he’s in a no win situation. He may surprise me, but I don’t see what angle he can take here and come out ahead. Of course the Rombots will all cheer whatever he says, but I see this as a net loss of the people he’s actually trying to reach.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
As a Huckabee supporter who puts Romney second to last on my list, and as someone who has grown up and lived my whole adult life in the religious right, I will try to answer Tommy’s question:
“How does he thread that needle? How far would be going to far? How far is not enough? I don’t have any answers to that, what do you all think?”
Romney answers:
“My faith is the unifying principle of my life, it shapes my family, my work, and my public service. Recently, my faith has come under scrunity. Some of it fair, some of it not. But let me be clear. I firmly believe in the God of the New and Old Testament, and in His Son, Jesus Christ. And this faith undergirds my public service. Yes, there are some real, and significant differences in theology between myself and those of other denominations, and I would never want to minimize those differences, because at the end of the day, our faith is the most precious thing we have. Yet my faith- different though it may be- compels me to the same conclusions in public service as my brothers and sisters in other churches; namely, our God given right to life, the paramount importance of the family consisting of one man and one woman, that we have a moral responsibility for the care of the Earth, etc……….”
If I actually liked Romney, that’s what I’d advise. But I wouldn’t believe anything he says.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
…..but if his answer on the Bible is any indication, Romney will blow this. He can’t stand there for a half hour stammering that he believes the Bible is the word of God.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 pm
#240, “I think that you hit the nail on the head with this, “Romney will talk about mormonism being an “american†faith, founded by an american on american soil.â€
Romney needs to play up Mormonism as a quintessential and uniquely American experience – find the broader Patriotism in an otherwise contentious issue.”
Are you kidding? My faith comes from Palestine, 2000 years ago (and really stretches back further than that), and I think most other Christians would make the same claim.
I’m not interested in an “American” religion, and no Christian I know would claim that for Christianity. Authentic Christianity is rooted in Palestine as the outgrowth of historical events. Christianity is not “quintessentially American.” I think except for the nutjobs who worship America, that tactic would backfire with the people he is trying to reach.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I think he needs to scratch the idea of this speech altogether
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 pm
MWS (#251): “My faith comes from Palestine, 2000 years ago”
Political campaigns are always about the future, not the past. Candidates should appeal to our patriotic instincts and uniquely American characteristics that binds us. The fact that Romney’s faith happens to be American is a net positive and will appeal to American patriots. Americans are becoming less connected to Old Europe and that includes outdated European religious traditions. Americans are always fasinated by what’s new and next and I think this helps explain to some extent why Mormonism is America’s fastest growing faith.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
It’s too late to do that now.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
JA Pruce,
I don’t think most people- especially the religious right Romney is appealing to- is seeking novelty in their religion.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 am
[...] Romney Rolls the Dice Mitt Romney has decided to make “the speech.” The speech in which he tries to allay fears about belonging to the Mormon church, which [...]
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:21 am
I’ve been against a “Mormon speech†because I didn’t think it was necessary, I though he had answered enough questions about his religion. The media hasn’t been honest about reporting on this issue though, saying he won’t talk about it, and judging by some of the disappointing comments on this site, maybe it is necessary.
I have to say the negative rhetoric about Romney’s religion has really stepped up lately here, and it’s disgusting and disappointing. I truly though the commenters here were above some of the comments that have been made, but it looks like I was wrong.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:39 am
huck is starting to create quite the expectations of his own. romney’s slide in iowa has ben accompanied by gains in nh and south carolina. it has not been fatal for him by any means. he must remain competiv ean dif he still pulls it off, it will be big boon for him after huc touting polls and his lead in ia for almost 2 months. if huck doesn’t win iowa, poof, there goes his campaign. romey would prove that he is not needed.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Having canvassed the reactions to Governor Romney’s speech on religion, we are issuing the following rating on his candidacy for President: http://www.godvoter.org/Mitt-Romney-rating.html.
The answers from the other candidates to our 30 questions will be posted online along with our ratings within the next 48-hours.
GodVoter(s).org